Oldies:
2/22- A theory on the makeup category.
Summer 06
I noticed something this year. Most years, the makeup nominees tend to each represent a different type of makeup. And the way I see it, there are three different types of makup: 1. Period/Cultural 2. Creature/Fantasy 3. Aging. And often one film from each of these types gets nominated every year. This explains why Click was nominated instead of Pirates because it fulfilled the aging makeup slot and because the creature/fantasy slot was already filled by Pan's Labyrinth. Lets look at recent years when all three spots were held:
-
Period/Cultural
Creature/Fantasy
Aging
2007
Apocalypto
Pan's Labyrinth
Click
2006
Cinderella Man
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
Star Wars: Episode III- Revenge of the Sith
2005
The Passion of the Christ
Lemony Snicket's A Series of Unfortunate Events
The Sea Inside
2002
Moulin Rouge!
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring
A Beautiful Mind
2000
Topsy Turvy
Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me
Bicentennial Man
1998
Mrs. Brown
Men in Black
Titanic
You might also notice that the creature/fantasy nominee won in the category four out of five of those earlier listed years, thus making it look like Pan's Labyrinth will win this year, but I think Apocalypto still has a good shot. It's also an interesting trend how the creature/fantasy films have the longest titles. What you can learn from this: when making your nomination predictions for makeup, try to make sure all three types are represented.
Brief Review: An Inconvenient Truth
This is the worst case of deception presented as fact on film since Fahrenheit 9/11. Not only does it make an attempt to prove something statistically irrelevant, but it makes every effort to scare the greenhouse gas out of you.
The reason why I know that this $2 admission lecture is pure dumb foolery is because if Gore really believed all that bull that he was talking about, he would have slit his wrists by now. He wouldn’t want to live in a world that will supposedly come to an end within a few decades. So what does he do? He blames you and me. So thanks to this blaming-the-victim lecture from a man closely resembling a Galapagos tortoise, we are scared out of our comfortable living conditions by the incoming apocalypse and have the desire to slit our own wrists. In other words: the feel suicidal movie of the year.
Stars: 0 (out of 4)
Oscar Nominations: Documentary, Song
Note: I know I’ll be getting a lot of emails in response to this review. All I ask is you remain respectful.
Review: Letters From Iwo Jima
Director Clint Eastwood has taken audiences to some interesting worlds over the last two decades. However, none compares to the double-sided coin that is Clint’s two Iwo Jima films. Following Flags of Our Fathers, Clint concludes the two-part saga with Letters From Iwo Jima.
Letters is based around two characters during this epic battle. The first is General Kuribayashi himself, played with pride as well as sympathy by Ken Watanabe. Kuribayashi is assigned to defend the defenseless island from the inevitable invasion of America. Kuribayashi’s history of living in the USA gave him knowledge of American character, useful for battling them, as well as gaining a sympathetic commanding style which makes him the most honorable leader above his beating, authoritarian officers. The other story is of Saigo (Kazunari Ninomiya, in a fine breakthrough performance), a young married baker drafted into the military, and completely unprepared for the horrors he will face.
Once again, Eastwood makes some great battle sequences on the black sands of the island, perfectly paralleling the events of Flags. Yet more interesting is the events that take place between the action. These consist primarily of tough conflicts between the soldiers and their officers. One particularly disturbing but significant scene involves a believed defeat which makes an officer order all of his men to kill themselves with their grenades. Saigo’s refusal to accept this and run is a relief. Repeatedly, Saigo appears to be the only soldier who treasures life more than honor, and for that he becomes the most liked character. Same goes for Kuribayashi whose care for the troops is revealed by allowing them to retreat rather than surrender.
Yet one of the strongest points of the film is the depiction of both humanitarians and savages on both sides of the war. Some Japanese soldiers torture the Amercians and some aid the wounded ones. Some American soldiers take the Japanese alive, and some execute those who surrender. Like no other war film, Letters does an excellent job in portraying the fact that there is no right or wrong side to a war, there are just right or wrong individuals. This is portrayed best when a Japanese soldier reads a letter that an American soldier had received from his mother and recognizes that we all have mothers back home, we all want to serve our country, and we are all human.
Yet, what I would have liked to see more of was actual connection with Flags of Our Fathers. I was waiting for a scene in which the Japanese saw the American flag being raised from across the island. Or I would have liked to see a cameo by Jamie Bell once again playing Iggy from Flags so that we could finally see what happened to him after he was captured. Yet Letters is definitely superior to Flags for focusing on sacrifice rather than aftershock, the present rather than the past. Letters also wasn’t drained by a pointless run-on ending, and has a better musical score.
However, Letters does seem to get somewhat repetitive with numerous scenes of switching bases, and enough suicides that you could see them coming. It does however provide an excellent conclusion and counterpart to Clint Eastwood’s Flags of Our Fathers and combined they provide the most distinguishable take on the battle of Iwo Jima ever captured on film.
Stars: 3.5 (out of 4)
Oscar Nominations: Picture, Director, Original Screenplay, Sound Editing
Review: Little Children
Set in the real world, in a real community, Little Children is a story, within a story, within a story, about the secrets and desires that people keep from one another as they go about their routine lives.
The parallel story involves Ronnie McGorvey, the child sex offender recently released from prison who moved into the peaceful, youth-filled neighborhood. Jackie Earle Haley makes a good comeback performance as Ronnie, but still not as impressive as some other potential supporting actor candidates would have been. Sarah and Brad are determined to protect their kids from the pervert, as is Brad’s friend Larry (Noah Emmerich), a discharged police officer constantly taunting Ronnie and his mother in an attempt to get him to move out. While Ronnie still has his perverted urges, he also has a sympathetic soul of compassion for his mother. This creates an interesting cast of characters, all of whom have had their problems, but mean to be decent and can’t seem to get a break.
What the story does best is interlock these characters with cause and effect chains that seem to be more common in films this year. Yet Little Children accomplishes this better than others for each character coming in face of what it is that they have done and are doing, and have a chance to reprimand their wrongs. This somewhat makes it a feel-good story, despite a large degree of disturbing subject material. This comes mostly from the creepiness of Jackie Earle Haley’s child flasher, though the creepiness comes more from the physical appearance than the performance. Other performances are strong, as well as the well-written dialogue and fascinatingly observant narration.
While material may be disturbing, and the runtime somewhat extensive, Little Children provides an interesting observation of suburban life, and the impact of the individuals within it.
Stars: 3 (out of 4)
Oscar Nominations: Actress Kate Winslet, Supporting Actor Jackie Earle Haley, Adapted Screenplay
Are the “Over-dues” Favored?
This is a question I’ve been asking myself for a while, so I decided to do a statistical study of it. I seek to find out the probability of an overdue actor or director winning the Oscar as opposed to a first-time nominee, or a previous winner. To limit the subject pool, I’m only applying the last fifteen years of Oscar history. And I am only considering the four acting categories and the director’s category because I think that those five categories are the ones where being over-due has the biggest advantage.
Now the 75 individuals who won in each of these five categories over the last fifteen years I placed into one of four categories. 1. First-time nominees (FT). 2. Previous winners (PW). 3. Semi-due (SD), these are individuals with only one or two prior nominations, thus making them only somewhat due. 4. Over-due (OD), these are individuals with three or more prior nominations, or two nominations if they also have old age and a long career. So for example, consider 2004. The winners consisted of 1 FT (Jamie Foxx), 2 PWs (Clint Eastwood, Hilary Swank), 1 SD (Cate Blanchett), and 1 OD (Morgan Freeman).
Then I tallied up the number of times each of these types of individuals won in the last fifteen years, and converted them into percents. They are below:
FT: 53.3%, or 2.66/5 of the winners
PW: 16% or .8/5 of the winners
SD: 18.6% or .933/5 of the winners
OD: 12% or .6/5 of the winners
Now let’s try to apply this data to this year. The way I see it, we have 12 FTs (Greengrass, Iñárritu, Whitaker, Gosling, Cruz, Murphy, Haley, Wahlberg, Hudson, Breslin, Kikuchi, Barraza), 4 PWs (Eastwood, Dench, Streep, Blanchett), 4 SDs (Frears, Dicaprio, Smith, Hounsou), and 5 ODs (Scorsese, O’Toole, Mirren, Winslet, Arkin). Combining our statistics, and narrowing it down to the top two or three frontrunners in each category, any of the following combinations would be about equally likely.
Scorsese, Whitaker, Dench (or Streep), Murphy, Hudson (or Breslin)
Eastwood, O’Toole, Dench (or Streep), Murphy, Hudson (or Breslin)
Eastwood, Whitaker, Mirren, Murphy, Hudson (or Breslin)
Iñárritu, O’Toole, Dench (or Streep), Murphy, Hudson (or Breslin)
Iñárritu, Whitaker, Dench (or Streep), Arkin, Hudson (or Breslin)
Yet I don’t think that any of these scenarios are too likely. There are a couple of contradictions this year will likely show to the statistics: 1. I don’t think any of the SDs (Frears, Dicaprio, Smith, Hounsou) will win, despite the statistical likelihood of one of them winning. 2. It looks like we will have more than one OD (Scorsese, O’Toole, Mirren, Arkin) winning this year, despite the statistical likelihood of only one winning.
Don’t use this as essential leverage, it’s just something to consider.
Brief Review: The Illusionist
In a well-adapted period piece of mystery and suspense, The Illusionist takes place in 19th century Europe where a young magician becomes the greatest deceiver of all time.
The performances are impressive, and technical aspects are strong, but I must still question the film’s cinematography nomination over films like Apocalypto and Babel. Yet the story is clever which weaves together all events with a twist ending that makes this film look like an attempt at M. Night Shyamalan’s earlier films. The running time seems somewhat short as well as I would have liked to see more inner conflict before the big twist. Yet the film remains a cleverly entertaining piece of magic.
Stars: 3 (out of 4)
Oscar Nominations: Cinematography
Review: Babel
According to Biblical writing, the Tower of Babel was built by a united Lord’s kingdom to reach the heavens. Then the Lord destroyed the tower and confused the united language to prevent repeated unity and cooperation. Since then, the Lord’s people faced conflict due to mistranslations of language. This is meant to be the theme of Babel, despite not staying very close to that theme at all.
The first segment involves two poor Moroccan boys whose father purchases a hunting rifle to protect their livestock. In competition with each other, the boys test-fire the rifle and manage to shoot an American tourist. From then on, the culprits are hunted, and the boys must protect their secrecy. The second segment involves the American tourist who got shot, played by Cate Blanchett. She and her husband Brad Pitt are vacationing in Morocco hoping to save their troubled marriage when she is shot and Pitt does everything in his power to save her. This involves trying to get help while stranded in a small Moroccan town where few if any speak English. The third segment involves Pitt’s and Blanchett’s kids living in San Diego being cared for by their illegal immigrant Mexican nanny played by Adriana Barraza in a fine breakthrough performance. Unable to leave the kids, Barraza takes them across the border to Mexico so she could be at her son’s wedding. This leads to an uncomfortable culture clash for the kids and a predicament when Barraza and her nephew played by Gael Garcia Bernal try to bring the kids back over the border, but are investigated until Bernal drives off in a high speed chase, and finally the film gets more interesting. The fourth, and least directly related segment involves a teenage def-mute Japanese girl whose father is the original owner of the previously-mentioned rifle. In the best performance of the film, Rinko Kikuchi plays the girl as an inhibited teen eager to make something of herself by making herself sexually promiscuous.
The film is a fine piece of artwork for many of its technical aspects. Hand-held camerawork creates more of the real world that this film takes place in. And the sound mixing becomes an important tool for Kikuchi’s story with alterations between full-out noise, and dead silence when in her perspective. Yet Kikuchi’s performance is one of the film’s most memorable traits. She expresses her emotions of disappointment and desire without ever saying a word, merely through sign-language and expression. I was expecting a little more from a talented actor like Brad Pitt, but was fine for what the role required. Then Adriana Barraza waits until the end of the film to really shine as her commitment to her caretaking children gets torn apart upon her deportation.
However, despite these admirable aspects, the film suffers from some inconclusiveness and irrelevance. I would have liked to see more relations to the theme of language, which seemed represented only by the fact that four different languages were used in the film. Yet the picture is a respectable interpretation of crises facing individuals of different cultures, and how they are to a small degree connected.
Stars: 2.5 (out of 4)
Oscar Nominations: Picture, Director, Supporting Actress Rinko Kikuchi, Supporting Actress Adriana Barraza, Original Screenplay, Editing, Score
My overall reaction to Salma Hayek's spewing of the newly-dubbed "Oscar Nominated Films" this morning is positive at best. Like every year, the academy has provided us with plenty of surprises, as well as snubs. However, this year in particular, the surprises are many and extreme. This makes it all the better, as we Oscar prognasticators often get irritated by constant predictability. It's always nice to see some surprise.
Of course, I don't have to spell out the big surprise for you. Just when you think that the best picture five are concrete, Letters From Iwo Jima jumps in the race. What we can learn from this: even if the guilds don't screen films in time, there is a good shot the Oscar voters will. But with that inclusion comes an unforseeable snub: Dreamgirls, the irony of the situation being that the glitzy musical still got more nominations than any other film with eight (three of those were all song nods though).
Dreamgirls also suffered the loss of a directors nomination for Bill Condon. Clint Eastwood steals the spot yet again. This makes me very afraid. For the love of God, Eastwood can not steal this award from Scorsese again!!! Where would the honor, dignity, and rightousness be in that? Yet I am delighted that my unlikely prediction of Paul Greengrass making the director's list for United 93 came through. I knew that LAFCA statistic was too strong to ignore. However, Little Miss Sunshine is now the lone picture nominee without a director nominee. Can it still win? Yes, but it just became harder.
Regarding best actor, I'm glad to see the academy didn't get so low brow to nominate Borat, but I don't mind giving him an alternative nomination in the screenplay category. This also answers our question about Dicaprio's vote-splitting. It came as a shock to many to see him nominated for Blood Diamond rather than Departed. I suppose his votes for Departed were splitting between the lead and supporting categories, therefore his Diamond performance received more.
The two actress categories went by as planned. Thanks to those, we now have a new record number of African-American actors nominated in one year (Forest Whitaker, Will Smith, Eddie Murphy, Djimon Hounsou, Jennifer Hudson). Five British, two Hispanics, and a Japanese help the academy's credibility. So I don't want to hear that the Dreamgirls snub is a sign of racism, especially when the most racially-related film ever Crash won best pic last year. Aside from the minority record, this seems like the first year in a long time to do a lot of things, including the film with the most nominations to not get nominated for best picture, and none of the best actor nominees to be in a best picture nominee. Check Oscarwatch.com for more of these interesting statistics.
That brings us to a statistic that will not be getting any bigger. Peter O'Toole got his eigth nomination, Meryl Streep got her fourteenth, and Jack Nicholson stays steady at twelve. It's strange to see the man who you can always count on to get nominated not get nominated. I still hope he shows at the ceremony. The Oscars are never the same without Jack's shaded eyes and creepy grin sitting front row center. But I'm glad his nomination went to somebody like Mark Wahlberg, an unlikely prediction I got right I might add. Without Jack this opens up this race. Is Eddie Murphy still the frontrunner, or is the semi-overdue Alan Arkin in the lead? I'm predicting that the SAG award will go to the category-misplaced Dicaprio for Departed, so we won't really know who took the lead. Interesting race. Even more interesting is how the SAG is becoming the new DGA. The SAG accurately predicted 19/20 of the acting nominations with Dicaprio's misplacement in supporting going to Wahlberg. This guild seems to be getting increasingly more accurate every year.
Other interesting surprises include Click for makeup over the more successful, better-reviewed, and better made-up Pirates. That nomination makes no sense to me, but kudos to Kris Tapley for predicting it. Then I only got one correct visual effects nominee. The fact that the X-Men franchise went three films without a single nomination is proof that the academy personally hates me. Further proof is not a single nomination for World Trade Center, which I still believe to be the best film of the year. The foreign-language snub for Volver is an interesting one, but now Pan's Labyrinth should have no trouble taking the win. And the lack of art direction for Children of Men is simply a crime.
Unlikely things that I got right
1. Greengrass over the Sunshine duo for director.
2. Wahlberg for supporting actor, and he deserves it.
3. Neither Volver nor Fiction for Original screenplay.
4. Pirates for art direction. I knew the academy could not refuse the brilliant design of the Flying Dutchman among other things.
5. 3/4 of the documentary short subjects. Beat that!
Below are the actual nomination tallies:
Dreamgirls-8
Babel-7
The Queen, Pan's Labyrinth-6
The Departed, Blood Diamond-5
Letters From Iwo Jima, Little Miss Sunshine, Notes on a Scandal, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest-4
Little Children, Children of Men, Apocalypto-3
United 93, The Devil Wears Prada, Cars, Flags of Our Fathers, An Inconvenient Truth, The Prestige-2
(everything else)-1
Brief Review: The Devil Wears Prada
In an uninspired modernized version of My Fair Lady, this piece of simple girl into overly-successful woman is clichéd, and certainly overrated.
I know I’m going to receive some harsh feedback on this review, but can you blame me? I’m a guy. I’m straight. And I have absolutely no interest in fashion. Do you really think it is physically possible for me to find any sort of enjoyment in this? Sure Streep had an okay performance but the memorable evilness of her character can be attributed more to her lines and wardrobe than her performance.
I have little understanding of the female mind, so I suppose it is possible for women to enjoy this. But as for the rest of us, be prepared to care less than ever.
Stars: 1 (out of 4)
Oscar Contention: Actress Meryl Streep, Supporting Actress Emily Blunt, Adapted Screenplay, Costumes
Review: The Pursuit of Happyness
It’s an intentional spelling error. “Happyness” or “happiness,” as long as you know what it really is, it doesn’t matter how you spell it. And for some, it takes more than just spelling to find out what happiness really is.
But of course in a somewhat predictable way, you know where the story goes from there. Despite all of the struggles, Chris lands the broker job, and even though nothing is really shown after that, it is fair to assume he and his son found happiness. It’s a very American movie, and it makes sure to mention that. In what other country could a man who was once living in homeless shelters become one of the wealthiest stock traders ever? It’s certainly a feel-good movie, practically in the spirit of classic Jimmy Stewart films like It’s a Wonderful Life. There’s a very good chance that you’ll leave the theater uplifted and more grateful for what it is you have and what you have achieved.
Of course, the story is relatively simple, and the filmmaking doesn’t attempt to excel in any technical fields. It think that works to the film’s advantage so that attention can be concentrated on Will Smith’s performance of this man, which is of course his best performance yet. In Ali, Will was great at getting down the champ’s fighting moves and loud-mouth talking, which is somewhat characteristic of the characters he plays in his frequent sci-fi action pictures. But this time, Will takes a reserved role for the first time, and actually plays a real person that seems like a real person. Though the role isn’t loud or flashy, there are subtle expressions Will gives that fit his state of feeling perfectly. Not the best performance of the year, but a fine one for Will himself.
Those engaged in the chaotic world of professional business will also appreciate this film for learning about what some unfortunate people would go through to enter this fortunate world. Or if you are down on your own luck and wish to feel better about yourself, The Pursuit of Happyness is a great way to appreciate what it is you have, and the great country that you live in.
Stars: 3.5 (out of 4)
Oscar Contention: Picture, Actor, Original Screenplay, Song
Review: Children of Men
In the spirit of V for Vendetta and Brave New World, director Alfonso Cuaron takes a chilling look at a possible future world of empire, violence, and above all, fear. In this case, it is the fear of being the last person alive.
Clive Owen plays Theo Faron, a depressed businessman trying to go about his life in the chaotic world. This is until he gets thrown into the rebellion by his ex-wife Julian (Julianne Moore). Apparently his connections are needed to allow the safe travel of a mysterious girl named Kee (Claire-Hope Ashitey) to what is vaguely referenced as the “Human Project.” Theo agrees to help and eventually finds out what is at stake: humanity. Kee is miraculously the first pregnant woman in eighteen years, and her survival, as well as the child’s, is essential to jump-starting the human race. After this, it becomes a series of travel, escape, running, and dodging bullets, which does get somewhat repetitive.
Yet the real achievement of this film goes to the pairing of Emmanuel Lubezki’s cinematography and Geoffrey Kirkland’s set design. Kirkland built full-scale sets visible from every angle, with both insides and outsides, of large destructed buildings in ruin with plenty of surrounding detail. This was perfect for Lubezki’s long takes that follow the protagonist running block after block through building after building and into room after room without cutting. This combined with Alfonso Cuaron’s direction of multiple actors entering and leaving the action on cue throughout the long take made for two very memorable shots. The first occurs almost entirely inside a car ride which starts as a conversation between the characters, and results in the car being chased by motorcyclists, a character getting shot, and objects thrown at the car, before the long take ends. The second shot, reminiscent of the famous opening shot in Touch of Evil, follows Theo as he runs through streets, into a building, up stairs, and through rooms all while the military and the rebels are in a constant battle around them. This is some well-staged and assembled filmmaking of the finest kind. It is also reminiscent of XBOX games like Halo that give a personal view of the player as he runs through all the action nonstop.
However, the attention to work on the individual scenes seems to have detracted on attention to the story as a whole. In retrospect, the story appears somewhat overly-simple and undeveloped. And a vague ending is somewhat inconclusive to answering whether the conflict of the story has been solved. It was also somewhat devastating to see every ally become either a traitor or a victim. Nonetheless, this film should be used as an excellent example of experimentation in filmmaking and what artistic qualities can be produced. Despite a short story, Children of Men contains some of the most stunning visuals in recent cinema.
Stars: 3 (out of 4)
Oscar Contention: Director, Adapted Screenplay, Cinematography, Art Direction, Sound
Review: Dreamgirls
Of course, this isn’t nearly the first film to have the tagline, “all you gotta’ do is dream.” However, it carries that philosophy out better than most. Writer/Director Bill Condon’s adaptation of the 80’s Broadway musical brings out the best in performance and style, despite some lack in clarity.
The resulting conflicts reflect issues that are common in the music world, most of which are a result of Curtis’ strict managing for the purpose of profit rather than sensation. This includes making the soft-spoken Deena the lead singer over the much louder Effie, stealing copy-written material from fellow artists, and of course having plenty of secret affairs. Through this, each character transcends. Curtis creates a tighter leash on the group controlling everything they think and say, particularly his new bride Deena, who becomes more ashamed of what she has become. Jimmy Thunder, unable to express his preferred music style, resorts to an affair with Lorrell, and a heroin addiction with tragic consequence. And Effie quits the group as a result of Curtis pushing her into the background for sounding too “black.” This throws her out of stardom and into single-motherhood, until she’s given one last chance, only to have Curtis strip it from her again. These conflicts produce some good performances, and decent songs.
In its technical aspects, the film is very strong. Winding camera long takes, dynamic fast editing, and pitch-perfect sound with surprisingly accurate lip-synching give the film a great cover. Director Bill Condon deserves credit too, especially for making the transition from somber dramas like Gods and Monsters and Kinsey to a flashy musical like this. However, I can’t help but feel that his method of Broadway to film transition is somewhat of a Chicago clone. I know that Condon wrote both musicals, but he could have come up with a different way to give the film its own voice separate from the musical, and separate from the way Chicago did it. But it was a good transition nonetheless, without the cookie-cutter copy of the musical like The Producers was.
Of course, performances are important in a piece like this and they didn’t all satisfy. Beyonce clearly wasn’t given a significant amount of lines other than singing. I don’t know if that is how it was in the musical, or whether Condon didn’t trust her acting, and frankly I don’t blame him. She was the most emotionless actor of the cast, ironically despite being the most Oscar-hungry of them. Jamie Foxx apparently doesn’t work as the villain. The lines and setup were there, but he was trying too hard to be a likable character rather than a more appropriately despised one. Therefore, all of the acting kudos goes to Eddie Murphy and Jennifer Hudson. In a great career turn and comeback, Murphy emerges with the most energy of anybody, likely using a lot of improvisation, and not doing the typical Eddie Murphy SNL character. He gives Thunder Early such liveliness and charisma in a James Brown style, while also playing a damaged soul who is desperate to preserve the music that he loves. As for Hudson, I have to admit, I never thought I could see such talent from a debut performance. Through most of the dialogue scenes, she gives a moderately respectable performance. However, her breakout comes during her performance of “And I’m Telling You I’m Not Going” where she gives a performance of such anger and torture, that I believe it to be the best performance I’ve seen somebody give while singing. And rarely do I see a theater audience applaud a performance in the middle of the film like that. Should these two win Oscars, I’ll have no complaints.
However, the picture seemed somewhat quick-paced, which is somewhat understandable for cramming a three-hour musical into a two-hour film. However, some could have been cut and some could have been added. For example, the film starts off jumping right into development without proper character introductions or backgrounds, thus giving the viewer the impression that they walked into the movie fifteen minutes late. But the remainder of the picture is musical entertainment in some of its finest. Musical fans, as well as music fans themselves should enjoy the show-stopping bliss of this recurringly-transcended film.
Stars: 3.5 (out of 4)
Oscar Contention: Picture, Director, Supporting Actor Eddie Murphy, Supporting Actress Jennifer Hudson, Adapted Screenplay, Cinematography, Art Direction, Editing, Costumes, Makeup, Sound, Song
Review: Notes on a Scandal
As the marquee says, “One woman’s mistake is another’s opportunity.” This is the nature of when a lonely woman learns a dark secret of another, and in keeping that secret gets the woman to do everything she wants. Certainly this is a perplexing conundrum, both disturbing and perfect for producing great acting performances.
The relationship between Barbara and Sheba starts off as a simple friendship, until Barbara catches Sheba having an affair with a fifteen-year old student. Barbara agrees to keep the affair a secret in exchange for Sheba’s continued friendship. Barbara’s obsession with Sheba takes strong enforcement, at times causing Sheba to choose between Barbara and her own family. This is blackmail in its foulest of forms. Through this, Barbara’s homosexual preference is also revealed, and a fatal attraction begins. Eventually, due to Sheba’s preference for her family, Barbara makes the affair public and firings, marital problems, and legal action ensue.
Clearly, the highlight of this film has to be the scenery-chewing performances of Dench and Blanchett. Bill Nighy puts in a few notable scenes as well, but it is the ladies who steal the show. Dench’s bitter but egocentric character, combined with her dominant manipulation and control of Blanchett’s character make it an impressive debut as a villain for Dench. Though I still find her burlesque bubbliness in Mrs. Henderson Presents to be better, Dench still finds her dark roots in this disturbing role. While Blanchett, in a large role but still rightfully a supporting one, gives Sheba such moral conflict when forced to choose between her secret and her family, that it tortures her to the point that she begins hating both sides. Blanchett, in her third great performance this year, gives it her all.
However, at only one hour and twenty-five minutes, this short story feels like more could have been done and given more time. Exactly what is expected to happen happens, without much surprise, nor side-stories for that matter. The simplicity and predictability of the story is its shortcoming, even though it does provide an interesting analysis of a recent social issue involving teacher-student relationships.
In spite of the film’s disturbing subject and overly-simplistic story, there is recognition to be found, both in the performances, and in the screenplay’s ability to examine one woman’s life through sadistic poetry.
Stars: 2.5 (out of 4)
Oscar Contention: Picture, Actress Judi Dench, Supporting Actress Cate Blanchett, Supporting Actor Bill Nighy, Adapted Screenplay, Score
Review: Little Miss Sunshine
From experiments like Lost in Translation and Sideways, a theory prevails. Nothing does comedy better than lack of money. The independent small-budget film circuit has come out with another comedy classic: Little Miss Sunshine, which brings laughter as well as sunshine to the viewer.
The six-member family starts with eight-year old Olive (Abigail Breslin) determined to become the next Miss USA by starting with the Little Miss Sunshine pageant. She practices her routine day and night, becomes concerned about her weight, and fears losing. When she gets invited to the pageant, the whole family has to get on their broken-down VW bus and drive to the pageant in California, which is where the series of unfortunate events begins. Greg Kinnear plays the father Richard as a failed self-help guru unwilling to admit defeat in any circumstance and forces that belief upon Olive and the rest of the family. Toni Collette plays the mother Sheryl as the divorced supporter who might be the only one trying to hold the fragmented family together. Paul Dano plays the son Dwayne as a tormented teen who hates everybody and has taken a vow of silence until he makes it into the Air Force Academy. Steve Carell plays Sheryl’s brother Frank as a gay literature professor who recently attempted suicide. Topping it off is Alan Arkin as the horny coke-snorting grandfather designing Olive’s dance routine.
The comedy is subtle yet appropriate. While staying in the realm of realism, comedy doesn’t get much better. Wisecracks are made that make the audience think about how true that really is. Sure, it’s not the funniest movie of the year, but it does the best job in presenting the funny without forcing it.
This dysfunctional family has their run of misfortunes which involve not just the VW needing a push-start, but also each individual realizing their failure at their dreams in some dramatic sequences. This is also what brings out the best performances in each actor. Greg Kinnear desperately trying to make his self-help program a hit, Paul Dano breaking his vow of silence in a fit of rage, and Abigail Breslin performing her pseudo-sexual dance routine that Grandpa designed are just some of the finer moments for the talented cast. Moments like this also make the audience feel their pain as well as look at their own lives and dreams in a constructive way. As each character comes to accept their defeats and their uncomfortable lives, the audience enjoys understanding that life isn’t always great, but you’re here living it, and as Steve Carell said, “[Shakespeare] gets down to the end of his life... and he looks back and decides that all those years he suffered- Those were the best years of his life, because they made him who he was.”
Little Miss Sunshine, while containing some inappropriate and at times tragic moments, makes a fine family piece that makes the viewer examine their own familial lives and possibly appreciate it more. Families don’t always work well together, but they come out of it appreciating what they went through.
Stars: 3.5 (out of 4)
Oscar Contention: Picture, Director, Actor Greg Kinnear, Actress Toni Collette, Supporting Actor Steve Carell, Supporting Actor Paul Dano, Supporting Actor Alan Arkin, Supporting Actress Abigail Breslin, Original Screenplay, Cinematography, Editing
Brief Review: Pan's Labyrinth
Guillermo del Toro's Pan's Labyrinth is a well-crafted piece of art. One that breaks the barrier of foreign-language films rarely doing effects-ridden fantasies. Yet the film suffers for not having a particular audience in mind.
The film definitely earns its R-rating with some gross-out bloody violence, torture, language, and a painful glimpse of a man sewing together his slit cheek in a remarkable visual effect. This is the problem with the film. The fantastical story suggests the film is for children, but the war violence suggests adults. This contradiction is what I believe will cause neither party to fully be able to enjoy the film. Nonetheless, Pan's Labyrinth has its share of beautiful imagery and Del Toro's poetic storytelling.
Stars: 2 (out of 4)
Oscar Contention: Original Screenplay, Art Direction, Costumes, Makeup, Visual Effects, Score, Foreign-Language Film
Review: Apocalypto
In his fourth directorial effort, Mel Gibson tells a legend of history often left out of textbooks. In what I believe to be the sixteenth century, the Mayan empire had peaked and was ready to fall. All it needed was one brave man to refuse the power of the empire.
The story is simple and somewhat underdone, however the strength in the filmmaking is clearly the sum of the little things. Gibson has again assembled a crack team to bring out the spectacle in this period. Whether its Dean Semler’s wide and perceptual cinematography, or James Horner’s appropriate tribal sounds blended with emotional strength in a well-composed musical score, the sights and sounds of the film cannot be overlooked. Also, less is clearly more with Mayes C. Rubeo’s costumes. Though most characters are mostly naked, others sport jewelry and equipment of utmost creativity. However, the real winner is Keith VanderLaan’s makeup department for decorating the hundreds of characters with facial ornaments, piercings, and plenty of wounds in what is the best single description of how this culture lived.
Nonetheless, this film is certainly not for the weak of stomach. Following the torture of William Wallace in Braveheart and the crucifixion of Christ in The Passion of the Christ, Mel Gibson continues directing bloody gore in Apocalypto with some cringing sacrifice scenes that would make Indiana Jones feel more comfortable in the Temple of Doom. But seriously, there is plenty of blood and various organs throughout the two-hour film.
Even for those willing to sit through the gore, they must also be willing to sit through subtitles of ancient Mayan. And sad to say this extra effort plays a small part in distracting the viewer from the visual beauty of the film. Furthermore, the multiple tragic deaths make for somewhat too depressing of a tale despite the ending. But there is still plenty of enjoyment to be found in liking Jaguar Paw and his cleverness in outsmarting his enemies all for the purpose of returning to his wife and son.
Now I feel that there is another point that needs to be addressed. I admit that I liked this film for its artistic quality, but I still want to make sure that I distance myself from sympathizing for Mel Gibson’s outburst of opinion. I do not agree with his statements, but I do compliment him for having made a pretty good film.
Apocalypto is a clichéd story with a new, and somewhat improved face. Yet for those interested and emotionally capable, Mel Gibson’s effort is worth the view.
Stars: 3.5 (out of 4)
Oscar Contention: Picture, Director, Original Screenplay, Cinematography, Art Direction, Editing, Costumes, Makeup, Visual Effects, Sound, Sound Editing, Score
Brief Review: Thank You For Smoking
Jason Reitman’s Thank You For Smoking stars Aaron Eckhart as a charming tobacco lobbyist who lives a self-confident life despite being hated by everybody. His job is to wipe out any credibility that cigarettes are harmful to health, which includes getting actors to smoke on screen, getting a poison symbol removed from cigarette packs, and getting the original Marlboro man (Sam Elliott in one of many humorous cameos) to stay quiet through bribe. Quite an interesting role.
Stars: 3 (out of 4)
Oscar Contention: Actor Aaron Eckhart, Adapted Screenplay
Review: The Queen
Following the tragic death of Princess Diana of Wales in 1997, a brief silence overtook the entire planet before the contagious mourning. Yet, as unexpected as it may seem, the silence lasted unnecessarily longest within the royal family itself.
At the end of the summer, after a divorce from Prince Charles and an endless tabloid story of her controversial personal life, Diana of Wales died in a car accident in Paris. The meat of the story takes place over the following six days. While the world is shocked by the beloved princess’s death, the press receives much of the blame for their tabloid antics, yet even greater blame is put on the queen herself for failing to address her subjects at this time. The Queen, having worn the crown for nearly fifty years, is a traditionalist. She felt that, since Diana is no longer part of the royal family, there is no need for the family to make a significant contribution to the mourning. This view is strengthened by her equally traditionalist husband Prince Philip (James Cromwell). However, her son Charles (Alex Jennings) sympathizes with Prime Minister Tony Blair as a modernist, and believes that exceptions can be made to tradition. Blair therefore undergoes a campaign to influence the queen into making a statement. Despite the public losing faith in their queen, she continues her silence. It is only after her very position as monarch becomes threatened that she agrees to return to Buckingham palace, make a public statement, and in turn regain the faith of her people.
Many would consider this to be an “issue film.” In the 21st century, the public has grown concerned whether a monarchy is still essential in Britain’s government. This plays out repeatedly throughout the film between Elizabeth’s and Philip’s traditionalist stubbornness and Blair’s well-meaning modernization. This conflict comes full circle with the decision to raise Buckingham flag at half staff, despite the flag traditionally being used to denote the presence of the queen only. An important relationship also establishes between the queen and Blair as he, despite his modernist view, sympathizes for the queen and makes every attempt to defend her during the public upheaval, as if a son defending his own mother.
While background of the story is based on real events, writer Peter Morgan filled in the necessary details of the queen’s seclusion during this week with intelligent and sentimental thoughts and events, including a demonstration of her compassion after seeing a beautiful stag shot and hung. And while Stephen Frears provides scenarios and tones accurate for the time, the strong credit for this film should be directed to the strong performances of both Helen Mirren and Michael Sheen. While nailing several of the queen’s actual mannerisms, Mirren also provides a layered performance of a sentimental caring woman beneath what needs to be a strong and dignified leader. Certainly this puts her as the frontrunner for the best actress competition this year. While Sheen, not only sharing a remarkable physical and vocal resemblance to Tony Blair, gives a performance of a nervous political newcomer who must step into place and become the kingdom’s true leader in time of crisis, thus putting him in contention for his first supporting actor nomination.
While some extended scenes may seem unnecessary and certain characters dislikable, The Queen provides an in depth examination of one of the greatest world leaders and of those around her during tragic times. Diana was called “The People’s Princess,” and that nickname should just as suitably fit the queen.
Stars: 3.5 (out of 4)
Oscar Contention: Picture, Director, Actress Helen Mirren, Supporting Actor Michael Sheen, Supporting Actor James Cromwell, Supporting Actress Sylvia Syms, Original Screenplay, Cinematography, Editing, Costumes, Makeup, Score
Review: Flags of Our Fathers
Toward the closing of the second world war, the Americans staged a decisive invasion of the Japanese island of Iwo Jima in a month-long battle that, though full of loss, proved victorious. This victory has been long immortalized, through photo and statue, of six soldiers raising the American flag at the battle. Yet the story behind the banner itself shows more colors than just red, white, and blue.
The controversy of the campaign is opened when a cover-up is revealed. Apparently, the iconic photograph was of a second flag that was posted on the Iwo Jima mountain after the first one was taken down to be given to a grubbing politician. Therefore, the individuals in the photograph were not the soldiers who walked into danger up the mountain, but merely those who followed. Furthermore, a mistake was made in that soldier Hank Hanson (Paul Walker) was said to be the individual in the right of the photo, but it was in fact not him, for he was one of the individuals who planted the first flag. This misinformation is covered-up in the campaign, which translates into a further example of individuals caring less about the real heroes, and more about earning the cash necessary to continue the war.
Yet the real artistry of the picture comes from the grounds of the battle itself. Comparable to the battle of D-Day in Saving Private Ryan, it is of epic proportion and detail. Eastwood masterfully depicts the horror of war, day by day, but through somewhat of a one-sided view. Only two or three times do we see the face of the enemy, and it is rarely a face that is still alive. Yet this one-sided approach will likely be balanced with the release of Eastwood’s Letters from Iwo Jima, which depicts the same battle from the Japanese point of view, coming out in February. This battle also comes with its share of blood, among with the strewing of other bodily organs, which helps earn the film its R-rating, thus take this as a warning.
I do have one proud aspect of this film. Eastwood, a director I have always admired for his hateless interpretations, continues that reputation by making a film that portrays the honors of war, and without making an anti-war statement. He portrays the soldiers, as well as the men in suits behind the war, with dignity and respect. The film is also strong in its redefining of the word ‘hero’ and how it could be used in such an inappropriate way. Yet what the film lacks is viewer attachment to the characters. Though deaths are many, we do not become greatly attached to any of the victims, not so much even for the innocent young Ralph "Iggy" Ignatowski (Jamie Bell) who is taken by the enemy and tortured before killed in some fashion that is never clearly revealed. We also fail to feel the despair of the three survivors as they walk the earth as heroes instead of their friends. Nonetheless, Clint Eastwood has made a rare piece of art that may be respected by those in uniform, and those who died in uniform.
Stars: 3 (out of 4)
Oscar Contention: Picture, Director, Actor Ryan Phillipe, Supporting Actor Adam Beach, Adapted Screenplay, Cinematography, Art Direction, Editing, Costumes, Sound, Sound Editing, Score
Review: The Last King of Scotland
From 1970 to ’79 Idi Amin served as president of the African nation Uganda. Of course, by serving does not go without taking, and in this case the taking is of 300,000 Ugandan lives, and the heart of a Scottish doctor.
Clearly the strongest aspect of this film lies in Forest Whitaker’s performance as the dictator who is funny and charming one minute, then tortures and mutilates his wife for disloyalty the next. This should certainly earn Whitaker his first best actor nomination, and possibly the win, while James McAvoy earns the award for breakout performance of the year. Coming straight from Mr. Tumnus in The Chronicles of Narnia into a young innocent Scotsman full of ambition to help, but ends up being a dictator’s pawn, McAvoy makes a name for himself that could earn him a supporting actor nomination. Of course this might result in category confusion since Nicholas is clearly the lead character with Amin as supporting. But I’m predicting that a switch will be made in the campaign to give the bigger badder character the lead role (it happened with Denzel Washington and Ethan Hawke in Training Day, and Tom Cruise and Jamie Foxx in Collateral).
It seems to have become an annual tradition to have a film come out in fall that is set in Africa and involves murder and cover-up (The Constant Gardener, Hotel Rwanda). Yet the problem Scotland faces, compared to these others, is its fiction/nonfiction mixture. Though the film is “inspired by real events,” the main character Nicholas Garrigan is completely fictional, and yet the film focuses more on his quest than on the tyranny of Amin, which therefore causes the audience to become more interested in the fictional character than the real one. The audience might even be confused whether Nicholas is real or not. And being from his point of view, a limited one at that, we never see what Amin is really about. The film never mentions his rumored cannibalism, and the 300,000 life genocide is completely overlooked save for a mere mention. Therefore, we never really see Amin holding the smoking gun, and only with implications as to who or what he might be. A more accurate depiction of the dictator could have been done actually showing him carrying out and ordering the crimes that he is guilty and renowned for.
We are nonetheless treated, or should I say impaired, by a horribly painful scene of Amin torturing Nicholas in ways that makes the crucifixion in The Passion of the Christ look like massage therapy. Aside from that, we are not given a clear lesson as to what Amin did that made him such a horrible figure in history. The film nonetheless provides strong performances from its two male leads, and provides a gripping conflict of entrapment. Like the Walrus and the Carpenter, Amin will lure you in with charm before he makes his strike.
Stars: 2.5 (out of 4)
Oscar Contention: Picture, Director, Actor Forest Whitaker, Supporting Actor James McAvoy, Adapted Screenplay, Cinematography, Editing
Review: The Departed
Following a couple of missteps about obsessive compulsive billionaires and Irish gangs, legendary director Martin Scorsese is back with a surefire hit about…Irish gangs. Though he resists the advice on toning down his violent genre, Marty successfully creates a paradoxically twisted crime drama of the most gripping story telling.
Therefore, what forms is a plot of rotational symmetry. Between the cops and the mob, each has a mole undercover in the other organization. Each side eventually comes to suspect they have a mole and go to lengths to uncover it. Therefore a circle is made with the cops hiding Costigan in the mob who is hiding Sullivan in the cops. And a very tense line is drawn across that circle when Costigan and Sullivan attempt to uncover who the other one is in some tense scenes that involve Costigan chasing Sullivan down a street, and Sullivan using Martin Sheen’s phone to call Costigan and have neither one say a word knowing that they are on line with each other but can’t speak in what is one of the most tense silences on the screen.
Scorsese does a great job in moving through the complicated plot quite quickly, always keeping the audience awake, and introducing the dozens of characters with full introductions. This dual-sided plot is also aided by editor, and frequent Scorsese collaborator, Thelma Schoonmaker who cuts the dual stories dynamically and in perfect balance. William Monahan’s script is well-bequeathed with Scorsese-trait harsh dialogue combined with Boston Irish jargon with inspiration for several memorable one-liners, particularly those delivered with perfect sincerity by Jack Nicholson. Jack himself should see himself once again nominated in the supporting category for his vile sex-obsessed and at times funny mob boss Frank Costello, though it remains not the best performance of his impressive career. Dicaprio is also a standout as the conflicted mole constantly fearing for his life while staying undercover, but repeatedly comes to the brink of being discovered, though still not as impressive as his Howard Hughes performance in Scorsese’s The Aviator. Further admirable performances come from Matt Damon and Vera Farmiga as the criminal therapist who becomes connected to both Costigan and Sullivan in yet another uneven bridge. Yet the real surprise of a performance came from the underrated Mark Wahlberg who gives his best performance to date as the authoritarian and threateningly scary investigations cop who hires Costigan, yet despises him. This turn could lead Wahlberg to his first Oscar nomination, especially since he’ll be remembered for his surprise final scene.
Furthermore, the cinematography of the Oscar-overdue Michael Ballhaus gives the film its close-up tension at all of the appropriate times. And Howard Shore’s tough Irish melodies, though not his best work, are appropriate for the subtle tones. Martin Scorsese’s team has created one tense crime drama. Though many film-goers will likely be turned away by the repeated violence, as is typical of most Scorsese pictures, especially when we see one surprise assassination after another, including three characters who receive separate surprise gunshots to the head all within one minute, after which, I was waiting for the next surprise assassination at any second. Fortunately there is only one more after that, one that concludes the film rather justifyingly. And some might also have minor trouble not knowing the contents of a certain envelope that Costigan gives to Vera Farmiga, but these minor flaws can be swept aside, and the film given a perfect review. Martin Scorsese is back in his classic crime thriller with one of the finest pictures of the year.
Stars: 4 (out of 4)
Oscar Contention: Picture, Director, Actor Leonardo Dicaprio, Actor Matt Damon, Supporting Actor Jack Nicholson, Supporting Actor Mark Wahlberg, Supporting Actress Vera Farmiga, Adapted Screenplay, Cinematography, Editing, Sound, Sound Editing, Score