Oldies:
2/13-
My Most Anticipated Films for Fall
Summer 07,
Winter 06,
Summer 06
Brief Review: 3:10 to Yuma
The remake of the classic western film is well made and packs a punch, but certain details leave a few question marks.
I simply got confused over Russell Crowe’s character. At times he’s all bad, and then he turns himself in. I never fully understood his intentions, or why he does what he does. And some of the ideas of the lawmen seemed a little ill-conceived from the beginning. Their mission almost seemed setup to fail. But I can respect this film for featuring some truly memorable characters, designing great action sequences, and bringing back once again the classic western style.
Stars: 3 (out of 4)
Oscar Nominations: Sound Mixing, Score
Brief Review: La Vie En Rose
After three years of the dramatic musician biopic, it has grown increasingly clichéd and overdone, and La Vie En Rose is the perfect example of it.
But worst of all, this feels like a satire of all other musical biopics, somewhat like Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story, but unintentionally. Every slightly dramatic aspect of Piaf’s life is squeezed into the too-long-already film, despite not being important in the long run. These elements seem stuck in just to squeeze as much performance out of Marion Cotillard as possible, whose performance and aging makeup are the only admirable aspects of the film. So I never really got an understanding of what made Edith Piaf a musician worthy of making a film about. It was annoying and pointless.
Stars: 1 (out of 4)
Nominations: Actress Marion Cotillard, Costumes, Makeup
Normally, the early wake hour to hear the Academy Award nominations is a joyous event. However, today has been one letdown after another. And here's the twist: it's not because of the writers strike! First I had to cope with the idea that the things I was looking forward to most in the nominations, which were essentially called-for, didn't happen. I then had to bear the news that stocks are falling and talented actor Heath Ledger has died, who just two years ago today became an Oscar nominee himself. I almost feel like I can't go on, but I will anyway. Here's my rundown of the noms.
In general, there were about as many surprises as recent years. Unfortunately, I didn't predict as many of them as I had hoped. In the unpredictable best picture race, I knew that Juno and Atonement could have taken the places of Diving Bell and Into the Wild, but I failed to predict it. Once I heard Jason Reitman made the directors list, I knew that meant Juno got nominated for picture. It needed either Reitman or maybe Jennifer Garner if it wanted the nomination. And I knew I should have predicted Atonement because the British vote can turn the tide. But it's really not that surprising.
But what is surprising is the director race. Sean Penn was snubbed here as well as in the screenplay category, making it clear the Academy really didn't like Into the Wild. Although I dislike Penn personally, I admire the film he made. Then there's one of my biggest devastations: no Tim Burton. I knew he was a long-shot, but I thought the Academy would have a good enough heart to give him his first nomination for his brilliantly haunting direction of Sweeney Todd as well as twenty years of directing films. But they didn't, and now he'll probably never get another shot at a nomination. I hope the Academy is happy. Instead they nominated the directors of Michael Clayton and Juno, two films that a monkey with a megaphone could have directed. Neither Gilroy nor Reitman have deserved a nomination as much as Burton. And that's just where my disappointment begins.
Then we consider the best actor race which had one of the biggest surprise inclusions: Tommy Lee Jones for some film that nobody remembers. I guess this was apparently a better idea than giving a first nomination to one of several talented young stars like Emile Hirsch or James McAvoy. I am however happy to see Viggo Mortenson finally get his first nomination after a long career. And even though so many were predicting Johnny Depp to get snubbed, I knew they had to give my beloved Sweeney Todd recognition in some big category. Consequentially, now that he has the nomination, could Johnny enter the race for an overdue win? He'll have to slit a few throats to beat Daniel Day-Lewis.
Oddly, we thought the best actress race was sewn up with five ladies appearing on every list. Then Laura Linney comes in and knocks Angelina Jolie off the list. I haven't seen Savages yet so I can't say whether it was deserving, but kudos to those few who predicted Linney. And perhaps the strangest thing is that the biggest surprises usually come from the supporting actor category, rather than actor and actress, and yet the five supporting actors were the same five that had appeared on every other list. I really thought Paul Dano deserved to be on that list. Supporting actress went essentially as planned, save for the lack of Catherine Keener, further proof the Academy disliked Into the Wild. And I knew I should have predicted Ruby Dee because at least one minority has to be nominated every year. At 83, Ruby Dee comes close to Gloria Stuart's record of oldest Oscar nominee but doesn't quite make it. Hal Holbrook however becomes the oldest supporting actor nominee at 82. Along with Tommy Lee Jones (61), Julie Christie (66) and Tom Wilkinson (59) this is another year for the older generation, with only Ellen Page (20) and Saoirse Ronan (13) to balance it out.
Then we come to the surprise that made me shout and throw the remote at the TV. Just when there was unanimous agreement on who the animated films will be, they decide the hilarious, clever, heartwarming, well-reviewed, successful, Simpsons Movie isn't good enough for them. Instead, they decided they should keep with the "penguin tradition" they've had the last two years and nominate the unsuccessful, less favorably reviewed, not nearly as funny Surf's Up. The one chance they get to nominate Matt Groening, the man who essentially invented animation (ignoring Walt Disney) and they pass it up. And just to humiliate The Simpsons Movie further, they gave a nomination to Norbit, one of the worst films of the year and nominee for eight Razzie Awards. I am really losing my sense of trust in these voters.
Furthermore, there was the surprising song lineup with three nominations going to Enchanted while Into the Wild among others get none. What we can learn from this: the Academy prefers songs that are sung by the characters or somehow implemented in the story as opposed to just being played in the background or over the credits. My one saving grace is the fact that Transformers managed to get three nominations, but those were a given anyway.
Anyway, I accurately predicted 68 of the 113 nominees. That's pretty low for me, but I think everybody scored lower than average. I am officially convinced that the Academy knows me and somehow personally hates me. I'll be updating my predictions over the next couple of days. Below are a few interesting lists.
Biggest Surprise Inclusions
-Tony Gilroy and Jason Reitman for director
-Tommy Lee Jones for Actor
-Laura Linney for Actress
-Away From Her for adapted screenplay
-Surf's Up for animated film
-American Gangster for art direction
-Across the Universe for costumes
-Norbit and Pirates for makeup
-3:10 to Yuma for sound mixing
-No Country and Blood for sound editing
-Michael Clayton for score
-"Happy Working Song", "So Close" and "Raise it Up" for song
Biggest Snubs
-Sean Penn for director
-Emile Hirsch for actor
-Angelina Jolie for actress
-Catherine Keener for supporting actress
-Into the Wild for screenplay
-The Simpsons Movie for animated film
-Lake of Fire for documentary
-Elizabeth: The Golden Age for art direction
-Michael Clayton for editing
-Hairspray for costumes
-Sweeney Todd for makeup and sound mixing
-300 for makeup, visual effects, sound mixing and sound editing
-Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End for sound editing
-Lust Caution for score
-"Guaranteed", "Come So Far", and "Do You Feel Me" for song.
Unlikely Things I Got Right (unusually low this year)
-No Country for Old Men for sound editing
-Michael Clayton for score
-"Come So Far" and "Do You Feel Me" snubbed for song
-Canada foreign film snub
Proof the Academy Personally Hates Me
-Only three nominations for Sweeney Todd, and snubbing it for Director Tim Burton, Actress Helena Bonham-Carter, Cinematography, Editing, Makeup, and Sound
-Not a single nomination for The Simpsons Movie, not even the easy animated film category
-300 gets nothing
-Four out of the five documentaries are liberal propoganda films (big surprise, right?)
Broken Records/Trends
-First time since 1988 that the highest grossing film of the year (Spider-Man 3) got no nominations.
-Only 3 of the 5 DGA nominees made picture nominations, whereas they matched 5/5 four of the last five years.
-Ratatouille got five nominations which is more than any other animated film before it, if you exclude films that depended on the song category for several nominations.
-Director Jason Reitman, Actor Tommy Lee Jones, Screenplay Away From Her and animated film Surf's Up became nominees with unusually low amounts of precursor attention.
-The Coen Brothers now tie Warren Beatty as getting the most Oscar nominations for one film (they are credited for picture, director, screenplay and editing).
-Enchanted getting three song nominations is a sign that the Disney trend of multiple song nominations is back.
-Record: 3 of the 5 original screenplays are written by women.
-Cate Blanchett becomes first woman to be nominated twice for same role in the Elizabeth films. Previously, Al Pacino had done it for the Godfather films.
-Only one of the five SAG ensemble nominees got nominated for picture, much below the 4/5 average.
-Norbit is the worst-reviewed film to get a nomination in I don't know how long, but it's at least ten years.
Total Nomination Talley
There Will be Blood- 8
No Country for Old Men- 8
Michael Clayton- 7
Atonement- 7
Ratatouille- 5
Juno- 4
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly- 4
Sweeney Todd- 3
La Vie En Rose- 3
The Bourne Ultimatum- 3
Transformers- 3
Enchanted- 3
The Savages- 2
Away From Her- 2
Elizabeth: The Golden Age- 2
The Assassination of Jesse James...- 2
Into the Wild- 2
American Gangster- 2
The Golden Compass- 2
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End- 2
3:10 to Yuma- 2
(everything else)- 1
Review: Juno
In the spirit of recent slice of life comedies, Juno makes fascinating observations on life, coupled with memorable one-liners, despite a narrow message.
The greatest strength of the film is the script. It is the type of story that has never been done before: walking through a serious culture issue with realistic comedy and good heart. Then there’s the comedic aspect. It’s hard to believe that one woman wrote all the clever lines for this film. Every other line has a nickname, an analogy, or something completely unexpected, without dipping into lowbrow humor like Knocked Up. Ellen Page was clearly the performance star, by creating a tough-talking confident young woman, who can only be broken when times get really rough. Jennifer Garner was also a standout as a childless wife whose failed efforts have driven her to desperation. The rest of the cast did their part. However, it felt a little odd that so many characters can talk tough like Juno herself, including her parents (J.K. Simmons and Allison Janney).
Although a film this well-written should have tried to tackle a few more issues about teen sex and pregnancy while it was at it. The film was short and Diablo Cody could have done a lot more with it. And though the ending is realistic, I’m not so sure everybody is going to be happy with it. The film is like Little Miss Sunshine, only that film used its large cast to tackle a different issue for each character. The same could have been done here. However, one overlooked aspect of this film is the entire set design which is real yet iconic, particularly for a contemporary film. Bleeker’s jogging shorts and sweat bands, Juno’s hamburger phone, and her mother’s dog picture collection are all iconic artifacts of character development. Contrast that with the Loring household which is so large, white and perfect that it seems pulled from THX 1138. It’s not too often contemporary films can establish characters from what is around them.
Juno should be recognized for its talented lead performance, as well as its clever script, if underused. And best of all, it’s not a film that advocates! That is such a rarity in today’s films. So see it, laugh, and feel a little better.
Stars: 3 (out of 4)
Oscar Contention: Picture, Director, Actress Ellen Page, Supporting Actress Jennifer Garner, Supporting Actress Allison Janney, Original Screenplay, Editing
Brief Review: Once
The smallest most independent film of the year proves that you don’t need a lot of money to make a film of superb quality.
Aside from the impressive quality per dollar factor of the filmmaking, the musical aspect is highly entertaining. Not only are Hansard and Irlova the talented stars, but they wrote every song in the film. My clear favorite is a duet called “Falling Slowly”, which I am now convinced will win the Oscar. Once deserves recognition for its multi-talented cast and director, as well as making an original satisfying love story, the kind that I don’t normally enjoy until now.
Stars: 3.5 (out of 4)
Oscar Contention: Original Screenplay, Song
Review: There Will be Blood
Like many directors this year, P.T. Anderson has transcended genres from quirky ensemble pieces to this grand historic character study, and pulls it off quite well.
A theme about greed and empire is well-suited for this film, as opposed to the modern oil situation of the U.S. comparison that many other reviewers have been trying to point out. I really do not think that P.T. Anderson intended for this film to reflect on the current state of the country. The film is meant to be an accurately rugged and dangerous interpretation of the west at the turn of the century, as well as a deep character study of a man whose intentions are never quite clear, similar to Citizen Kane.
The film is beautiful in its scope, and even more powerful in its performances. I am officially convinced that Daniel Day-Lewis is the most talented actor working today, even though unfortunately he does not make films that often. No other actor becomes a serious Oscar contender with every film they do. Day-Lewis has excellently portrayed the weak and innocent in In the Name of the Father, the mentally handicapped in My Left Foot, and the violently evil in Gangs of New York. Now in There Will be Blood he gives another grand performance, but not his best work. Then again, topping his best work is nearly impossible. He gives Plainview such a transcending personality that begins as weak and reserved, and turns into a greedy madness of self-deification. It’s now the best performance I’ve seen all year. Paul Dano also does quite well, a big step up from his fine performance in Little Miss Sunshine. Though he is given a little more difficult role than he can handle, he still gives it everything he has as a self-ordained prophet healer with hypocritical tendencies of greed.
Yet some scenes took longer than they needed to. It felt a little like too short of a story for being more than two and a half hours. And I would have liked to see more development of secondary characters instead of just being a one or two person showcase. Yet the film is one to be seen for its epic scale use of sets and camerawork, and more importantly for the performances of the two male leads. There will be blood and there will be satisfied filmgoers.
Stars: 3 (out of 4)
Oscar Contention: Picture, Director, Actor Daniel Day-Lewis, Supporting Actor Paul Dano, Adapted Screenplay, Cinematography, Art Direction, Editing, Costumes, Sound, Score
An open letter to NBC and the Hollywood Foreign Press Association:
Executives of NBC and the HFPA,
I know that this is a troubling time for you. The writers strike has prevented you from showing a classic Golden Globe Awards ceremony full of stars, style and excitement. The situation is frustrating, and I believe that you plan on broadcasting whatever show you have. However, I strongly request that you broadcast nothing, except perhaps some movie rerun as a slot-filler.
What would there to be show anyways? Without writers there will be no intriguing speeches between the awards. And due to the Screen Actors Guild’s support for the writers, absolutely no actors, neither presenters nor nominees will attend. The majority of audiences watch award shows like the Golden Globes to see the stars and see their fashions. However, this show will have neither. The viewer ratings will certainly be less than half the normal capacity and NBC is bound to lose money. Certainly, broadcasting the show would be a financially devastating move.
But don’t just think about the money; think about those who deserve their recognition. Sure you can blame the writers all you want for causing the situation that will prevent winners from accepting their awards. But the truth is that neither the WGA nor SAG will back out of their devotion to picket the event, unless of course the event is not broadcast. Therefore, the decision is entirely yours. If you decide not to broadcast the show (internet broadcast included), there will be no picketing and the stars will be able to receive the recognition they deserve.
Consider Ellen Page who received her first nomination this year for Juno, and with a strong likelihood of winning. This young girl has yet to experience the glamour of an award ceremony, let alone accepting a major award, and your decision could rob her of that opportunity. Or consider Johnny Depp, who after eight Golden Globe nominations finally has a good shot at winning for Sweeney Todd. This is the sort of moment for which Mr. Depp has been waiting for seventeen years, and your decision could strip him of that owed moment. Or consider Nikki Blonsky, who got her first Golden Globe nomination this year for Hairspray, her only award nomination this year, and frankly possibly the only nomination she’ll receive her entire life. This girl, of a Cinderella story rose from working in an ice-cream parlor to getting a Globe nomination in one year, and you might be denying her the only chance to attend an award ceremony she might ever receive. I can’t imagine the sorrow of these people not getting the opportunities they have earned.
It is for both financial and humanitarian reasons that I am urging NBC not to broadcast the Golden Globes on Sunday. The audiences will not mind, the guilds will thank you, and the stars will be able to show up and receive their recognition. Time is short so please consider it.
-Brinton of the Oscar Breach
Brief Review: Away from Her
Alzheimer’s disease is indeed a sensitive and difficult subject to tackle, but I believe breakout director Sarah Polley did it quite well.
Clearly, the finest aspect of the film is Julie Christie’s performance. Gordon Pinsent was brilliant as well. But then I had a problem with the whole film feeling a little too much like a PSA about Alzheimer’s. It’s a nice story, but it felt too much like it was calling for donations. Or perhaps it’s just my personal feelings, seeing as how my great aunt is in a similar situation. But I still enjoyed the film for its fine performances, and its heartfelt story bound by tragedy.
Stars: 3 (out of 4)
Oscar Contention: Actress Julie Christie, Actor Gordon Pinsent, Adapted Screenplay
Review: Atonement
One of the biggest awards contenders of the year turns out to be all about style and less about story. In fact, it is better suited for a museum than a theater.
I can compliment the film for some of its artistic technical aspects. Costumes and sets were large in quantity and appropriate. The cinematography was gorgeous at times, and included a five minute shot that tracks across a whole war-torn beach. The shot tried to repeat what Children of Men did but was not quite up to the same level. Then there is a musical sequence involving the sounds of piano, strings and a typewriter. The thirty second sequence is good, but it gets repetitive after being played five times throughout the film. McAvoy and Knightley were both good, but I’ve seen them give better performances before. But Ronan was the standout, not in general, just for her age.
Though all of these technical aspects are strong, too much attention was given to them and not enough to the story. It is essentially a twenty minute narrative stretched over two hours with pretty imagery and attempted dramatic silences as filler. All too much I wished that they would get to the point of the scene, often which they never did. Though I would never be so cruel as to compare this film to Elizabeth: The Golden Age, I would say that they have similar problems. They both concentrate on the details and lose sight of the big picture.
Then there are a few little details that annoyed me. Twice they repeat the same scene from a different point of view. This is essentially saying that they didn’t have a good enough editor to get both points of view in one scene. Then there’s the whole conclusion with Vanessa Redgrave as the old Briony. It seemed a little like they were trying to repeat another short scene where another Redgrave makes a cameo appearance and does a great three-minute scene at the end of a film. I’m referring of course to Kinsey.
So the film can be admired for strong artistic aspects, but some might be disappointed at long stalling between crucial plot points. The film is certainly well intended and well made but loses its focus. It’s a questionable recommendation.
Stars: 2 (out of 4)
Oscar Contention: Picture, Director, Actor James McAvoy, Actress Keira Knightley, Supporting Actress Saoirse Ronan, Supporting Actress Vanessa Redgrave, Adapted Screenplay, Cinematography, Art Direction, Editing, Costumes, Score
Review: Sweeney Todd
Tim Burton’s unique method of bringing out the creepiness in everything he touches finally finds an adaptation worthy of his style in the Broadway musical Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street.
First of all, I have always loved Tim Burton films for their unique stylization of darkness in light situations. Edward Scissorhands gave us the contrast of an innocent community being the evil over a dangerous young monster. Sleepy Hollow brought back the classic horror film with style. And The Nightmare Before Christmas became a cult classic for its creation of a magical world of crossed holidays. I believe this is Burton’s best film ever, for bringing the darkness, humor, violent art, and English culture to a beloved musical, which no other director could achieve.
All members of this production were excellent. Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham-Carter give some of their best performances to date. Depp CAN sing and he is perfect for his tortured soullessness grimace with the occasional burst of violent rage. Bonham-Carter is excellent in her vocal performance and her devious excitement in the face of death, along with her longing desire to belong to Todd. Great supplementary performances also come from Alan Rickman, Timothy Spall, and Sacha Baron Cohen (aka Borat). Yet, the imagery itself is another character. Tim Burton continues his trademark monochromatic style in his sets and costumes creating a dark dreary version of London, perfectly appropriate for the film. It even contains a costume with black and white stripes, which I think you can find in every Burton film. And this is some of the most unique cinematography, which makes use of reflections and blurs from glass and mirrors, providing symbolic distortion. It’s little artistic details like these that make you really enjoy the film. Most of all, I enjoyed a shot that involved a bleeding neck representing the tears of a broken heart. Like never before has blood actually been used as art, and there’s an awful lot of it.
Then there’s the music. It may not be my favorite musical soundtrack, but the words and overture are unbelievably powerful. Though I understand a lot of material was cut from the musical, there seems to be just the right amount remaining. The songs come naturally, are not forced into the context. And the sights onscreen actually are orchestrated in sync with the score, something few other musicals accomplish.
Yet perhaps the most unique aspect of this film is its genre-crossing. Like never before has there been a violent horror film that is also a dramatic musical, and it was pulled off perfectly. I might have to think about it, but I believe that Sweeney Todd might now be my favorite musical ever. Those who don’t mind a little blood will love the music, the horror, or the romance. As of now, it is the best film of the year.
Stars: 4 (out of 4)
Oscar Contention: Picture, Director, Actor Johnny Depp, Actress Helena Bonham-Carter, Adapted Screenplay, Art Direction, Cinematography, Editing, Costumes, Makeup, Sound
Brief Review: Live Free or Die Hard
I am often a sucker for a good action movie, but only if it has brains to it and not just mindless mayhem. Enter: Live Free or Die Hard.
Aside from the shallow tech details, the story jumps into itself too quickly and is never really explained. I cannot understand why a guy who doesn’t consider himself a terrorist tries to destroy the nation, just to prove a point. Psychologically it doesn’t make sense. But psychology is not the only problem. In fact I watched this with some intelligent college friends of mine. My pre-med friend discussed how laws of human endurance were violated. My political science friend discussed the inaccuracies with security protocol. And myself, being an engineer, discussed the numerous violations of laws of physics. So much unrealism is just plain annoying.
However, I know people watch these movies just for the mindless impossible action sequences, and I enjoyed a few of them myself. So perhaps that is enough for some people. Not quite enough for me though.
Stars: 2 (out of 4)
Oscar Contention: Editing, Sound Editing
Review: I’m Not There
This experimental film by Todd Haynes is the most creative and original film I’ve seen all year, but occasionally loses its direction home (pun intended).
The six parallel stories are unrelated and some of them I could not understand. Richard Gere plays Billie the Kid, meant to represent the outlaw side of Dylan. Heath Ledger plays actor Robbie Clark, meant to represent the troubled relationship side of Dylan. Marcus Carl Franklin, an odd choice of choosing a black child to represent Dylan, plays railroad skipping musician Woody Guthrie meant to represent Dylan’s youthful poverty. And Cate Blachett plays musician Jude Quinn, in the oddest casting choice of switching genders, but by far the best and most representative performance of Dylan. Her story reflects on the criticism of Dylan’s hypocrisy through his songs. The Christian Bale and Ben Winshaw stories I didn’t really understand the point of.
Each story is extremely stylized in a different way. The stories are odd, whether it be overly simple monochromatic frame of the character center stage, or a completely out of the ordinary dream sequence involving giant fish and helium-voiced flying people. This is where the direction and cinematography are at their best quality and worthy of recognition. The screenplay is also to be admired for taking a completely original direction to the musical biopic that nobody has done before.
However, it seems that the film got so caught up in its uniqueness that it lost its own purpose. This goes back to the famous line from Citizen Kane, “This tells us what the man did, not who he was.” I’m Not There tries to tell us who Bob Dylan was without giving any accurate depiction of what he did. However, I believe that in order to understand who a man is you must know what he has done. And I felt a little disappointed that I learned nothing about Bob Dylan’s life and therefore did not receive much of an understanding as to who he really was. I spent too much time just trying to figure out what is real and what is exaggerated, and I still don’t know what’s what.
Connoisseurs of artistic films will enjoy the unique stylization of this biopic, as will those who want to see some fine performances. However, those who want to learn about the life of Bob Dylan might be disappointed at how uninformative the film is. Good for its experimentation, but bad for what you might be expecting.
Stars: 2.5 (out of 4)
Oscar Contention: Supporting Actress Cate Blanchett, Original Screenplay, Cinematography, Editing, Sound
Below you can see the short student film I made for my class this semester. It is sort of a tribute to classic grift films like "The Sting", but with a modern twist like "Ocean's Eleven". It is also a tribute to St. Louis. And like "Ocean's Eleven", it might take two viewings to fully understand. I named it Con Baby Con as an obvious play on words from another movie title.
To answer the first question, it is really short because we were given a two minute limit on our student films, but I still went over.
To answer the other question, I play every role because my three actors all failed to show up without adequate warning. So I had no choice but to play every role myself, and make good use of my many dialects. And I think this is the first time viewers of this site will find out what I actually look like.
Hope you like it. If you don't like it, keep in mind that this project was only second to a larger project I had this semester of designing and building a large-scale peanut sheller. Enjoy. You can click below to watch it or go to the youtube page here.
Brief Review: Knocked Up
Though I was not easily amused by the last crude sex comedy The 40 Year Old Virgin, I was slightly more inclined to enjoy this piece of work from Judd Apatow.
I think what Virgin got wrong, Knocked Up gets right. Its heart is in the right place and has a good message about commitment and responsibility. However, I remain mostly uninterested in all sex comedies like this one. Also, it would seem that Judd Apatow is making films about real modern people situations. However, how often do unexpected pregnancies actually end in such a happy and formulaic ending? Really? However, I did frequently laugh so I suppose there is enough here for me to suggest it.
Stars: 2.5 (out of 4)
Oscar Contention: Supporting Actress Leslie Mann, Original Screenplay
Review: The Kite Runner
The Kite Runner is a complicated piece of film that has some disturbing reality parts but ends with one of the most satisfying tastes of the season.
What impressed me most is the fine performances of so many unknown actors, particularly the boys making their debut performances. The only actor I recognized was Shaun Toub who played the store owner in Crash. It was a fine decision for Forster to cast unknowns and make the majority of the film in the native Afghani tongue, despite the inconvenience of subtitles. Strength also comes from the dashing cinematography and the well-suited musical score. Not to mention Marc Forster’s direction, which brought the story the same pleasant feeling of innocence in difficult times that he brought to Finding Neverland.
I appreciated how this is a fictional story laid on top of real events. While the boys grow, the world around them changes. I was particularly glad to see the Taliban portrayed as harsh evil-doers, contrary to what a lot of the media would have you believe these days. So this film also has a historical significance to it that not a lot of people from the western world know about. Afghanistan was once a thriving innocent place until the Taliban took over. But the emotional story about Amir’s life and his commitment to what was his best friend is even more important. I’d hate to give away the details of the ending, but the events are unexpected but settling. But above all, I was most fascinated by the idea that kite flying can actually be a competitive sport.
Though I actually find it difficult to pinpoint why I enjoyed this film, I can simply describe it as fascinating, engaging and heart-warming. Fans of the novel will likely enjoy it, as well as nearly any other film-lover.
Stars: 3.5 (out of 4)
Oscar Contention: Picture, Director, Adapted Screenplay, Cinematography, Editing, Score
Brief Review: Enchanted
I admit that I am not the best critic out there since there are one or two types of films I am incapable of enjoying. Hardcore chick flicks that leave nothing for the guys like Enchanted is one, but I still found some likable things in this one.
The film features some excellent music from Disney alum Alan Menken. But the real strength of the film comes from Amy Adams’ performance as the embodiment of every Disney princess. She essentially plays a whiny damsel in chronic distress on Prozac. And she sings! James Marsden does an equally fine job as the narcissistic determined prince. Now I know that the cheesy scenes of sappy romance and musical numbers are supposed to be over the top, but that does not excuse them from being annoying. And the whole dragon sequence at the end seemed completely unnecessary. Believe me; few guys will enjoy this film.
If for no other reason, as if there were any other, you should see this film for the superior performance of Amy Adams, which is deserving of the same award success as Julie Andrews’ performance in Mary Poppins. Though male audiences may find parts irritating, perhaps they could use it as a date movie. Though I’m speculating here, I think the girls will love it.
Stars: 2 (out of 4)
Oscar Contention: Actress Amy Adams, Supporting Actor James Marsden, Original Screenplay, Makeup, Score, Song
Review: No Country for Old Men
Like many directors this year, Joel and Ethan Coen have successfully switched genres and created an entertaining but occasionally slow dark thriller.
What I liked most about this film is the intense cat and mouse scenes between Moss and Chigurh. Most notably is a hotel confrontation scene where the sound of unscrewing a light bulb has never felt so chilling. It’s scenes like this where complete silence other than a few small distinct sounds is beneficial. Having no musical score didn’t work well for Hitchcock’s The Birds in my opinion, but it really worked well here. About half the film is silence, which is both authentic to the situation and causes additional nerve twisting.
Many other artistic aspects are to be admired as well. Cinematographer Roger Deakins graphically captured the rugged landscape, as well as provided the right amount of darkness for the symbolically dark scenes. Josh Brolin gave another fine performance along with his other breakout performance this year in American Gangster. Kelly Macdonald also gave an emotionally memorable performance as Moss’ wife, and provided a convincing Southern accent for a Scotswoman. But the standout is clearly Javier Bardem as the psycho killer himself. Though he doesn’t say much, and his Spanish accent was obvious at times, he conveyed so much soullessness through his haunting expressions. I would however, liked to have seen some explanation for his character’s actions. We don’t know whether his bizarre methods are driven by greed, enjoyment, or pure insanity. When we have such a complicated character, I always prefer to know a little more about them.
I do however dislike it when some plot details go unexplained. One would be how did Moss get the satchel of money out from the riverbed? The ending is also likely to receive a “love it / hate it” response from audiences. Though unique, it is somewhat inconclusive, which often I find irritating. The result of the conflict some might also find somewhat upsetting. And I hate being technical, but I hate it when laws of science are unintentionally violated onscreen. I recently saw an episode of Myth Busters that proved that a gas tank will not explode if you light it on fire. However, there is an exploding gas tank in this film, as well as a lot of movies when you think about it. Sorry if I’m being too technical, but I can’t help it; I’m actually an engineer you know.
Fans of dark thrillers and disturbing violence will certainly get a kick out of this interpretation of the best-selling book. Speaking of which, it is nice to see the Coen Brothers adapting a medium to film for once. Considering how well this turned out, I would suggest they do it again sometime.
Stars: 3 (out of 4)
Oscar Contention: Picture, Director, Actor Josh Brolin, Supporting Actor Javier Bardem, Supporting Actress Kelly Macdonald, Adapted Screenplay, Cinematography, Editing, Sound, Sound Editing
Review: American Gangster
Taking a page from Scorsese’s book of gangster films, director Ridley Scott gives us the first great film and top Oscar contender I’ve seen this fall season.
Obvious parallels are going to be made with last year’s The Departed. They are both relatively contemporary and violent gangster films with co-lead actors representing both the law and the crime point of view. Gangster isn’t nearly as complicated as Departed and in most ways not quite as good. It does however offer more fascination to the story considering it to loosely be a true one.
The best aspect is probably Ridley Scott’s stylization. It’s quick and dynamic and there is rarely a dull moment. The first couple of hours do have some tedious and unnecessary scenes. These are mostly used to build character, but it’s unnecessary since they are mostly characters that we won’t remember. But the film gets all of its best moments near the end with an intense drug bust invasion and the confrontation between Roberts and Lucas.
Washington and Crowe, while two of the most talented actors working today, give fine performances but not their best. The film’s dynamic cinematography, editing, and clear cut sound are to be admired nearly as much as Scott’s direction. He achieves the period stylization with the suspense of crime unraveling, and never fails to entertain. What captured me the most was the setup of Lucas and Roberts. In many ways, these two guys operate exactly the same way, just on different sides of the law. So it is fascinating to watch their parallel stories, with nearly equal screen-time for both actors, behave in the same pattern and eventually collide with each other. This perfectly parallel story formula is what gives the film its most compelling scenes and thrills.
So American Gangster will certainly satisfy any fan of violent gangster films to the likes of Scorsese. And after hits like Gladiator and Black Hawk Down, it makes me wonder when Ridley Scott is finally going to get what he deserves. You know what I mean.
Stars: 3.5 (out of 4)
Oscar Contention: Picture, Director, Actor Denzel Washington, Actor Russell Crowe, Supporting Actress Ruby Dee, Original Screenplay, Cinematography, Editing, Sound, Sound Editing, Song
Review: Lions for Lambs
If you don’t want to hear another of my political rants then perhaps you should skip this review. I say this because Lions for Lambs is the most careless and biased film I’ve seen all year.
This film is clearly an anti-war film, but that is not the only reason I didn’t like it. It did have a couple of good performances from Redford and Streep as well as a fine music score by Mark Isham. But the nuts and bolts of the discussions are long, tedious, boring and occasionally incomprehensible. The Cruise/Streep debate is simply throwing a bunch of one-liners that have been shouted back and forth for the last several years, and it is simply not enjoyable to hear them all over again. And some parts were just unbelievable, such as the idea of Tom Cruise passing for a Senator. Then there was the whole Redford segment which I didn’t understand at all. I had no idea what he was trying to say to his student. And a distracting part was seeing Michael Peña hurt, immobile and communicating to a buddy from fifteen feet away, which felt too reminiscent of World Trade Center (a far superior film). And what really annoyed me was showcasing a display of pictures showing Cruise’s character shaking hands with President Bush and other political leaders; this segment felt more like a montage of “Look what we can do with Adobe Photoshop.”
But worse yet, this is clearly an anti-war film. Streep’s character is portrayed as the heroic truth-seeker while Cruise’s is portrayed as the heartless ignorant politician. I’d say the roles are reversed because Cruise’s character is my hero. I really dislike showing that two young men who enlist in the military would get ridiculed by their classmates and professors for it. I for one would applaud them. In this particular film, I don’t care about giving away the ending: the two soldiers die. I would have given it an extra star had they lived, thus showing the heroic courage and determination of the military. But having them die tells us that the war is simply a slaughterhouse for strong-minded young adults.
In the end, what hurt me the most is that this film insulted every aspect of me. They insulted pro-war Republicans. They insulted college students by portraying them as lazy and caring less about learning than grades. And they insulted journalists by portraying them as unprioritized (as host of this website, I qualify as a journalist). Though it may have some good performances and dialogue, I simply cannot recommend such an insulting and biased film.
Stars: 1 (out of 4)
Oscar Contention: Actor Robert Redford, Actress Meryl Streep, Original Screenplay, Score
Brief Review: A Mighty Heart
As far as the recent string of post-9/11 films go, A Mighty Heart is a strong one for having an accurate story without lecture.
The strength of this film comes from the power of the people who tried to help. This doesn’t try to make a statement about the war; it simply portrays what a great man Daniel was, and what a strong woman Mariane is. Artistic elements are to be admired as well, including the quick but relevant cutting between locations and times. However, this is the latest film to overdue the handheld camera technique. But in the end, A Mighty Heart is a powerful story that certainly should have been told.
Stars: 3 (out of 4)
Oscar Contention: Actress Angelina Jolie, Editing
Review: Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer
In one of the many sequels this summer, the Marvel team known as the Fantastic Four return to about the same top form as their previous film, which I consider relatively fantastic.
Unlike most, I enjoyed the first Fantastic Four. Though not the best comic adaptation, I thought it was a respectable introduction of possibly a new franchise. And I’d say the sequel is relatively on par with the first. It delivers some well-choreographed action, an interesting romantic subplot, and more onsite locations around the world than probably any other superhero film. And once again, Chris Evans and Michael Chiklis both steal the show with great comical bits and delivery.
But the thing I look for most in superhero films is creative use of the superpowers. This is the kind of thing the X-Men series had and the Spider-Man series did not. I just find it cleverly intriguing in what creative ways the heroes or villians can use their powers (ie Magneto magnetically pulling the pins on the enemy's grenades), and with the Fantastic Four a combination of powers allows more creativity. Such examples include Sue Storm’s creating an expanding force field inside a person until they explode. Or there’s the climactic extravaganza where Johnny Storm absorbs the powers of the whole team and uses them all at once. It’s really some entertaining stuff.
However, the film comes with some cheesy dialogue and cartoonish moments that make you just want to skip to the next action scene. Some acting was really dull and the effects could be better, particularly the “stretching person” effect which has yet to be perfected. And the short running time makes it cut off too soon, but perhaps it is for the better. Therefore, at risk of angering people who hate stupid puns, the film isn’t quite fantastic, but it’s not four-getable either.
Stars: 2.5 (out of 4)
Oscar Contention: Makeup, Visual Effects
Review: Elizabeth: The Golden Age
I walked into Elizabeth: The Golden Age thinking that I would see more light in this film than the majority of critics did. Instead, I found them to be completely justified in their hashing of this flashy historic piece.
I guess I can point out a few good things. Cate Blanchett is excellent as ever with a demanding yet fragile performance as the Queen. She actually seems like the only member of this project who is trying, with perhaps the exception of Samantha Morton. But the costumes, set design, cinematography and music are also excellent, but too much time was likely spent on them instead of making a better story.
Like Spider-Man 3 earlier this year, this film could have been great, but it just has a lot of little problems. In fact, I thought all of the footage filmed was excellent, but somehow the post-production phase ruined it. This is partially due to some of the worst editing I have seen. There is so much cutting back and forth repeatedly causing overlapping dialogue and without showing what happens in between. This is just one little annoyance. Next, I was waiting so long for them to get to the politics of the story, that being the war with Spain. For the first hour and a half, we get nothing of this except a small mention every ten minutes, and the rest is filled with unintentionally uninspired unromantic dialogue with no purpose, always preceded and concluded with some glamour shot. And when we finally get to the historic battle, it’s over in five minutes. I thought the movie trailer showed little of the battle because they didn’t want to spoil it, but in fact they didn’t show it because there wasn’t much to show. The battle strategy made little sense anyway. Why would you light your ship on fire and hope it crashes into the enemy?
In fact, much of the character behavior doesn’t make sense. During a scene with an attempted assassination on Elizabeth, the shooter stalls for thirty seconds and yet nobody tries to stop him or protect the Queen. What sort of age is this where everybody just stands around and calmly watches the Queen get killed? Furthermore, it became increasingly irritating the overdramatic symbolic actions. There were far too many and all were too pointless. And after seeing great nonpartisan war stories like Clint Eastwood’s Iwo Jima films last year, it seemed a little unfair to be so biased against King Philip of Spain.
I must however compliment whoever assembled the film’s movie trailer. It is not an easy task to make such a good-looking trailer out of a bad film, but I think the trailer convinced everybody that this was going to be great. How wrong it was.
In the end, there is absolutely nothing creative or original about Elizabeth: The Golden Age. It feels far too much like if Braveheart, Pride and Prejudice and Lord of the Rings were mixed in a blender then poured into the mold of the first Elizabeth film. Despite a couple of performances and artistic aspects, there is simply too much to dislike about this attempt at a prestigious film.
Stars: 1.5 (out of 4)
Oscar Contention: Actress Cate Blanchett, Art Direction, Cinematography, Costumes, Makeup, Sound, Score
Review: Michael Clayton
First time director Tony Gilroy makes an impressive, though occasionally dull debut in the legal thriller Michael Clayton.
This is considered a thriller because we are never sure if Tom Wilkinson’s character was right about the cover-up or if he simply went crazy. We are also never sure if Michael Clayton’s intentions are to help himself or help the victims of the lawsuit. Eventually, everything gets resolved in a surprise conclusion. However, the details were quite technical and the plot moved fast, which made it somewhat irritating to try and keep up with, but I think I just barely understood enough of it.
The screenplay is of high quality, particularly for being original. Though I’m betting that this is one of those movies where it would automatically seem like a better film if it just so happened to be based on a true story. Portraying real events is an automatic sympathy grabber. But writer/director Tony Gilroy managed to write an intriguing piece with plenty of suspense and twists. His directing on the other hand felt a little too simplistic.
Most performances were excellent as well. Clooney is about as good as his Oscar-winning performance in Syriana, though in my opinion that doesn’t mean much at all. Tilda Swinton is always excellent as a cold woman with power, which like her role in The Chronicles of Narnia, seems to closely resemble Hilary Clinton. But the real star is Tom Wilkinson who steals every scene as a manic-depressive attorney who faces a crisis of conscience. Wilkinson has the best Oscar chances of anyone involved with this film.
Though the subject matter seems dull, confusing, and not my area of expertise, the performances and written dialogue are admirable. The film has some excellent aspects, but not everybody can stay awake. But I believe that this is excellent piece for a debuting director.
Stars: 2.5 (out of 4)
Oscar Contention: Picture, Director, Actor George Clooney, Supporting Actor Tom Wilkinson, Supporting Actress Tilda Swinton, Original Screenplay, Cinematography, Editing, Score
Review: Eastern Promises
Eastern Promises marks the beginning of the official Oscar season, but it doesn’t seem to be a great start.
Naturally, comparisons are to be made to A History of Violence, a film I liked for its strong performances from all actors, a suspenseful mystery, and a psychological investigation into the nature of violent behavior. Promises is a little underwhelming in each of those areas. Viggo was good with his Russian accent and heartless killing instinct, but didn’t give the same layered performance he gave in Violence. Cassel and Mueller-Stahl both gave respectable performances, but I was expecting better quality out of Naomi Watts, an actress who is excellent in nearly everything.
The story also lacked suspense. At any given point, the audience could easily figure out everybody’s motive for what they are doing. Nothing particularly unexpected occurred. And at the ending, I was hoping for some surprise or twist. Instead, it leaves us with an “everything is as it should be” situation that keeps a couple of questions open.
Of course, A History of Violence might be best remembered for its graphic bloody violence and Eastern Promises is just the same, but to a greater degree. There are several graphic killings and assaults, as well as some overly detailed sequences of corpse dicing, and showing a premature fetus. There’s a point where the violence is a little too over the top without good cause, and I think the film crossed that line.
The film however can still be respected for a few good performances, some stylized direction, and tackling a subject and culture rarely seen on film. Those who liked Cronenberg’s last film might enjoy this one, but they might find it to be a significant step down.
Stars: 2 (out of 4)
Oscar Contention: Picture, Director, Actor Viggo Mortenson, Supporting Actor Vincent Cassel, Supporting Actor Armin Mueller-Stahl, Original Screenplay, Cinematography, Editing, Sound Editing, Score
5. Elizabeth: The Golden Age
Into the Wild would be in this #5 position were it not directed by Sean Penn. But The Golden Age still greatly deserves it. I actually hadn’t seen the first Elizabeth until this summer. I was pleasantly surprised at how interesting of a reign this monarch had, and was overwhelmed at the performance Cate Blanchett put into it. Director Shekhar Kapur said he had three films planned all along to tell the full story of Queen Elizabeth’s life. A trilogy is rare for a prestige period piece like this one, but I suppose the life of Queen Elizabeth can’t be summed up in just one film.
I understand that it took much convincing from the director and co-star Geoffrey Rush to get Blanchett back into the role, and it was totally worth it. I wouldn’t be surprised if she gives by far the best female performance of the year. I’m also becoming increasingly convinced she might be the most talented actress today (but Kate Winslet is tough competition). So I look forward to this movie for its superior performance by Blanchett, strong supporting performances from Rush, Clive Owen and Samantha Morton, and for giving us the only historic battle that we will likely receive this year.
Elizabeth: The Golden Age hits theaters October 12. Watch the trailer here.
4. The Golden Compass
In a similar fashion to The Chronicles of Narnia and Stardust, this appears like the latest attempt to repeat the success of the Lord of the Rings trilogy. I think it might just work. The Golden Compass is the first in the His Dark Materials book trilogy. It is sort of a cross between Narnia and Pan’s Labyrinth. It involves a young girl (Dakota Blue Richards) who enters a parallel fantasy world with witches and talking polar bears.
The film also has roles for Nicole Kidman, Daniel Craig, Eva Green and Sam Elliott, who all appear to have the potential of being miscast. Only time will tell. Now I doubt this will be nearly as spectacular as the Lord of the Rings trilogy, but it might get up to that realm thanks to its December release and some awards potential. Though I haven’t read the books, I still look forward to seeing what a fantasy book adaptation has the power to become on screen.
The Golden Compass hits theaters December 7. Watch the trailer here.
3. American Gangster
Martin Scorsese having finally won his Oscar, I believe that Ridley Scott should be considered the most overdue director for the win now (if not Peter Weir). And this gangster film looks like it could be the one to give it to him. Scott directs Russell Crowe for the third time as a NY detective trying to bring down the biggest drug lord in Harlem: Frank Lucas (Denzel Washington). Two great actors, a great director, and Oscar-winning writer Steven Zaillian can’t go wrong.
Off the bat, this looks a lot like The Departed. It’s set close to modern day and is a cops vs. mob movie. Crowe and Washington are on the opposite sides of the law and should be considered co-leads like Dicaprio and Damon were. Again, this will give us the perspective of both sides of the conflict, which I believe was one of the big successes of Departed. And likewise if this film thrills and stylizes the real-life story, I think it could go far both in terms of box-office and the Oscars.
American Gangster hits theaters November 2. Watch the trailer here.
2. Beowulf
Robert Zemeckis conducted a great motion-capture experiment called The Polar Express three years ago. The story needed a lot of work, but the visual result was remarkable. Now he takes it up another level with Beowulf an animated film where the actors were all digitized through motion-capture. Actors like Ray Winstone, Anthony Hopkins and Angelina Jolie are all clearly visible and look exactly like themselves (though I think Winstone lost some digital weight), but they are in fact animated. The composition is so realistic that I am betting a lot of viewers didn’t realize it to be animated when they saw the trailer.
Of course, Beowulf is the oldest story known to man predating Homer’s The Iliad. It’s the legend of a warrior called Beowulf who is on a mission to destroy a monster called Grendel that has been terrorizing the villages. In fact, this will likely be the most violent animated film ever.
What I look forward to most is seeing where motion-capture technology has brought us. The only things The Polar Express didn’t get right were skin texture and lip movements. If Beowulf can improve upon those, then I’d say we’ve finally reached the age where computer animation can look 100% real. But it raises the question: is this really easier and/or cheaper than filming the traditional live-action way? Perhaps it will be answered in time. For now, I’m looking forward to seeing some heavily digitized onslaught about the oldest story ever told.
Beowulf hits theaters November 16. Watch the trailer here.
1. Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street
I have always loved and appreciated the power of Tim Burton. No other director can bring out the creepiness in everything he touches (which includes his girlfriend). He brought a new darkness to Batman, designed a world of Halloween in The Nightmare Before Christmas, and once again made famous the worst director ever: Ed Wood. Unfortunately, his genre of creepy freaky films has never been in the Academy’s key palette resulting in no directorial nominations for him. Hopefully, that will change this year with his darkest film yet: Sweeney Todd.
The film has all of the Burton trademarks which includes roles for Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham-Carter. Depp plays Sweeney Todd, a barber who murders and chops up his customers. Bonham-Carter plays Mrs. Lovett who bakes the victims into pies. Clearly, this has the potential to be the bloodiest and darkest Burton film of all, which is really saying something. On the ironic flipside, this is a musical. So it will be fascinating to see the bloody violence contradict the spirited singing. Burton’s other musicals The Nightmare Before Christmas and Corpse Bride walked through similar territory, but this takes it to a whole new level.
What I hope this film will accomplish is be able to blend the music and the violence cohesively without alienating either type of audience. This film has the potential to surpass Ed Wood as Tim Burton’s best film and get him that directing nomination that he has deserved since Edward Scissorhands. Come Christmas time, this will be the most talked about film, and I believe the finest as well.
Sweeney Todd hits theaters December 21. Watch the trailer… when it comes out.
Likely to be disappointments:
The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, The Darjeeling Limited, Lions for Lambs, Michael Clayton, National Treasure 2
Undecided:
Bee Movie, Charlie Wilson’s War, Fred Claus, Reservation Road, There Will be Blood