Random Factoid #508

18 12 2010

Eek, I’m really scrounging for factoids … and not finding much.  Honestly, a part of me just wants to say that I caught a really strange pop culture reference in “How Do You Know” today.  On Reese Witherspoon’s mirror, there are all sorts of inspirational quotes about courage and other virtues.  Then, there’s a quote from KeKe Palmer’s song “Bottoms Up.”  You got some swagger, better let ’em know; you got some swagger, better let ’em show.  It belongs right next to Shakespeare and Biblical passages.

(If you want to listen to the line, it’s around 2:10 in the video.)

Yet another part of me wants to tell you that my family’s Christmas tree was dubbed “The Avatar Tree” by me today after these horrific white orb lights we bought from Target make it look like those little dandelion spirits of the forest.  My mom and I were going to dismantle the tree and replace them with new lights, but we decided to live with “The Avatar Tree” rather than waste two hours of our life for a tree that would like pretty for a week.

Or perhaps I’ll just complain about how peeved I am with the ticket-taker at AMC Studio 30, who won’t stop eyeing me as if I’m a 13-year-old trying to sneak into an R-rated movie.  I showed you my ID once, I’M 18 YEARS OLD!

Maybe I’ll just cop out and post this funny cartoon I found thanks to /Film:

Speaking of WikiLeaks, has anyone noticed the resemblance???  It seems pretty obvious who’s going to play Julian Assange in the WikiLeaks movie.  Future Oscar-winning performance right here.

NPH Assange

I’m dog-beat, and this running around in circles trying to entertain you with a new factoid is about the best I can muster right now.  I’ve come up with stories, opinions, and all sorts of other stuff for 507 straight days – today is a sort of reprieve where I just use this post for an open page to express all the stuff running around in my mind.





Oscar Moment: December 17, 2010 Awards Round-Up / New Predictions

17 12 2010

Well, folks, if you had any doubt that Oscar season was here before this week, you can’t now.  Nearly every critics group chimed in with their best of the year, and we got two massively important nominations lists from the Golden Globes and the Screen Actors Guild.  The puzzle is really starting to come together, and since there was so much going on, the format of the last two weeks just didn’t really work.

In place of the usual “here’s the group, here’s what they selected” rambling, I decided to issue a new set of predictions based on what we saw over the past week.

A few notes before I begin: there’s no poll this week, and I’m debating whether or not to include one at all from here on out because there has been so little participation.  Also, please click the links! I spend a lot of time linking the titles of movies to other posts I’ve written that might be of interest.  The first time I mention a movie, it links to the trailer on YouTube.  The second mention goes to my Oscar Moment on the movie.  The third mention goes to my review, if applicable.

Past predictions: Early December 2010November 2010September 2010.

Best Picture:

  1. The Social Network
  2. The King’s Speech
  3. The Fighter (7)
  4. Inception
  5. Black Swan (3)
  6. Toy Story 3 (5)
  7. The Kids Are All Right (10)
  8. Winter’s Bone
  9. True Grit
  10. 127 Hours (6)

No change in my top 10, but some big trends have emerged.  It’s clear that “The Social Network” is the critics’ group darling of 2010.  Do you want me to name all the cities and organizations who named it their Best Picture?  I’m proud to say my own city of Houston named it theirs (updated on Saturday).  Ok, here’s the list:

  • African-American Film Critics
  • Boston Society of Film Critics
  • Dallas-Fort Worth Film Critics Association
  • Detroit Film Critics Society
  • Houston Film Critics Society
  • Indiana Film Journalists Association
  • Las Vegas Film Critics Society
  • Los Angeles Film Critics Association
  • New York Film Critics Circle
  • New York Film Critics Online
  • San Francisco Film Critics Circle
  • Southeastern Film Critics Association
  • Toronto Film Critics Association
  • Washington, D.C. Area Film Critics Association

In addition, it picked up nominations from nods from critics in Chicago, St. Louis, and Phoenix who have yet to announce their winners.  On top of the previous win from the National Board of Review, “The Social Network” clearly has a ton of heat heading into the home stretch.  It received 6 Golden Globe nominations including Best Picture (Drama), 9 Critics Choice Award (BFCA) nominations including Best Picture, and 2 Screen Actors Guild (SAG) Award nominations including Best Ensemble, their version of Best Picture.  Critics make a difference, but they don’t decide Best Picture.  It helps, though, that it won top prize from the incredibly influential film centers of New York and Los Angeles.

However, “The King’s Speech” set itself up for a second-stage surge by scoring more nominations than “The Social Network” at all three of the major groups that announced this week.  It received 7 Golden Globe nominations, the most of any movie in 2010, including Best Picture.  It received 11 BFCA nominations including Best Picture.  It received 4 SAG Award nominations, tied for the most of any movie in 2010, including Best Ensemble.

These voters are not necessarily like critics in their taste, and it would only take a win of one of these big awards to hoist Tom Hooper’s film to the top spot. I wouldn’t be surprised to see it win the Globe for Best Picture simply because they almost always choose the most nominated movie.  Then again, that strategy didn’t work out in 2008 when “Slumdog Millionaire” with 4 nominations triumphed over the pack leader “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” with 5 nominations.  “Slumdog” swept the critics awards that year, so there could be an interesting parallel forming.

But for me, one of the big stories of the week was the emergence of “The Fighter” as a serious contender.  We had heard good things, but most called it somewhat predictable and formulaic.  No one was jumping up and down with joy, yet we saw an unprecedented outpouring of support this week.  It received 6 BFCA nominations including Best Picture, 4 SAG Award nominations, tied for the most of 2010, including Best Ensemble, and 6 Golden Globe nominations including Best Picture.  I got a chance to catch the movie this week, and it’s feel-good surface could make it a dark horse to watch out for in the race.

Then again, so could “Inception,” which picked up 4 Golden Globe nominations including Best Picture, something Christopher Nolan’s “The Dark Knight” couldn’t do back in 2008.  It has also been a staple on the critics circuit, although taking second fiddle to “The Social Network” of course.  The summer blockbuster has been a part of every top 5 or 10, practically the only certainty outside of a movie not involving Facebook. With 10 BFCA nominations as well, it could make a play for Best Picture as well.  It could easily wind up the most nominated film of 2010 at the Oscars given its impressive technical aspects.

“Black Swan” is also making strides in the race, scoring a record 12 nominations from the BFCA, 4 nominations from the Golden Globes including Best Picture, and 3 SAG Award nominations including Best Ensemble.  The box office has helped too, and as it expands into more theaters, expect it to be the audience favorite art-house movie.  I think it’s got to be a shoo-in for a nomination now, although the win will be tricky given the subject matter.

“The Kids Are All Right” goes up thanks to its great showing with the New York Film Critics Circle, winning more categories than “The Social Network,” and receiving 4 Golden Globe nominations including Best Picture (Musical/Comedy) as well as 3 SAG Award nominations including Best Ensemble.  It had a big miss with the BFCA, though, failing to score a Best Picture nomination.  It should easily win the Globe for Best Picture, and the prospects are looking much better than they did last week.  But I’m still not entirely certain that it’s going to get an Oscar nomination…

“Winter’s Bone” continues to stride nicely towards a Best Picture nomination, notable for being the only movie to win a Best Picture prize from a critics group other than “The Social Network” (kudos to San Diego for the originality).  It missed with the Golden Globes, but they rarely delve THAT indie.

Slipping this week are “True Grit” and “127 Hours,” neither of which found much love from the Golden Globes.  The former was completely shut out while the latter received three nominations but not for Best Picture or Director.  The one-man show was unlikely to score a SAG nomination apart from Franco, but “True Grit” missed big by not receiving a Best Ensemble nomination given its star-studded cast.  They did manage to score with the BFCA, both receiving a nomination for Best Picture.  “True Grit” received 11 total nominations from the group while “127 Hours” scored an impressive 8.  Neither look very strong at this stage, and if there are going to be any surprises on nomination morning, it could come at the expense of these two movies.

Worth noting: all movies predicted (with the exception of “The King’s Speech” because it was ineligible) appeared on the American Film Institute’s Top 10 films of the year.  Ben Affleck’s “The Town” was also included.

Best Director:

  1. David Fincher, “The Social Network” 
  2. Christopher Nolan, “Inception”  (4)
  3. Darren Aronofsky, “Black Swan” 
  4. Tom Hooper, “The King’s Speech”  (2)
  5. David O. Russell, “The Fighter”  (NR)

Dropping off: Danny Boyle

Barring some massive surge of appreciation for the boldness of Nolan or Aronofsky’s work this year, Fincher has this in the bag simply because he’s the only prior nominee with his eyes on the prize and he deserves it.  (Nolan took home Best Director from the African-American Critics Association and the Indiana Film Journalists Association, and Aronofsky won with San Diego and San Francisco critics.)

Tom Hooper moves down because the actors are the star of the campaign, not him.  Since so few people know of him and his other movies, there’s no rush to recognize him.

Boyle departs the list this week as love for “127 Hours” has grown soft, replaced with reservations by David O. Russell.  Given that he’s not the most popular man in Hollywood, it’s going to be hard for him to score a nomination.  But if the love for “The Fighter” continues, the goodwill could push him into the race.

Best Actor:

  1. Colin Firth, “The King’s Speech” 
  2. Jesse Eisenberg, “The Social Network”  (3)
  3. James Franco, “127 Hours”  (2)
  4. Mark Wahlberg, “The Fighter”  (NR)
  5. Ryan Gosling, “Blue Valentine” 

Dropping off: Robert Duvall

Firth still stands steadfast at the top amidst all.  He has made a decent showing with the critics, winning top marks from Detroit, San Francisco, Washington D.C., the Southeastern critics, and the incredibly important groups in New York and Los Angeles, both of which chose “The Social Network” as their Best Picture.  If all else fails, he should be the one way the Academy knows they can reward “The King’s Speech.”

But the real story of the season so far is massive surge of love for Jesse Eisenberg, whose performance in “The Social Network” could easily have been overlooked due to his age.  That has not been the case so far as Eisenberg has dominated the critics circuit, winning top prizes from Boston, Houston, and Toronto in addition to taking the first prize of the year from the National Board of Review.  If the movie starts dominating everything in its path a la “Slumdog Millionaire,” Eisenberg could surprise and win.

Yet James Franco has won more awards on the critics circuit, taking the prize from Dallas-Fort Worth, Indiana, Las Vegas, and the New York Film Critics Online.  This is the kind of performance that the critics really love, and its adulation from this corner doesn’t necessarily translate to Oscar gold.  Apparently a lot of people simply won’t watch the movie because they are scared (which is a terrible reason), and the overall buzz for the movie has plummeted thanks to that and Fox Searchlight’s clumsy release strategy.

Firth, Eisenberg, and Franco are all locks at this moment, their status solidified by appearing on nearly every Best Actor shortlist including from the BFCA, Golden Globes, and SAG Awards.  After that, there are essentially four actors vying for the final two slots – Jeff Bridges, Robert Duvall, Ryan Gosling, and Mark Wahlberg.  The first two are the conservative picks; the last two are riskier.

Bridges and Duvall both received nominations from the SAG Awards and the BFCA but were overlooked by the Golden Globes.  The SAG is usually a good indicator of the Academy’s ultimate selections, but they are also notorious for getting sentimental for older actors.  Given the tepid support for “True Grit” and the absence of support for “Get Low,” I don’t know if the Academy can justify to itself the inclusion of two prior winners in movies they didn’t really like.

Mark Wahlberg, a prior nominee for 2006’s “The Departed,” only managed to score a nomination from the Golden Gloves and a win from the African-American Film Critics Association, but the surge for “The Fighter” bodes well for his chances despite missing nods from the BFCA and the SAG Awards.  The leading actor usually gets swept along for the ride in scenarios like these, and that feels likely for Wahlberg.  However, since the heart of the film is Christian Bale, not leading man Wahlberg, he could still be overlooked.

And then there’s Ryan Gosling, Best Actor nominee in 2006 for “Half Nelson,” whose raw performance I still keep in my top 5.  There are two interesting trajectories Gosling has taken through awards season: in 2006, he was nominated by the BFCA but snubbed by the Golden Globes and SAG Awards on the way to an Oscar nomination.  In 2007, his work in “Lars and the Real Girl” was recognized by all three organizations yet not nominated by the Academy.  “Blue Valentine” is an entirely different path, as Gosling was nominated by the BFCA and Golden Globes but not by the SAG Awards.  I have faith … for now.

Best Actress:

  1. Natalie Portman, “Black Swan” 
  2. Annette Bening, “The Kids Are All Right” 
  3. Jennifer Lawrence, “Winter’s Bone”  (4)
  4. Michelle Williams, “Blue Valentine”  (5)
  5. Nicole Kidman, “Rabbit Hole”  (3)

No change in my top 5 this week as the same four actresses – Portman, Bening, Lawrence, Kidman – seeming to dominate the circuit collected nominations from the BFCA, the SAG Awards, and the Golden Globes.  Unfortunately, due to the conflicting genre of their movies, we won’t get a Bening/Portman face-off at the latter ceremony.  (And as a note, Kidman is at #5 because I just don’t think she will win.  I see her as the Helen Mirren in “The Last Station” of 2010, a prior winner collecting every nomination but never with a real shot to win.)

I’m still picking Portman as I feel her performance is too good to be denied, and the love for “Black Swan” is high.  She has also established herself as a critical favorite, winning awards from groups in Boston, Dallas-Fort Worth, Houston, Indiana, Las Vegas, the Southeast, and the New York Film Critics Online.  She has appeared on every shortlist for Best Actress, minor as a critics group or major as the BFCA, Golden Globes, and SAG Awards.

As I discussed last week, Portman has the performance but Bening has the respect.  To win, she doesn’t need to be collecting all these awards, although it would help.  She took home a very important Best Actress prize from the New York Film Critics Circle, a very influential group in the race.  Until we see her go up against Portman, I see no reason to say she’s entitled to an Oscar victory for her career.  She will need to win from the BFCA or the SAG Awards to assert her authority.

Jennifer Lawrence has also shown up on nearly every list made by critics, and she’s been winning her fair share of awards too, including from Detroit, San Diego, Toronto, and Washington D.C.  She’s a critical darling in her own right, but I think she’s too young and too fresh a face to win.

There are several actresses vying for that last spot – Hilary Swank for “Conviction” who received a surprise SAG nomination, Halle Berry for “Frankie & Alice” who received a Golden Globe nomination, Julianne Moore for “The Kids Are All Right” who received a Golden Globe nomination, dark horse Swedish actress Noomi Rapace for “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” who received a BFCA nomiation, and Lesley Manville for “Another Year” who won the National Board of Review’s prize for Best Actress.

But I still think that last spot will be filled by Michelle Williams for “Blue Valentine” who was recognized by the Golden Globes and the BFCA as one of the best actresses of the year.  She’s been an Oscar nominee before, and I think she has what it takes to sneak in.

Best Supporting Actor:

  1. Christian Bale, “The Fighter” 
  2. Geoffrey Rush, “The King’s Speech” 
  3. Jeremy Renner, “The Town”  (5)
  4. Andrew Garfield, “The Social Network” 
  5. Mark Ruffalo, “The Kids Are All Right”  (NR)

Dropping off: Matt Damon

Christian Bale has become the closest thing to a lock we can get this season, winning nearly everything in sight.  In addition to picking up Best Supporting Actor nominations from the BFCA, Golden Globes, and the SAG Awards, he won the award from Boston, Dallas-Fort Worth, Detroit, Houston, Indiana, Las Vegas, New York Film Critics Online, and Washington D.C.  If nothing else, Oscar socialism could be at work here to give “The Fighter” a trophy.

Geoffrey Rush received the trifecta of nominations this week as well, although his only win on the critics circuit has come from the Southeastern Film Critics Association.  He was the runner-up, though, for the Los Angeles critics, a very influential group.  If Bale’s temper flares up soon, expect Rush to capitalize and take the trophy.

Rising this week is Jeremy Renner, last year’s Best Actor nominee for “The Hurt Locker,” who also received the three crucial nominations that Bale and Rush did.  He’s a quick way to recognize the movie if they don’t want to give it a Best Picture nomination.

Andrew Garfield, while being recognized by the BFCA and Golden Globes, was snubbed by the SAG Awards.  While I think the success of “The Social Network” will keep him afloat, I don’t think his nomination is any certainty.  Worth noting – some much deserved love went the way of Armie Hammer, Garfield’s co-star who breathed life into the Winklevi, from the Toronto Film Critics for Best Supporting Actor.  Two nominees from the same movie hasn’t happened in this category for almost 20 years, but perhaps if “The Social Network” hits big, it could happen.

Mark Ruffalo finally makes it into my shortlist after receiving the Best Supporting Actor prize from the influential New York Film Critics Association as well as nominations from the BFCA and SAG Awards.  It’s still a little strange that he missed out on a Golden Globe nomination (at the inclusion of Michael Douglas in “Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps,” no less), but the surge of love for the movie looks to power him into the race over John Hawkes in “Winter’s Bone,” who received a SAG Award nomination in addition to his prizes from San Francisco and San Diego.

Best Supporting Actress:

  1. Melissa Leo, “The Fighter”  (3)
  2. Mila Kunis, “Black Swan”  (NR)
  3. Helena Bonham Carter, “The King’s Speech”  (2)
  4. Amy Adams, “The Fighter” 
  5. Jacki Weaver, “Animal Kingdom”  (NR)

Dropping off: Hailee Steinfeld, Dianne Weist

I still have no idea what to make of this category.  Melissa Leo seems to be an across-the-board favorite, so I’m inclined to favor her.  She received nominations from all three major groups announcing this week and won the award from Dallas-Fort Worth, Washington D.C., the New York Film Critics Online, and most importantly the New York Film Critics Circle.  In a year where there appears to be no clear favorite, she may be the consensus choice that everyone can agree on.

Amy Adams was also on board with Leo for the big three this week, also winning Detroit and Las Vegas’ prize.  She could ultimately be Leo’s foil as vote-splitting becomes an issue.  Of the six movies that received dual Best Supporting Actress nominations over the past decade, only one managed to win (Catherine Zeta-Jones over Queen Latifah in “Chicago”).

Mila Kunis stormed onto the scene this week, capturing nominations from the BFCA, Golden Globes, and SAG Awards.  For a girl who this time last year was best known in cinema for her roles in “Forgetting Sarah Marshall” and “Max Payne,” this is a startling turnaround.  The love shows that they love her performance, and I think the Oscars will reciprocate the love in a few weeks.

Helena Bonham Carter continues to ride on the coattails of the success of “The King’s Speech,” also popping up in all three major groups announcing their nominations this week.  I see her much like Taraji P. Henson for “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” or Catherine Keener for “Capote” – great actresses turning in fairly good performances in beloved movies.  Fairly good can’t win, but it’s sure going to get nominated.

The campaign for Jacki Weaver worked, so pat yourself on the back, Sony Pictures Classics.  The “Animal Kingdom” actress was cited by the BFCA and Golden Globes as one of the five best supporting performances of the year, and she won the title outright from the  Los Angeles critics, an extremely good sign that she’s headed for a nomination.  The SAG snub hurt, and she still has to deal with lack of notoriety.  But if it’s about the performance, she stands a good chance.

Dark horse Juliette Lewis won Boston’s prize for her work in “Conviction,” but I think it’s too small of a part to get nominated.  Hailee Steinfeld took home top honors from Houston and Indiana for her work in “True Grit” and managed to net nominations rom the BFCA and SAG Awards.  However, category confusion and lack of familiarity could keep her out.  And for some strange reason, Dianne Weist has gone totally unnoticed this season save a meaningless Golden Satellite Award nomination.  Bye, bye…

Best Original Screenplay:

  1. Inception  (3)
  2. The Kids Are All Right 
  3. The King’s Speech  (1)
  4. Black Swan  (5)
  5. Another Year (4)

Another pick that’s pretty far out there, but I’m getting a feeling that “Inception” will win Best Original Screenplay.  The critics are all over its originality, and everyone seems on board the train.  If “The Social Network” takes Best Picture, how else to reward this movie other than a few technical awards?  Best Original Screenplay, of course, as the movie redefined originality and creativity for millions of moviegoers.  The BFCA and Golden Globe nominations don’t hurt either.

Hot on its heels is “The Kids Are All Right,” which was recognized for its screenplay by the same two organizations.  It also won the prize from the New York Film Critics Association (over “The Social Network,” I might add).  There was a two-year comedy streak from 2006-2007, and we just hit a two-year drama streak.  Perhaps it’s time for the pendulum to swing back…

While “The King’s Speech” also received the same two nominations, I just don’t feel like anyone is jumping up and down with love for the script.  It’s an actor’s movie, not a writer’s movie, and the mentions feel more like courtesy than necessity.  However, it did win the prize from the Southeastern critics and San Francisco and was a runner-up for Toronto, and Los Angeles’ prize, so maybe I’m wrong.

“Black Swan” is in because everyone likes the movie, and it got the nod from the BFCA.  “Another Year” stays in because the Academy loves Mike Leigh.

Best Adapted Screenplay:

  1. The Social Network 
  2. Toy Story 3 
  3. 127 Hours  (NR)
  4. Winter’s Bone  (5)
  5. True Grit  (3)

Dropping off: Rabbit Hole

“The Social Network” is still in peak condition, winning nearly every Best Screenplay award there is.  But I hesitate to call it a lock as “Precious” surprised the heavily favored “Up in the Air” last year.  The heart is a factor in this category, and the heart belongs to “Toy Story 3.”

“127 Hours” soars to #3 thanks to its recognition by the BFCA and the Golden Globes in spite of my prior qualms that it wasn’t a movie that succeeded because of its writing.  But if Danny Boyle can’t get a Best Director nomination, it sure looks like he will get one for Best Adapted Screenplay.

“Winter’s Bone” has been collecting plenty of screenplay nominations along the critics circuit, and it seems like a solid choice for a nomination.

“True Grit” slips to #5 and only stays in because the Academy loves the Coen Brothers’ writing.  If “The Town” shows some might, it could easily replace the Western.

So, what do YOU think?  Who do you think is cruising towards an Oscar nomination?





Random Factoid #507

17 12 2010

Redbox, Netflix, or Blockbuster?

This is the general holy trinity of movie disc rental options nowadays in the market, but could we perhaps be looking at a new competitor?  Here comes “Flix on Stix,” a kiosk service that downloads movies onto a USB disk.  Sounds genius, doesn’t it?  You don’t have to worry about running out of a movie (cough all other disc-providing rental services), and it doesn’t require a massive kiosk for disc inventory.

Here are some of the nuts and bolts of the service according to Cinematical:

“… the company promises to offer movies that you can download onto your personal USB or SD device, with prices ranging from $1 (for three days) to $4 (for 12 days). After the time period expires, the movie self-destructs, though not, alas, with a tiny puff of smoke, a la ‘Mission: Impossible.'”

So no worries on late fees and no hassle to return the movie.  Beautiful!  The two issues, as the article points out, are that a lot of people don’t travel casually with a USB stick and that a lot of televisions don’t have a video input for USB media.  Perhaps it just becomes for laptop users, but then it has to compete with the juggernaut of iTunes.

I carry around a USB stick with me most of the time (thanks to still being a student), so I’d find the service very useful, much better than going to a Redbox queue with their rigid deadlines and $1-a-night penalties.  What do you think – would you choose Flix on Stix?





F.I.L.M. of the Week (December 17, 2010)

17 12 2010

There’s no place like home for the holidays … unless its the home of your boyfriend’s overbearing family.

Such is Christmas for Meredith Morton (Sarah Jessica Parker) in the “F.I.L.M. of the Week,” Thomas Bezucha’s “The Family Stone,” a winter dramedy with a perfect balance between the two genres.  It’s enjoyable to watch at any time of the year, but it has a particularly warm and loving embrace around the holiday season.  With a fantastic ensemble and pitch-perfect writing, this movie has been a favorite of mine ever since it hit theaters five years ago today.  (And yes, I was there to see it on its first showtime that day.)

It’s always tough meeting the potential in-laws, and the uptight Meredith doesn’t leave the best first impression as she tries to simultaneously be herself and be charming.  The odds are against stacked against the potential new addition to the Stone family as Amy (Rachel McAdams) has it in for her after a dinner in New York didn’t exactly endear her to the incessantly blabbering throat-clearer Meredith.  The tension is only heightened by matriarch Sybill (Diane Keaton), determined not to give her mother’s wedding ring to Everett (Dermot Mulroney) for him to put on Meredith’s finger.

Yet not everyone is determined to see her demise: the fun-loving prodigal son Ben (Luke Wilson) does his best to bring out the welcome wagon, and the ever-reasonable father Kelly (Craig T. Nelson) is determined to give her a chance.  But after a day, Meredith mixes with the Stone family like oil mixes with water, and things go haywire as the holiday spirit combines with mean spirits.  The result is a hilariously potent comedy about the importance of family, both the ones we are born into and the ones we create.

I’d be remiss, though, if I didn’t mention the heavier side of the movie.  Much of what happens in “The Family Stone” is due to an unpleasant truth about the future of a member of the Stone family, and it had been quietly kept secret until Meredith arrives.  The movie is not only a comedy but also a deeply touching and heartfelt look at our families and how much we value each member of them.  Around the holidays, there’s simply nothing better than a movie that can make you laugh and cry with the people you love the most.





Random Factoid #506

16 12 2010

I’ve written plenty on the baffling MPAA ratings system on this site (and offsite as well: it was the topic of my 8th grade social issues research paper).  For example, in Random Factoid #310, I wrote about the ridiculous descriptors they use in their ratings like “bullying” or “a brief instance of smoking.”  In Random Factoid #389, I criticized their campaign to get cigarettes out of movies while they let the promotion of violence run wild.  In Random Factoid #441, I attacked their need to point out male nudity to audiences but turn a blind eye to female nudity.

And back when “Blue Valentine” was still rated NC-17, I advocated the abolition of the rating altogether in Random Factoid #437.  Here was my modest proposal for the alternative:

“The R rating carries with it the assumption that moviegoers under 17 can’t buy their own ticket; someone has to buy it for them.  By barring people from certain movies, the MPAA either takes over the role of the parent and claims they know best OR they acknowledge that the R rating is too weak.  Why not strengthen the protection around R-rated movies as an alternative?  Crack down on lazy theaters that don’t enforce R ratings tough enough, and that should keep the people who don’t have permission to see R-rated movies out of them.”

But there’s only so much an 18-year-old amateur blogger from Houston can do.  However, there is a whole lot a certain legendary critic from Chicago can.  Roger Ebert can’t speak anymore, but darned if he isn’t one of the most vocal critics of the current system of movie ratings set in place by the MPAA.  He argues that “there are only two meaningful ratings: R and not-R.”

To a certain extent I agree – at least from where I’m sitting at my age.  I’m very glad to be able to see any movie I want at the theater with my ID, and now I want every movie to cater to me.  I don’t want movies to be watered down so kids five years younger than me can go see them without having to drag mommy or daddy with them to the theater.  For example, my enthusiasm was somewhat dampened for “The Social Network” when I found out that it was rated PG-13 and not R (but all the reviews convinced me not to despair).

Ebert says that the ratings have to change because we have changed as a society, and that the ratings system need to reflect the reality that tolerance levels have changed drastically.  Here’s his proposed system:

“Perhaps only three categories are needed: ‘G,’ for young audiences,’T’ for teenagers, and ‘A’ for adults. These categories would be not be keyed to specific content but would reflect the board’s considered advice about a film’s gestalt and intended audience. At a time when literally any content can find its way into most American homes, what’s the point of singling out theatrical films? It’s time to admit we’ve lost our innocence.”

While I like his suggestion, I think the audience and content ratings would need to be separated for business’ sake.  A movie with adult content can still be a hit with teenagers (for the quintessential example, look no further than “Black Swan“), but if it isn’t rated “T” in Ebert’s system, why would this age group want to see it?





REVIEW: The Expendables

16 12 2010

If you aren’t willing to forget all cinematic standards, “The Expendables” will be a dismally stupid exercise in corny filmmaking that is only good for mockery.  But if you are willing to watch an hour and 30 minutes of Sylvester Stallone and a bunch of other fading action stars trying to be cool, then you will have one rip-roaringly fun ride.

The stars you recognize are clearly far from their glory days in the 1980s, and Stallone has given them the opportunity to relive them while they wait for their AARP cards.  With a little help from Jason Statham and Jet Li, action stars of a younger generation, they manage to walk through every ridiculous motion that the trigger-happy movies of decades past so seriously that it becomes riotously funny.  (Except I feel like Stallone doesn’t know that he’s not actually cool, so someone needs to man up and tell him.)

“The Expendables” is actually one of the best worst movies I’ve ever seen, so enormously entertaining in all its shortcomings.  There’s everything to love about an action movie in excess, especially blood and gore.  The violence gets so absurd and comical that there’s no appropriate response but laughter to how unrealistic it gets.  But the humor doesn’t stop at the slaughtering of villainous drug traffickers; the script is equally as silly, providing Stallone and company with plenty of horrifying one-liners to utter and hackneyed plotlines to follow.

Hollywood gives us plenty of movies to enjoy if we simply lower our standards.  “The Expendables” is easy to enjoy if we simply have no standards.  C+





Random Factoid #505

15 12 2010

How much is shock value worth?  A friend and I discussed this today, particularly in regards to “Black Swan.”  Both of us have seen it twice (and there could be even more trips for me), and we couldn’t help but compare our experiences.

We compared what we each thought, but we also talked about how it held up on the second viewing.  Plenty of movies, particularly really shocking ones, are really only good for one watch.  I’m sure that given the massive amount of exposure the movie has gotten leading up to its wide release on Friday, plenty of people will flock to it, but I doubt many will return.

I think it’s different to hear about a movie from someone who has seen it once than hearing about it from someone’s who has seen it twice.  So consider this sentence my “second time around” review: “Black Swan” is every bit as enthralling the second time.

But that’s not what this factoid is about.  It’s about an observation both of us came to about the movie: it felt a whole lot shorter the second time.  Then, we came to the generalization that all movies that are heavy on shock value feel shorter on repeat viewings.

Perhaps it’s because we get so thrilled by the plot the first time that we totally lose ourselves, but I can’t put my finger on a specific reason why.  Does this phenomenon happen to anyone else, and if so, can you explain it?





REVIEW: Get Low

15 12 2010

It’s always nice when a movie like “Get Low” comes along.  While it’s nothing earth-shattering for cinema as we know it, the movie is just a witty but serious drama propelled by great performances by capable actors and an interesting script that keeps the plot moving.

Robert Duvall stars as the aging hermit Felix Bush, living pleasantly in solitude as the town surrounding him seeks to make him a sort of urban legend.  Rumors abound that he’s a cold-blooded killer and a devil worshipper.  Granted, Felix doesn’t do much to stop these notions, chasing off trespassers with a shotgun and putting up “beware of mule” signs.  But all of a sudden, Felix decides to emerge with a grand plan – a living funeral for the entire town to attend.

It’s hard to tell exactly why Felix wants this at first, particularly because Duvall has given him such a hardened exterior that masks all his true intentions.  Yet pulsating underneath is a heart and soul, and only an actor like Duvall can make it beat in such a profound way.  Slowly but surely, he unravels the character until we see Felix completely unexposed, and the sheer raw emotion makes for a powerful last scene where Duvall goes broke.  The success of the entire movie rests on Duvall and his ability to convey a whole host of emotions at once, and “Get Low” works because he is in peak form.

While the whole business of “getting low” keeps things fairly serious, there’s plenty to keep the movie a light and enjoyable watch.  Bill Murray is perfectly cast as money-grubbing funeral parlor owner Frank Quinn, who makes the living funeral something of a carnival attraction to make up for bad business.  It’s a sly, devious, and understatedly humorous character, and Murray milks it for all the comedy he can get.  It’s Felix who gets us to start chuckling as he unwillingly does ridiculous promotional stunts, but it’s Frank who keeps us laughing with his off-handed comments.  Add in Lucas Blacks as Frank’s second-in-command along for the ride and Sissy Spacek as Felix’s old love to make things grave, and you have one heck of an acting ensemble.

There’s nothing to go proclaim from the rooftops about “Get Low.”  It’s not going to amount to much more than nice acting, a suitably engaging script, and a glimpse at some beautiful Southern woods and forests.  But sometimes, that’s just the kind of movie you need.  B+





Random Factoid #504

14 12 2010

And the continued harassment of the American movie renter continues…

According to a report by Cinematical, movie studios have begun to remove bonus features from rental discs.  Here’s what they had to say:

“A Consumerist reader recently wrote in to the consumer advocate blog to let them know that he had discovered the ‘Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World’ DVD he had rented from Blockbuster contained no special features. The $3.99 price tag he paid for the rental disc got him the menus for the special features, but any attempts to access them were met with a message proclaiming, ‘This disc is intended for rental purposes and only includes the feature film. Own it on Blu-Ray or DVD to view these bonus features and complete your movie watching experience.'”

So, the question has to be raised: do movie renters deserve bonus features, or are they truly just a “bonus” for those willing to pay $15-$20 for the disc to own?  I think that if they are going to slight the consumers still giving them money, renters should have access to some internet site or YouTube channel to watch some of the features.  Perhaps some are left exclusive for buyers, but I think it’s wrong to give the renters just the movie.

What do YOU think?





REVIEW: Exit Through the Gift Shop

14 12 2010

I have no idea what on earth “Exit Through the Gift Shop” is supposed to be, and I realize I’m not the first person to say that.  It’s been puzzling viewers willing to wade through its quirky documentary style for months now, and I’m just now joining the fray.  Is it real or is it some sort of prank/hoax?  A part of me says who knows; another, who cares.  It’s a darn entertaining movie even if I can’t get a read on what the heck it is.

Perhaps it’s only so perplexing because the documentarian, Banksy, was so intimately involved in the storyline itself that we can’t be sure how partial or impartial he is being.  Because Banksy, a god among the cult of street art, is underground, his face can never be seen nor can his true voice be heard without a muffler.  Obviously his identity is a big unknown, but the bigger question is his role in the movie itself.  It’s hard to distinguish between Banksy the director and Banksy the person/character, largely because he’s such an obscure and emotionless figure.

The persona of the mysterious Banksy looms large over the story that ultimately isn’t about him.  “Exit Through the Gift Shop” is, at least on the surface, about Thierry Guetta, now known as Mr. Brainwash.  The movie chronicles his meteoric rise to street art superstardom, all the way from his obscure beginnings as a shopkeeper in Los Angeles.  Thierry carried a camera with him everywhere, filming practically everything.  He became fascinated with the underground world of street art in 1999, and from that moment on, he became dedicated to making a documentary about it.

But this isn’t a documentary about a man making a documentary; Banksy isn’t a revolutionary figure in modern art because he choose simple subjects.  Thierry’s journey is a very strange one, filled with as many twists and turns as a labyrinth.  All of a sudden, he morphs from street art’s biggest fan into a street artist himself, opening a massively-hyped exhibition in Los Angeles without building a name through small projects at all.  The transition is strange, and it’s clear that Banksy and some of the street artists hold him in contempt for hypocritically popularizing their craft.  This only makes the lens that much more muddled, and you have to wonder where reality stops and where fiction takes over.

Maybe “Exit Through the Gift Shop” is Banksy’s attempt to make a piece of street art using the cinematic form.  If that’s the case, it works for me.  The movie is complicated yet simple, over-the-top yet understated, mysterious and obvious, and overall a curious work of art that could easily be discarded as garbage or graffiti by those unwilling to look past the spray paint.  B+





“For Colored Girls” Poll Results

14 12 2010

My goodness, that was one heck of a turnout!

My poll asking which “For Colored Girls” actress had the best chance at scoring a nomination for Best Supporting Actress had an outstanding 29 votes, my highest total for a poll yet!  Thanks to everyone who voted … although I wish it was on a topic with a little more relevance.  With the critical panning and lackluster box office showing for the movie, it’s not looking like much of a contender.

But I should still assess the results to see if we are looking at a long shot.  The clear favorite is Kimberly Elise, who received 11 votes.  I haven’t seen the movie yet, so I can’t really critique a performance or give any perspective.

Second was Janet Jackson with 7 votes.  There was a tie for third place between Thandie Newton and Macy Gray, who is not even being campaigned by Lionsgate for the movie.  Anika Noni Rose received two votes, and Kerry Washington received one vote.

Receiving no votes were Whoopi Goldberg, Phylicia Rashad, and Whoopi Goldberg.  Not that it matters at this point though.





Random Factoid #503

13 12 2010

If you check out my page listing reviews by letter grade, you’ll find that I often dislike movies vehemently.  I never lose my faith in the movies in the face of all these terrible movies, though I do wonder if the directors, producers, writer, and/or actors of these movies know when they are making something that it is total garbage.

Turns out, Michael Bay was man enough to admit “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” was a failure.  It took him a year and a half to admit what bloggers and normal audiences have been saying, but it’s still nice to hear it from the man himself.  He said:

“We tried to learn from the second movie. On the second movie we got burned. We had a writers strike, we had to agree on a story in three weeks, and then we knew they were going on strike. It was a f***ed scenario all the way around; it wasn’t fair to the writer; it wasn’t fair to me; it wasn’t fair to anybody. It was still an entertaining movie, but I think we failed on certain aspects. What we did with this movie is I think we have a much better script, and we got back to basics. … It’s more serious. I got rid of the dorky comedy; I mean we’ve got two little characters, that’s it, but the dorkiness is not there. Dork-free Transformers. It’s much more serious. It’s still entertaining; it’s big looking.”

This is somewhat reassuring as I actually loved the first “Transformers” and still watch it every so often.  I wouldn’t say I’m hotly anticipating “Transformers: Dark of the Moon,” but this is a small boost in its favor.

Although I will say, I can never forgive Michael Bay for scaring Megan Fox away from the movies.





What To Look Forward To in … January 2011

13 12 2010

Hard to believe we are just around the corner from a new year!  2011, here we come … er, here we enjoy 2010’s movies a little while longer until the new year offers us something good.  Here are January’s sincerest efforts!

January 7

Nicolas Cage just keeps distancing himself further and further from his Oscar win for “Leaving Las Vegas” back in 1995.  He kicks off another disappointing year of quirky movie selection with “Season of the Witch,” originally slated for release about 9 months ago.  This supernatural thriller where he plays a 1300s Crusader and gets involved in some sort of black magic.  Needless to say, go see “Little Fockers” again.

Speaking of 2010, most theaters will finally be receiving “Country Strong” this week; whether it comes with any sort of awards season heat though is yet to be seen.  Gwenyth Paltrow’s vehicle as a fading country music star in desperate need of rehab looks a little corny and cliched, but would you rather see “Season of the Witch?”  My guess is no.

January 14

“The Green Hornet” was going to be a fanboy favorite, despite the casting of Seth Rogen as the title character.  Then some footage was released at Comic-Con, and everyone saw that it was just a typical Rogen slacker humor-a-thon.  They got angry, but I got happy.  I love Seth Rogen’s shenanigans, and I’m happy to see him move them to some genre other than gross-out comedy.

Is it possible for a movie’s trailer to get more coverage than the movie itself?  That’s likely the case for “The Dilemma,” a comedy of best friends, secrets, and infidelity strangely directed by Academy Award-winner Ron Howard.  With the use of the word gay, the trailer sparked an uproar and plenty of discussion on the power of words in society.  Apparently the joke stayed in the movie, and while I won’t head to the movie just to see that, I’ll probably hit it some other time once I’ve knocked out my mandatory 2010 viewing.

Also worth noting: “Rabbit Hole” should be getting a wide expansion this weekend.  If you haven’t seen it, SEE IT!  As for other 2010 movies just seeing release in the new year, there’s also “Barney’s Version,” the dramedy starring Paul Giamatti, Minnie Driver, Rosamund Pike, and Dustin Hoffman.  All those names together can’t be too bad.

Opening as well is “Every Day” with Liev Schrieber, Carla Gugino, and Helen Hunt in a rare appearance.  But given the no-name distributors, it’s going to be a while before it hits anywhere other than New York or Los Angeles.  And for all environmentalists out there, “Plastic Planet” looks at how safe plastic really is.

January 21

“No Strings Attached” looks like a suitable romantic comedy.  Starring Natalie Portman and Ashton Kutcher, the movie tells the story of two lovers who only want a physical connection – in other words, the flip side of the coin of “When Harry Met Sally.”  It’s directed by Ivan Reitman, who helmed old classics like “Stripes” and “Ghostbusters” but also new stinkers like “Evolution” and “My Super-Ex Girlfriend.”  All I can say is that this had better not be for Natalie Portman what “Norbit” was for Eddie Murphy.

If “The Way Back” didn’t look interesting and gritty as you-know-what, I’d probably joke that it’s the “Defiance” of 2010/2011.  But alas, I can’t poke fun at this trailer.

And for the third time, “The Company Men” has been moved, this time to 2011 and out of Oscar contention.  So now everyone can safely stop worrying about Tommy Lee Jones pulling another “In the Valley of Elah” and get back to writing this movie off.

January 28

Hey, look!  It’s another movie starring Jason Statham and a gun!  In other words, you’ve probably seen “The Mechanic” before.  As for other retreads, there’s another Catholic Church conspiracy theory movie combined with an exorcism movie.  Top it off with a little creepy Anthony Hopkins, and you get “The Rite!”

From Prada to Nada” opens also in limited release, but this Jane Austen wannabe tale looks entirely dismissable.  Unless, of course, you want to see Carmen from “Spy Kids” all grown up.

So, what’s the verdict on January?  Are you going to don the glasses for “The Green Hornet” or just see “TRON: Legacy” again?






“Fair Game” Poll Results

13 12 2010

“Fair Game” has all but disappeared from discussion in the awards race, which really is a shame.  In my review last month, I raved:

“What makes ‘Fair Game’ one of the best movies I’ve seen this year is the fact that it is a politically conscious movie but not necessarily politically charged.  It’s a movie that reminds us that the truth has no political affiliation, and it reaffirms the very American responsibility to stand up and voice our discontent when we see the government failing in its duties.  Naomi Watt’s Valerie Plame Wilson does this in spite of one of the worst political climates for dissent in our history, and it’s a rousing profile in courage that will reinforce your sense of patriotic duty.”

Back in the Oscar Moment before I saw the movie, I was optimistically cynical about the movie’s chances, writing:

“For the movie to have a shot at Best Picture, there needs to be some big buzz building around the opening to carry it through the season.  It received mostly positive marks from its Cannes debut, but no one was jumping out of their seat in excitement.  Emerging from the Bush era, ‘Fair Game’ takes a look at how far we were willing to let the government take our freedom in exchange for security – and the victims of such policies.  It’s not a sympathetic look at America, and neither was last year’s Best Picture winner ‘The Hurt Locker.’  Are the politics of Oscar entering an era of confronting harsh realities?”

Over a month after the movie’s release, we haven’t seen any fireworks.  It was certified fresh on Rotten Tomatoes, but its score in the 70s wasn’t exactly a game changer.  It didn’t exactly get a large platform release, but it scored fairly modestly even in just over 400 theaters with $8 million and counting.

So, does it still have a chance?  Back in October and November, you seemed to think so.  2 voters said yes, and 1 voter said no.  I’d have to say that unless some massive late surge comes for the movie, we are looking at an also-ran.  A very good also-ran, though.





REVIEW: Please Give

12 12 2010

Thanks to Best Picture winners like “Million Dollar Baby,” “Crash,” and “Slumdog Millionaire,” today’s moviegoers are accustomed to thinking that movies that tackle issues have to be massive, sprawling dramas with big implications.  Euthanasia, racism, and poverty are big social issues facing the world today, and these movies have tackled them in such a big, brassy way that most audiences think that movies with such relevant themes have to be this way.

Yet on the comedic flip-side of the coin, there is Nicole Holofcener, who writes movies about issues just as important but with the scope of your average person.  Her latest feature, “Please Give,” explores money, greed, and guilt in today’s society as it affects four people in different but profound ways.  Full of wit and humor, the movie is delightfully pertinent to just about anyone in 2010 as it probes for answers to questions we often find ourselves asking everyday.

There’s nothing monumental about Holofcener’s latest study of money and society, but she builds the narrative from characters who are interesting and compelling down to their core.  Upper class New York couple Kate (Catherine Keener) and Alex (Oliver Platt) run a furniture business, managing to stay on top of competition by purchasing antiques from the children of the elderly who don’t know the true value of the pieces.  With some of their profits, they have managed to buy an adjacent apartment, now just waiting for the elderly inhabitant to pass away.

Yet with all the spoils of money, Kate can’t help but feel torn by guilt.  She sees the homelessness in the city and feels obliged to help in some way, but she also has a family to provide for, including a daughter who will stop at nothing until she gets a pair of designer jeans.  She also starts to wonder if she and Alex’s predatory purchasing is morally acceptable.  As a result, she tries to reform her life for what she thinks is the better of those less fortunate.  However, she finds that even with the best of intentions, sometimes helping others doesn’t help them – or yourself – as much as hoped.

Holofcener raises a lot of interesting questions with “Please Give” about the nature of charity in today’s culture, and her exploration doesn’t yield many answers.  The situations she lays out aren’t exactly comforting for those who think they are being helpful to the community.  But simply by raising these questions, she leads her audience to a self-examination, precisely what movies dealing with important societal issues should do.  B+