Oldies:
2/10- My Most Anticipated Films for Fall
Summer 08,
Winter 07,
Summer 07,
Winter 06,
Summer 06
Brief Review: The Duchess
Also known as Marie-Antoinette 2, this dull drama is just more of the same from the wealthy European romance stereotype.
I realized something. I think what makes upper-class European love story films like Marie-Antoinette, Elizabeth: The Golden Age and this so terrible is the fact that they can’t relate with our own love lives. Their rules and trends of romance and love have nothing in common with today’s standard, so the audience can’t relate or care. Some films do a good job in bridging the gap (Pride and Prejudice), but many don’t. That’s why there is nothing really worth enjoying about this film, except maybe the sets, costumes and an okay performance from Ralph Fiennes. Also, I’ve said it before and I’m saying it again, is Keira Knightley planning on trying out different types of roles any time soon?
Stars: 0.5 (out of 4)
Oscar Nominations: Art Direction, Costumes
Brief Review: Vicky Cristina Barcelona
Even though this is considered the fourth film of the “new Woody Allen”, I have the same problems with this film as essentially all of his previous ones.
I’m just going to say it: why are Woody Allen movies always about sex? Is it me, or is that always the predominant theme? I try to get more out of it, but film after film, that’s really all that happens. I’ll give the film credit for some decent writing of a narrator’s voice, and some okay performances. Penelope Cruz I suppose deserved her nomination, but she’s nowhere near as good as several of the other nominees. In the end, I just don’t think I’ll understand what’s so great about Woody Allen’s films, and this is no exception.
Stars: 1 (out of 4)
Oscar Nominations: Supporting Actress Penelope Cruz
Review: The Reader
It is often difficult to remain objective in my analysis of a film when there is some significant extraneous factor regarding it, such as a film’s surprise Oscar nomination that pushes out a much more deserving nominee. But I can assure you that I say not out of vendetta that The Reader is by far one of the worst films of the year.
Sure the film may have had some good aspects. Performances were good from Ralph Fiennes and David Kross, who is technically, considering all the sexy scenes he got to do with Kate Winslet, the luckiest eighteen year old guy in the world. And Kate is good as always in what I agree should be considered a leading performance, but it’s not nearly as good as her not-nominated leading performance this year in Revolutionary Road. There are also some strong technical achievements most notably in makeup and cinematography. But none of these qualities can save this disaster.
This film is so terrible I don’t know where to begin. I could start by pointing out that the entire storyline is clichéd. As if we haven’t seen a film about post-war Germany, and questionable convictions. And though the film tries to be unexpected, I could predict everything coming, including the twisted, overdramatic and sense-lacking ending that would have been depressing if I had gotten more emotionally attached. But I didn’t get attached because there’s nothing worth liking about any of these characters. Michael is a greedy indulgent ungrateful SOB, while Hanna is a killer Nazi predator cougar milf. I cared nothing of what would happen to either of these characters.
Then there’s the little details. The ending runs on way too long. Scenes were clearly written for the acting they would provide and serve no point to the plot. And the German accents were so bad, they should have just gone the Valkyrie route and done no accents at all. And I don’t normally complain about how a film was made, but something here really bugs me. I mentioned in an earlier review of how uncomfortable I was with the many gay sex scenes in Milk. Well to a similar degree, I felt quite uncomfortable with the idea of an eighteen year old actor performing nude and graphic sex scenes with an actress nearly twice his age. Sure it’s legal, but I’m thinking that there should be a review of ethical standards in filmmaking.
The point is, the film’s director Stephen Daldry (also known for Billy Elliott and The Hours) is in a club of directors who make films for the sole purpose of winning awards. I group Lasse Hallstrom and the late Anthony Minghella in this club as well, which is why you’ll find Harvey Weinstein frequently recruiting them. The Reader was clearly made for the sole purpose of winning awards, a trick as transparent as that bra Kate wears in the river scene. The Academy may have fallen for the trick, but smart audiences will realize just how much this film really sucks. So please, prove to yourself that you are smarter than the Academy and avoid seeing this “head up its own butt” example of a film.
Stars: 1 (out of 4)
Oscar Nominations: Picture, Director, Actress Kate Winslet, Adapted Screenplay, Cinematography
Things keep getting worse because things keep staying the same. What I mean is that every year we think that the Academy is going to break some sort of glass ceiling and give out some revolutionary but deserving credit. But year after year, they keep doing the same standard routine, and fans keep getting more sick of it.
Last year’s Oscar morning was disappointing, and not just because it was the day of passing for Heath Ledger in the midst of a writers strike, but because so many deserving contenders were given the shaft by less deserving fare (ie Jason Reitman bumping Tim Burton, Surf’s Up bumping The Simpsons Movie). I didn’t think the Academy could top themselves in disgrace this year but they did. The obvious reason: The Reader instead of The Dark Knight. For six months now, people have been saying that The Dark Knight will become the first comic book movie and first superhero movie to get Oscar nominated for best picture. Nearly all the precursors said it would be. Practically every Oscar predictor predicted it would be. Then bam! Like the Joker attempting to create anarchy, the Academy doesn’t give the best picture nomination to a film that the critics and fans love, but to a dud award-baiting Weinstein-pushed critically-panned excuse for filmmaking like The Reader. To make things worse, they snub Knight’s breathtaking score, its engaging screenplay, and most importantly the brilliant never-nominated direction of Christopher Nolan. The Academy has seriously dug itself a grave here. Not only will the Academy voters lose more credibility over this, but any chance of seeing an increase in ratings at the Academy Awards broadcast is now impossible. Years from now, this will fall into the “What were they thinking?” file of Academy Awards decisions.
If you’re as angry about this as I am, I think I know who to blame. First of all, blame the Academy’s “membership for life” policy. The outcome of this is the fact that the majority of the Academy is elderly traditional people who don’t understand the significance of modern filmmaking. That is why they nominate a film that is traditionally Oscar-worthy, a film that has romance, period, and is about the Holocaust. Second, blame Harvey Weinstein and his ruthless campaigning for The Reader. For years, Weinstein has been campaigning hard to get his films nominated for as many Oscars as possible for the purpose of earning them more box-office, and him pocketing more money. His tactics are what caused Shakespeare in Love to beat Saving Private Ryan. Honestly, is there a single person on Earth who likes Harvey Weinstein? And finally, you can actually blame some people involved in The Dark Knight for choosing to re-release the film in theaters this weekend rather than around Dec 31, in the prime of voting time. If the film had been re-released then, voters would have been reminded of how great it is. Too late though.
Aside from that, the disappointments keep on coming. Clint Eastwood’s final acting performance ever will unfortunately go unrecognized, as will his direction and music composition this year. Sally Hawkins, who had such an enthusiastic campaign must be a little less than happy-go-lucky today. Waltz With Bashir somehow was left out of the animated film category, but at least it still has a strong shot in the foreign-language film category. And oddly, Bruce Springsteen’s song “The Wrestler” was not among the mere three song nominees. Honestly, I’m not that surprised because I kept on saying that the Academy will likely snub songs that are just played over the credits and aren’t in the context of the film. That’s why Springsteen missed out. I’m just glad the same didn’t happen to Wall-E.
Besides the Knight/Reader dilemma, the most talked about issue is likely what’s going to happen to Kate Winslet. Nearly everybody was predicting her to get nominated in the lead for Revolutionary Road and in supporting for The Reader, since those were the categories she was campaigned in. But the Academy proved once again that they don’t care what the campaigns say, they stick you where they want you, and they stuck Kate’s performance in The Reader in the lead category, thus preventing her from getting nominated for Revolutionary. I guess it’s somewhat bittersweet. I’m just glad her votes didn’t cancel. Now we have no basis on whether Kate will win or not. But my gut instinct tells me she finally will.
There was a spoon full of sugar with the bitter medicine though. I am proud of the results for supporting actor, not just because I accurately predicted the surprise inclusion of Michael Shannon, but because I think the Academy got this category perfectly right. I agree 100% that these are the five best supporting male performances this year. It’s not that often I agree with the Academy on a category perfectly, but I think they got it right. And I’m especially proud they went out on a limb and awarded both a superhero villain performance (Ledger) and a comedy performance (Downey Jr.). I also enjoyed the two nominations for Wanted, a fine film that Oscar predictors forgot about. And I’m always happy to see first-time nominees get accepted into the club like Danny Boyle, David Fincher, Mickey Rourke, Frank Langella, Richard Jenkins, Anne Hathaway, Melissa Leo, Josh Brolin, Michael Shannon, Viola Davis, and Taraji P. Henson. And I’m glad Danny Elfman, one of my favorite composers is back in competition after many years of neglect. Also, Danny Elfman for Milk is the only prediction that I called first, that came true. You heard it here first (several months ago) and it happened. Those are essentially my only saving graces today.
So how did I do? I accurately predicted 74 of the 111 nominees. That’s six better than last year. Of course, the live short and animated short were my worst categories, but at least I try unlike most. Categories where I got a perfect score include supporting actor, editing, visual effects and score.
Biggest Surprise Inclusions
-The Reader for Picture
-Stephen Daldry for Director
-Michael Shannon for Supporting Actor
-In Bruges and Frozen River for Original Screenplay
-Changeling for Cinematography
-The Duchess for Art Direction
-Milk for Costumes
-Hellboy II for Makeup
-Wanted for Sound Mixing AND Sound Editing
-Slumdog for Sound Editing
-Defiance for Score
-"O Saya" for Song
-The Garden for Documentary
Biggest Snubs
-The Dark Knight for Picture
-Christopher Nolan for Director
-Clint Eastwood for Actor
-Sally Hawkins for Actress
-Kate Winset (Revolutionary Road) for Actress
-Vicky Cristina Barcelona for Original Screenplay
-The Dark Knight for Adapted Screenplay
-Revolutionary Road for Cinematography
-Australia for Art Direction
-Changeling for Costumes
-Tropic Thunder for Makeup
-Iron Man for Sound Mixing
-The Dark Knight for Score
-The Wrestler for Song
-Waltz With Bashir for Animated Film
Unlikely Things I Got Right
-Richard Jenkins nominated for Actor
-Michael Shannon nominated for Supporting Actor (so deserving!)
-Dev Patel snubbed for Supporting Actor
-In Bruges nominated for Original Screenplay
-Defiance nominated for Score
-Dark Knight snubbed for Score
-"I Thought I Lost You" snubbed for Song
-One of the Animated Short Films: Presto
Proof that the Academy is Either Completely out of Touch or Hates all Mainstream Filmgoers Out There
-Dark Knight snubbed out of Picture, Director, Screenplay and Score
-Wall-E snubbed out of Picture and Director
-The Reader, a film that everybody now has to see, but nobody really wants to see, fills those spots
Broken Records/Trends
-Meryl Streep increases her record to 15 nominations
-Benjamin Button receives 13 noms, and only ten other films have achieved that many
-Heath Ledger is the seventh actor to pick up a posthumous acting nomination
-Kate Winslet youngest person with 6 nominations. Of course, Kate has often been the first person to score __ nominations by age __.
-All five best picture nominees were released in Decmber
-Only the fifth time best picture and director match 5/5.
-The first time ever that there are only two different films nominated for song.
-Wall-E has been nominated in 6 categories, more than any animated film before it. (Beauty and the Beast also had 6 noms, but 3 were for song).
-The Reader is the worst-reviewed best picture nominee in 38 years, according to Rottem Tomatoes.com. It has an RT score of 60%, and no best picture nominee has had lower since Nicholas and Alexandra in 1971.
Nomination Totals
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button - 13
Slumdog Millionaire - 10
Milk - 8
The Dark Knight - 8
Wall-E - 6
Frost/Nixon - 5
The Reader - 5
Doubt - 5
Changeling - 3
Revolutionary Road - 3
The Wrestler - 2
Frozen River - 2
The Duchess - 2
Iron Man -2
Wanted - 2
The Visitor, Rachel Getting Married, Tropic Thunder, Vicky Cristina Barcelona, Happy-Go-Lucky, In Bruges, Australia, Hellboy II: The Golden Army, Defiance, Bolt, Kung Fu Panda - 1
Review: Revolutionary Road
This serious suburban drama is a little too real and a little too depressing, but makes for some solid performances in an intriguing film.
Clearly, what I liked best was the film’s performances. Leo gives one of his best performances as the husband who wants to get out, but is at the same time afraid of the change. Kate gives the best performance I’ve ever seen from her, as the wife who goes through so many stages. At times she’s holding up her anger and emotions beneath her and at other times she lets them all flow out no matter how harsh her words are. Yet the most scene-stealing performance comes from underappreciated actor Michael Shannon who plays a mentally-unstable neighbor who even though he’s crazy, he’s the most honest person around. Shannon’s character isn’t afraid to point out what’s wrong with Frank and April’s lives and how they are making it worse. And he’s right on every account. It’s a strange phenomenon for the voice of reason to be the craziest guy around.
The story is fascinating but repetitive. I was intrigued by the ‘50s culture how men are expected to provide, women are expected to nest, and anybody who deviates from this is somehow an outcast. This message gets thrown at the audience again and again long after we get it. Not only is the message repetitive, but as is the ending, which like the third Lord of the Rings fools you several times at being over. And when the ending comes it becomes even more depressing. Most tragic endings have some light of hope but not this.
Revolutionary Road is anything but the feel good movie of the year. If anything, it has turned me away from marriage forever (not that I was anywhere near it). But the film still has its moments, its fine writing, and its brilliant performances from the iconic duo Leo and Kate.
Stars: 2.5 (out of 4)
Oscar Contention: Picture, Director, Actor Leonardo Dicaprio, Actress Kate Winslet, Supporting Actor Michael Shannon, Supporting Actress Kathy Bates, Adapted Screenplay, Cinematography, Art Direction, Editing, Costumes, Score
Review: The Wrestler
The best reviewed wide-release film of the year is an original piece with some unusual characters, but isn’t as revolutionary as some make it out to be.
Of course, what I like best about the film is Rourke’s performance. Not only does he exhibit all signs of a guy that’s been beaten up in every way, but he has the ability and the will power to do some crazy wrestling stunts. And what I like is how the film also serves as a reflection of Mickey Rourke’s career, since he was the next big thing in the ‘80s, then had a run of bad decisions and had trouble finding work, and now is facing a big comeback. Marisa Tomei is somewhat good just for getting down the seductive stripper persona. And Evan Rachel Wood is good just because she was given a couple scenes of throwing fits. And I was a little disappointed by Darron Aronofsky’s direction which was much simpler than his innovative films like Requiem for a Dream.
I enjoyed getting an understanding of the wrestler culture where the harder you push yourself, the bigger you become. But in the end the story was somewhat short and simple with no real revelations. It’s just a story of seeing a guy go through his day to day life where it is all understandable, but tedious. And personally, I’m not usually a fan of films that have inconclusive endings that leave the audience hanging, which is why I took off a few points for No Country for Old Men last year. Also, I feel like there was a bit of Oscar-bait put into the film, namely a crying scene for Rourke that the film could have done without.
Audiences should be warned that this film certainly earns its R-rating, not just for the strip club scenes but some brutal violence that is cringe-worthy to watch, namely a wrestling match that involves using broken glass, barbed wire and staple guns. But if your stomach can handle that, then you should see The Wrestler for its fine performances, smart examination of wrestling culture, and the resurrection of a star.
Stars: 2 (out of 4)
Oscar Contention: Picture, Director, Actor Mickey Rourke, Supporting Actress Marisa Tomei, Supporting Actress Evan Rachel Wood, Original Screenplay, Editing, Makeup, Song
Review: Frost/Nixon
Being born during the Reagan presidency, I have no recollection of the state of the country during the controversy and resignation of former president Richard Nixon, but I think this film gives me all I need to know.
Like I said, I don’t entirely know my history of the ‘70s, but the film showed me how it was a troubling time for the nation, how divided the country was, and how tough it must have been for Nixon to go through life being hated. I must commend Ron Howard for making it nonpartisan, for showing that Nixon was a flawed man, but also a kind and caring man who will admit to his mistakes. I think like many who saw the film, I actually may have come out of this film liking Nixon more than I did before. Also, I have to commend Howard for not creating any parallels with the current president, something I’m sure any other liberal filmmaker would have loved to do.
The clear standout performer here is clearly Frank Langella, I take some points away from him since he already perfected the role on the stage, but even with that it’s clearly the best lead performance I’ve seen this year. Aside from nailing Nixon’s voice and mannerisms (if maybe somewhat exaggerated), Langella shows Nixon’s layers. There’s the defensive showy outer layer that is impossible to penetrate, then there’s the remorseful inner layer that gets uncovered through the brutal questioning of David Frost. Sheen plays Frost well, but it’s not quite as memorable as his turn as Tony Blair in The Queen. The supporting cast is good as well, most notably the always underappreciated Sam Rockwell.
And yet the most enjoyable aspect of the film is how the interview closely resembles a game of chess. As Frost tries to knockout Nixon with a convicting question, Nixon becomes a pro at dancing around it and coming out on top. I realize that the interviews are fictionalized for dramatic effect, but it was still quite revolutionary. I would have actually asked Howard to make the film even more risqué, something I never ask directors to do. But Howard is known for keeping his films on the safe side. He even managed to dim down the controversy in The Da Vinci Code.
So Frost/Nixon becomes one of the best films of the year. Though simple and maybe a little short, it packs a lot of significance, drama and humanity in into its time, as well as serves as an excellent reflection of the ‘70s, and a realization of the difficulty of being a president hated by everybody.
Stars: 3.5 (out of 4)
Oscar Contention: Picture, Director, Actor Frank Langella, Actor Michael Sheen, Adapted Screenplay, Cinematography, Art Direction, Editing, Costumes, Makeup, Score
Brief Review: Mama Mia!
As it becomes increasingly common to adapt Broadway musicals into film, I have learned more about how to do it right and how to do it wrong. Mama Mia! got very little of it right.
My only compliments are Streep’s versatility as always, as well as some boldness in direction. But then I don’t have time to list my complaints so I’ll just name a few. The songs being unoriginal are written into the film having little or nothing to do with the context of the film. The film is overly rushed and cut too short, likely leaving out a lot of material. Piece Brosnan certainly cannot sing, and several others were not too great themselves. And one thing I have learned about musical adaptations is that when it is on the stage, the actors are meant to overact with big dances and overacting it because it’s impressive to the theater audience to see it all in front of them. But the movies, what’s created on the screen visually does not impress easily, and therefore overacting just comes off as annoying. Therefore, in the film transition, the acting should be dimmed down a little, something musicals like Chicago and Sweeney Todd got right. And this is just one of many things Mama Mia! got wrong.
Stars: 0.5 (out of 4)
Oscar Contention: none
Review: The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
This Oscar season’s most wondrous, magical and likely the longest film is a tale of love told beautifully, and breaks new boundaries of technology at the same time.
The easiest film to compare this to is Forrest Gump, and not just because they were both penned by screenwriter Eric Roth. They are both about abnormal southern men who go through their lives loving a normal girl as she keeps on coming and going, and as decades of American history pass them by. I liked Forrest Gump better because of its more clever story and important message. However, Ben Button trumps Gump in two big areas: beauty and technology.
What makes Benjamin Button beautiful is a combination of its cinematography, sets and costumes all representative of the decade currently onscreen, and in a way portraying the beauty of the moment whenever there is an important romantic scene between Benjamin and Daisy. And as for technology, Ben Button is the second film this year following The Dark Knight to combine makeup and visual effects cohesively. Since the film takes place over many decades, aging makeup is certainly necessary and is used heavily and convincingly, most astonishingly on Cate Blanchett when her character is over 80 years old. But when makeup isn’t enough, visual effect is used for the aging, a technique that was pioneered two years ago for X-Men: The Last Stand. This is used to make Brad Pitt look like a 20-year old in some later scenes, as well as using motion capture to place an animated aged Brat Pitt face on a smaller actor’s body to create the young Ben Button who is small but looks old. And even in close-ups and strong lighting, these digital faces were amazingly convincing. Therefore, it’s certainly the best makeup and visual effects of the year.
I do mention that the film is somewhat long for a relatively simple story and certain scenes could have been cut down or cut altogether. But this is a rare case where I care less about the story than the pure spectacle that I am witnessing on the screen, sort of like Transformers (that's right, you just heard me compare Benjamin Button to Transformers). Between the solid performances, the stunning visual achievements, and the breathtaking scenery, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is simply the most beautiful film of the year.
Stars: 3.5 (out of 4)
Oscar Contention: Picture, Director, Actor Brad Pitt, Actress Cate Blanchett, Supporting Actress Taraji P. Henson, Adapted Screenplay, Cinematography, Art Direction, Editing, Costumes, Makeup, Visual Effects, Sound, Sound Editing, Score
Brief Review: In Bruges
Debut writer and director Martin McDonagh (an Oscar-winning short film director) made this piece that’s clever and original, and a modestly good use of time.
McDonagh crafted an original story that’s witty and takes some unexpected turns. There are a good number of jokes in it, assuming you can understand them through the thick Irish accents. The performances are good, especially Colin Farrell who really deserved his Golden Globe nomination. However, the story is somewhat simple and underwhelming, and not quite as funny as it should be. But it makes for some simple enjoyment if you don’t mind some bloody violence along with your laughter.
Stars: 2.5 (out of 4)
Oscar Contention: Original Screenplay
Review: Doubt
Intense and thought-provoking, Doubt succeeds as a performance driven drama as well as an observation piece on real times.
By a wide margin, the strongest aspect of this film is the performances, as is common with many dramatic plays turned into films. Even though it didn’t seem possible, Meryl Streep outdoes herself again with a such a cold and bitter performance that it would make her character in The Devil Wears Prada shiver. Philip Seymour Hoffman continues his streak of being great in everything by creating a character of compassion who with a subtle performance gives out the smallest sign of dishonesty. Amy Adams is great once again as the only morphing character who starts off being the sunshine of the school but slowly becomes the new dictator. And Viola Davis, though not as great as Adams in my opinion, does her one fretful scene well as the mother of the possibly victimized boy.
Aside from performances, a few aspects are well directed, namely creating scenes of intensity and uncertainty. The film plays a lot like 12 Angry Men in that the audience becomes a member of the jury uncertain of guilt and must come to a decision on their own whether to prosecute. But the conflict is never really resolved and the conclusion remains open-ended something I think actually plays to the film’s disadvantage.
Also, I think that the film should have gone the Frost/Nixon route and chosen a more experienced director who wasn’t previously attached to the play. Therefore, there would have been less desire to stick to the source material and more freedom to reinvent the story. However, if you look at John Patrick Shanley’s body of film work, this is easily nonetheless his best film. So Doubt has some flaws from being too similar to the original version, but satisfies the need of anybody to see a finely acted drama piece.
Stars: 3 (out of 4)
Oscar Contention: Picture, Director, Actress Meryl Streep, Supporting Actor Philip Seymour Hoffman, Supporting Actress Amy Adams, Supporting Actress Viola Davis, Adapted Screenplay, Cinematography, Editing, Costumes, Score
Review: Slumdog Millionaire
Sometimes the kinds of films I appreciate the most are those of which their strong quality seriously surprises me. I went into Slumdog Millionaire knowing others loved it, but not knowing if I would, and I came out calling it one of the best pictures of the year.
I must say I really loved this film, but it’s somewhat difficult to pinpoint why I loved it. The best way is just to say that it’s a very satisfying story. Through Jamal’s troubled childhood, we grow greatly attached to him, and understand that he’s fighting against the machine of the Indian caste system. This is most exemplified when the “Millionaire” host attempts to feed Jamal the wrong answer and then has him arrested for supposedly cheating. It’s a fascinating observation of how divided the culture is and how unacceptable it would be for a slumdog to become a millionaire.
Dev Patel, the only non-Indian native actor (he’s English) gives the best performance as the old version of Jamal. Danny Boyle directs the picture brilliantly by finding the color and energy in everything, including the depressing scenarios. He also is not afraid to portray aspects of India poorly such as the crime rate against tourists, which if seen by many might not help attract tourism to India.
Though I do have a conflict with the idea that two people could spend no more than three days together and fall in love with each other so deeply that they would seek each other out. Maybe I just don’t believe in fairy tales like that. And I don’t normally criticize a film’s end credits sequence, but the whole song and dance number seemed a little out of place for a film that’s full of death and despair. Yet the film itself is certainly a masterpiece because it’s several things in one. It’s a fascinating depiction of a culture and its boundaries. It’s a courageous tale of human accomplishment against all odds. It’s a cherished story of true love. And it’s a thriller as intense as an episode of “Who Wants to be a Millionaire” when it was in its prime. This makes the film worth seeing for any type of audience, and makes it among the best pictures of the year.
Stars: 3.5 (out of 4)
Oscar Contention: Picture, Director, Supporting Actor Dev Patel, Adapted Screenplay, Cinematography, Editing, Score, Song
Review: Milk
What will certainly be one of this year’s biggest Oscar contenders is a fascinating story with nothing but great performances, but the kind of film that certainly is not everybody’s cup of tea.
What I like best is Gus Van Sant’s directorial style. This film almost seems part-documentary due to the heavy use of archived news footage and combining hand-held camera techniques with faded filters to make the film footage seem like news footage from the ‘70s. There were times when I didn’t know what was real and what was filmed, which I think plays to the film’s advantage. This helps the audience get the feel of the ‘70s and the culture of the Castro district.
The style is aided by the performances of a strong cast. Sean Penn is as good as always, though not a career best. Josh Brolin as the tormented righteous murdering Twinkie-injecting Dan White, and Emile Hirsch as the flamboyant mannerisms-a-plenty political aide Cleve Jones are neck in neck for the best supporting performance. Diego Luna is also memorable as Milk’s possessive lover, but I was expecting much better work out of James Franco who doesn’t give his character everything he should have.
Yet there are two lingering problems of this film, the first being bad timing. I’m not just talking about being released after California’s Prop. 8 passed (Note that I think any notion that a film can influence millions of people to change their vote is ridiculous. Note the failure of Fahrenheit 9/11). I mean this film came out just weeks after a heavy presidential election, and I was somewhat frustrated to go see a movie about political campaigns, debates, and becoming the first something elected to office, when that’s all I’ve been hearing about for the last two years. If they could have just picked another release year, this really wouldn’t be a problem.
Additionally, I don’t consider myself homophobic, but I gotta tell ya, I am a little uncomfortable with seeing lots of graphic gay kissing and gay sex throughout a film, and I certainly don’t think I’m alone here. I mean I really liked Brokeback Mountain because it was more focused on the love relationship rather than the sexual one, and it didn’t hit the audience over the head with graphic depictions like Milk does. I’m just saying, as accurate as it may be, it was a little too much for my comfort level.
Furthermore, I feel somewhat undereducated by what personally made Harvey Milk so special. From what I learned it seems like any of Milk’s friends could have run for office instead of him, and would get the same result. So why Harvey? But this underdevelopment is not a reason to avoid a film with such a fascinating story, excellent style and performances, and some good music. It’s more a situation where you know what you’re going to see. So if you think you’ll like it, go see it because you will. If you think you won’t like it, don’t because you won’t.
Stars: 3 (out of 4)
Oscar Contention: Picture, Director, Actor Sean Penn, Supporting Actor Josh Brolin, Supporting Actor Emile Hirsch, Supporting Actor James Franco, Supporting Actor Diego Luna, Original Screenplay, Cinematography, Editing, Score
Review: Australia
The fourth film by Australian overly-stylized director Baz Luhrman and his first in seven years is a long and grand-scale triumph of lesser quality than his predecessors, but still deserving more respect than it’s been getting.
The funny thing is that I read a while ago that Baz Luhrman abandoned his rapid enthusiastic over the top style for this film, so I was surprised when I saw that very same style in the first fifteen minutes of this film. After that the style mellowed out again and got more serious as the two lead characters, who were originally polar opposites as the uptight proper over-packed wealthy woman and the rugged dirty poorly-groomed bar-fighting cowboy, find a happy medium where they both become professional people who still enjoy the outdoors. This back and forth love story, combined with historical events and some education on a little known culture are what make it a strong original screenplay.
Like I often say, a movie is only as good as the sum of its parts, and here the sum is rather large. All actors in the film that I am familiar with give some of their best performances yet. Set design, costumes, and music are all excellent. And Luhrman films continue to be impressive with their sweeping and colorful camera shots. And even though this isn’t Luhrman’s best effort, he deserves recognition for his direction, especially since it’s something he was snubbed out of for Moulin Rouge.
Much to my surprise, this film has received a lot of criticism from the critics, only a few points of which I agree with. Sure the film is exceedingly long, and there are at least a couple of trick endings, but looking back, that’s how a lot of classic romances are. My only complaints come from scenes that seem to have been done repeatedly in movies before, especially the scenes that see a wealthy overdressed woman frightened by the very nature of the outdoors. I got sick of that last time I saw Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom.
It’s true what they say, in that they don’t make big epic historical romances like this anymore. It’s been at least ten years since we saw anything like Out of Africa, The English Patient or Reds, and yet I believe Australia is superior to them all. It’s the first romantic epic for a 21st century audience, and yet those who grew up with the old epics will likely love it as well.
Stars: 3 (out of 4)
Oscar Contention: Picture, Director, Actor Hugh Jackman, Actress Nicole Kidman, Supporting Actor Brandon Walters, Original Screenplay, Cinematography, Art Direction, Editing, Costumes, Makeup, Sound, Score
Brief Review: The Visitor
The Visitor is the kind of independent film that shines from a film festival as is remembered for an original story and maybe one fine performance.
Richard Jenkins does give his career best performance, and the supporting players aren’t bad either. And I give it credit for being modern, original, and real. But then again, it feels short and simple, has somewhat of a disappointing ending, and forces down a political message that I could have done without. So it might be good for the film festival crowd, but not for mainstream America.
Stars: 2 (out of 4)
Oscar Contention: Actor Richard Jenkins, Supporting Actress Hiam Abbass, Original Screenplay
Review: Quantum of Solace
Like Casino Royale the last and possibly best episode of the James Bond franchise, Quantum of Solace attempts to redefine the character, but who would have thought they could take it too far?
Those details on the plot were essentially all that I could figure out, and it already sounds somewhat absurd. Apparently, the villainous ploy is meant to be eco-terrorism, or an attack on the environment, combined with several messages about the Western world’s dependence on oil. Getting into real-life politics is unnecessary and an unfortunate distraction. And the plot even seems too small-scale. Usually, Bond is trying to save an entire nation if not the world. Here, he’s just trying to prevent a drought or something. Why should the audience care when the stakes are so low? Sometimes the audience cares if the villain is a cold-hearted evil genius, but Greene certainly is not. He’s a non-disfigured short businessman who actually fights like a girl. Why should the audience care about stopping this guy? I certainly don’t.
But perhaps what’s most disturbing is that this does not seem to be the same James Bond that we’ve seen twenty-one times before, and I’m not just talking about his drink order. Bond’s friends die all the time, but I never thought I would see him cradle one in his arms until he was gone. I never thought Bond would not sleep with the Bond girl. And I certainly never thought that given the opportunity, (not such a big spoiler alert) Bond would decide not to kill the bad guy. This just doesn’t really seem like the same Bond. And combined with not giving Daniel Craig more than three words in a line prevented us from learning if there is something really new about the character.
Then there are just several small flaws that distract when you should be paying attention. Like the obvious inclusion of the line “We have people everywhere”, as an obvious plot device so that Bond could get attacked by anybody anywhere. Or there’s the contradiction by taking away Bond’s gadgets to make the movie more real, then giving MI-6 a high-tech video screen from the Star Trek universe. And don’t get me started on the editing work which was about ten times Michael Bay level seizure-inducing cutting to the point of having no clue what’s happening. In many ways, I think they were trying too hard to be The Bourne Ultimatum. Though one of my saving graces is once again seeing Judi Dench as the authoritarian M, always a treat.
I’m not sure who would be disappointed more by this, general audiences or hardcore Bond fans. But I’m sure they’ll both get enjoyment in some of the action sequences even if they aren’t nearly the best in the franchise, and even if you’re getting few movie minutes for your money than average. Action choreography might be the only aspect of this film that didn’t blunder significantly (though I’m well aware they blundered it repeatedly behind the scenes). So see it if you want to find out what happens next to James Bond, but don’t be surprised if you don’t recognize Bond when you see him.
Stars: 2 (out of 4)
Oscar Contention: Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Song
Brief Review: Burn After Reading
The first film for the Coen Brothers after their big win at the Oscars goes back to their random human comedy roots. The problem is that they are trying too hard to be smarter than the audience.
What made The Big Lebowski one of my favorite comedies is the extremely random characters wrapped up in a twisted crime plot. Burn is similar but the characters aren’t nearly as random and the crime plot way too twisted. There was also a significant under abundance of laugh out loud moments. The cast is all talented, and everybody puts in a great performance, but it all gets wasted on nothing. And by the way, I picked up on a trend; in every Coen Brothers movie, doesn't some character who doesn't necessarily deserve to die unexpectedly dies? What I wanted to say to this movie is the same thing that a CIA superior says in the middle of the film, “Report back to me when it makes sense.”
Stars: 2 (out of 4)
Oscar Contention: Supporting Actor John Malkovich, Supporting Actor Brad Pitt, Supporting Actress Frances McDormand, Original Screenplay
Brief Review: An American Carol
When it comes to low-effort slapstick comedies, I usually side with the critics and pan every one that comes out. But when an independent production company finally finds a studio that will give them funding to make a comedy for conservatives, by conservatives, I have to commend the effort and the result.
I recognize that the acting is lame, and some slapstick gags fall flat. But I’m impressed Hollywood was able to give Zucker enough money to do what he did. The film is a great accomplishment for breaking the liberal hold of Hollywood and getting a message out there to the mainstream filmgoers that there is a serious terrorist threat against America, and it is our duty to defend it. The film gives viewers new perspectives, like how America would still have slavery if President Lincoln had listened to war protesters. Then it points out the obvious, like how ACLU lawyers are brainless zombies, and how Michael Moore is a big douche. I’m just glad there is finally a film that conservatives can watch and laugh at. Is it so much to ask for a movie like that more often?
Stars: 2.5 (out of 4)
Oscar Contention: none
5. Burn After Reading
Sure the Coen Brothers have done great things with their dark thrillers like No Country for Old Men and Fargo, but I’ve been a bigger fan of their random character original comedies like Raising Arizona and The Big Lebowski. Likewise, I’m eager to see their latest original comedy, Burn After Reading.
Brad Pitt and Frances McDormand star as two gym employees who recover a lost CIA data CD and try to blackmail the owner played by John Malkovich. George Cloony and Tilda Swinton also star. Like Big Lebowski, this is a case of stupid people having the upper hand on smart people. Early reviews are mixed, but hopefully this will live up to the comedic expectations that Joel and Ethan Coen have set.
Burn After Reading hits theaters September 12. Watch the trailer here.
4. Australia
Australian director Baz Luhrman’s first film since he was snubbed out of a nomination in 2002 for Moulin Rouge! is this WWII drama set in the land down under. Nicole Kidman stars as an Englishwoman who inherited an Australian ranch, and Hugh Jackman is the cowboy who helps her run it. To me it sounds a lot like the Ada half of Cold Mountain.
I’m a big fan of Luhrman’s ’96 film Romeo + Juliet even if it is a little over the top in eccentricity at times. My understanding is that he has abandoned his eccentric style for this film. Change of style sometimes is a smart thing for directors. This could be a big letdown, but for now I’m looking forward to it because of Luhrman’s direction, Jackman’s performance, and my general interest in Australia.
Australia hits theaters November 26. Watch the trailer here.
3. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
If you ignore the early career fluke of Alien 3, David Fincher has made some intriguing thrillers from Se7en to Fight Club to Zodiac. Like many directors in the last couple of years, he’s changing style to do this fantasy drama based on the famous short story by F. Scott Fitzgerald.
Brad Pitt stars as Benjamin Button, a man who was born looking like an elderly man and his looks get younger as his age gets older. Cate Blanchett, Tilda Swinton and Tarja P. Henson also star. Other than that, I don’t know much about the plot, but I still think I’ll enjoy the film for its fine performances, it’s poetic stylization, and the always impressive storytelling of David Fincher.
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button hits theaters December 25. Watch the trailer here.
2. Body of Lies
Having now surveyed Ridley Scott’s career, I have to say that his old career of slowly-paced sci-fi pics (Alien, Blade Runner) can’t compare with his new career of fast-paced action-packed but serious dramas (Gladiator, Black Hawk Down, American Gangster). And I certainly hope that Body of Lies falls into that second category.
The film is based on a true story about a CIA operative working undercover in Iraq (Leonardo Dicaprio), and a commander who is jeopardizing the missions (Ridley Scott regular Russell Crowe). The plot seems to be taking a dual-contrast story between the two principal characters, just like American Gangster, a formula I thought worked well. I believe it will work well here too, and even if it doesn’t get Scott his overdue Oscar, it should at least get some good box office numbers.
Body of Lies hits theaters October 10. Watch the trailer here.
1. Quantum of Solace
I never thought I would put a James Bond film as my most anticipated of the season, but unfortunately, this appears to be a very weak fall season, and I have few good options. But Quantum of Solace, the follow-up to 2006’s successful reboot of the franchise Casino Royale, looks like it will pack the same intensity and realism that made Daniel Craig the new Bond favorite.
Not many plot details have surfaced about this episode, but as usual it should feature some good car chases, fist fights, and love scenes. I do believe that there is somewhat of an environmental theme behind this plot, which makes my scared, but I’m confident that director Marc Forster (Monsters Ball, Finding Neverland) isn’t intending to do some public service message with it.
It wasn’t until the last few years that I got into the Bond franchise and I still haven’t seen too many of the 21 films in the series. But I’m betting that this will be another thrilling modern addition to the endless franchise.
Quantum of Solace hits theaters November 14. Watch the trailer here.
Likely to be disappointments:
The Day the Earth Stood Still, Madagascar 2, Miracle at St. Anna, Valkyrie, W.
Undecided:
Changeling, Eagle Eye, The Soloist, The Spirit, Yes Man