SAVE YOURSELF from “Tron”

5 12 2010

Disney has invested quite a bit of money into promoting “Tron: Legacy” – $150 million, to be exact.  I’ve been watching as they’ve hyped this movie for the past three years with a fair bit of skepticism.  I’ve wondered why they need such a massive push for a big-budget visual effects spectacle for quite some time, so over the fall, I decided to look for answer in “Tron,” its 28-year-old predecessor.

I found one pretty good reason to promote “Tron: Legacy” so excessively: the original “Tron” is TERRIBLE!  And not even terrible in the sense that you can step back and laugh at it; it’s just terrible!

Sure, the visual effects are obscenely outdated, and that’s reason for a few giggles.  It’s also dated by kids playing games at an arcade.  I mean, who does THAT anymore?  I guess you could say that watching “Tron” certainly gives you an appreciation for the flawless integration of FX into movies, and it sure makes you want to bow at the feet of “Avatar” and “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.”

With its extensive use of computer graphics for visual spectacle, “Tron” is considered by many to be a pioneering film in technological development and a window into the future.  Well, I can tell you know from a 2010 perspective that the future came and left “Tron” in the dust a very long time ago.  Plenty of movies have done similar things, and watching “Tron” is like sending a telegram when you could just send a text message: that’s to say extremely antiquated and a futile waste of time.

Don’t get me wrong, there’s something very cool and novel about seeing how things were done in the past and seeing our progress.  But it’s brutal when that movie doesn’t have any value other than its depreciation to offer.  “Tron” has a completely incoherent plot that baffled moviegoers back in 1982 because it dealt so much with the unfamiliar computers.  The filmmakers claimed that it was misunderstood back when the movie came out largely to cover the movie’s lackluster box office receipts.  (To be fair, there was also a little science-fiction movie called “E.T.” dominating the market at the same time.)

Yet even now, in a generation of overexposure to computers, the movie still doesn’t make sense!  All I could discern from that plot was that Jeff Bridges’ Kevin Flynn invented the TRON program, his intellectual property was stolen, and he beams himself inside the program to prove his creation.  From then on, it’s a total mess of seemingly unconnected events inside the computer that have little going for them other than the retro ’80s appeal.

The movie has managed to become a cult hit over the years, and I’m a little flabbergasted that people actually love this movie.  I don’t see anything other than effects that are funny for a few minutes, and then when the novelty wears off, we are left with nothing but a snooze of a movie with a strange plot.

So I’m honestly shocked that Disney would throw so much behind “Tron: Legacy” when the original is so pathetic.  I think they know it and are starting to fret that people like me would see the 1982 movie; according to a report in The Los Angeles Times, the DVD of the original is pretty hard to find since Disney is hardly releasing any new copies to meet the demand.  Most studios release some new edition of a predecessor when a sequel comes out, and a special edition of “Tron” is nowhere to be seen.

“Tron: Legacy” is being built as the cinematic equivalent of Wall Street’s “too big to fail” companies.  The commonly held theory is that if enough money is poured into a production, moviegoers will recognize the investment and go see it on blind faith.  While the fanboy hype is high on this release, reality may be setting in that this might not have been such a smart move (which I could have told you the second I finished the original).  According to The Hollywood Reporter, tracking indicates an opening weekend of a low $35 million, which would mean the movie would probably only net about $150-$175 million in the United States.

Given that the film will cost the studio $320 million by December 17, these numbers would be catastrophic for Disney.  Just as when the “too big to fail” firms sunk led to change on Wall Street, /Film reports that if “Tron: Legacy” were to bomb, the impact on Hollywood could be enormous.  My prediction is that if the sequel is anything like the 1982 “Tron,” the road to failure has already been paved.


Comments : 5 Comments »
Tags: , , , ,
Categories : Movie Reviews, Save Yourself!

Random Factoid #494

4 12 2010

It’s Christmas time, and that means it’s time for “Elf” and “Home Alone” to come back on TV again!  Oh, wait – HBO has been playing “Home Alone” all year long.  Being such a classic of my childhood (and always fun to watch as it awakens your inner sadist), I can’t resist indulging myself time after time watching it.

Way back when in Random Factoid #26, I said that “The Little Rascals” was that movie that I know line for line.  But watching “Home Alone” for the first time this holiday season reminded me of a different sort of feat I have achieved.  While I may not know every line in the movie (thanks to the beginning section that I usually skip), I know just about every noise that Harry (Joe Pesci) and Marv (Daniel Stern) make when they move through Kevin McAllister’s death tap of a house.  Every grunt, scream, and mutter – the length, the volume, the syllables.  Everything.  That’s impressive, if I do say so myself.

P.S. – Speaking of “Elf,” check out the Moviegoer’s Challenge I made back in 2003 when I was obsessed with the movie.  I posted it on Random Factoid #126 to kick off December 2009, and it has since become my second most-viewed post of all-time (behind the review of “Paranormal Activity”).  So I kindly invite you to take part in the holiday festivities that so many of my readers have engaged in.  300 people can’t be wrong.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , ,
Categories : Random Factoids

REVIEW: Love & Other Drugs

4 12 2010

There’s an interesting commentary on the pharmaceutical industry at the heart of “Love & Other Drugs,” a prevalent enough part of the story to make it into the title.  But it’s the love part of the name that takes control of the movie and ultimately devalues the larger and more relevant message.  Like a pimple, the romance grows and grows until it virtually envelops the face.

Granted, this is an incredibly attractive pimple.  The film’s historical background in dealing with Viagra gives it free reign to go crazy on the sexuality, and director Edward Zwick runs with the opportunity.  It’s practically soft-core porn starring two young, attractive stars in Anne Hathaway and Jake Gyllenhaal.  But the movie is more than just two constantly and completely naked stars on a bed; it develops the emotional out of the physical.

The nudity isn’t meant to titillate so much as it is to be honest.  It removes the sheets of pretense from the bedfellows, Jamie the womanizing Viagra salesman (Gyllenhaal) and his latest squeeze Maggie, a passionate but insecure lover affected by stage 1 Parkinson’s (Hathaway), and leaves their character naked.  The two nudities complement each other beautifully, and these are two fascinating portraits of people trying to figure out where their lives are heading.

Read the rest of this entry »


Comments : 2 Comments »
Tags: , , , , ,
Categories : Movie Reviews

Random Factoid #493

3 12 2010

Everyone needs a scapegoat; 20th Century Fox just found theirs to the tune of $15 million.

According to a post on Cinematical, the studio is suing Patricia McIlvane for this ludicrous sum because she posted scripts on her website, which wouldn’t be terrible if they weren’t for movies that hadn’t been released yet.  Here’s more on her plight:

“Two strangers knocked on her door and informed her, in front of her children, 20th Century Fox was suing her for 15 million dollars. Two hours later, after grilling her with questions for two solid hours, they left her stunned and crying in her living room staring at a business card that stated they were “private investigators.”

This was the first contact PJ had from 20th Century Fox regarding a Media Fire online script library she created – and was the day 20th Century Fox filed a law suit against PJ in federal court for fifteen million dollars.”

In order to pay for her screenwriting career, McIlvane sells flowers over the phone as a day job.  So to me, this seems like the wrong example to make.  Considering that the script was already on a bigger website, Fox looks like they are on the bully pulpit.  Plus, why spend the money on legal counsel for a movie script when you have people out there pirating ENTIRE MOVIES?  Scripts get around; they get posted on message boards mainly to get hype going.  No one who doesn’t want to see the movie is going to spend two to three hours reading it.

Plus, Fox (at least Searchlight) is the same studio that posts screenplays on their awards site during the Oscar season.  That’s how I own a copy of “Crazy Heart,” “Fantastic Mr. Fox,” “(500) Days of Summer,” and Best Adapted Screenplay winner “Slumdog Millionaire.”  They are a great sharing tool for people incredibly passionate about film, and prosecuting these people over those who are seeking to bring down the movie industry seems fundamentally off-base.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: ,
Categories : Random Factoids

Oscar Moment: December 3, 2010 Awards Round-Up

3 12 2010

Welcome to the first ever Awards Round-Up post!  With the Oscar season officially kicked off, there’s just not enough time for me to cover every event and every development in real time, so I’ve devised this Friday post to cover everything that happens until the curtain rises at the Kodak Theater on February 27.  (Take a look at this awards season calendar, conveniently compiled by the folks at Entertainment Weekly.)

I’m attaching a poll to the end of this post, and I ask you to please vote.  My goal is to post the results on next week’s round-up and keep the cycle going.  The poll will relate to the “discussion” at the end of the post.

So … let’s begin.

Awards

National Board of Review announces. Yesterday, the historic kick-off of the season took place with the announcement of the year’s best from the National Board of Review, a “selective group of knowledgeable film enthusiasts, academics, film professionals, and students” in New York that reflect a wide range of interests.

In 2010, they clearly liked “The Social Network,” awarding in four major prizes, including Best Picture, Director, and Adapted Screenplay, three categories it is considered a frontrunner for at the Oscars.  However, they gave a massive boost to the campaign of Jesse Eisenberg for Best Actor, who has a likely nominee but by no means certain due to his age.  The NBR is usually a good indicator of Academy tastes in this category; their winner went on to be nominated 70% of the past decade and won 40%.

Another big winner was Mike Leigh’s “Another Year,” making the group’s top 10 list as well as picking up a Best Actress win for Lesley Manville.  The movie’s support, initially through the roof, has grown tepid over the past few months, and these awards could indicate we are looking at a critical darling.  Leigh’s movies often rack up these critics groups awards, and Manville could gain some thunder in the next month.

More on Sony Pictures Classics’ push to get Jacki Weaver’s performance in “Animal Kingdom” into contention later, but it appears to have paid off with a Best Supporting Actress win here.  This category matched up with the Academy 6 out of the last 10 years, so things look good for Weaver.  The NBR got the ball rolling for Amy Ryan, an unknown who marched into an Oscar nomination on virtually unanimous support; we could be looking at a similar storyline here.

Their top 10 list was nothing too out of left field as long as you know the NBR is obsessed with Clint Eastwood and lavishes excessive awards on his movies, so don’t look much into the inclusion of “Hereafter.”  The list was mostly expected contenders with the encouraging inclusion of “Shutter Island” and “The Town,” two commercial powerhouses which may prove to be a threat to the established order.

As for exclusions, “The Kids Are All Right,” “Black Swan,” “Rabbit Hole,” “Blue Valentine,” and “127 Hours” were nowhere to be found.  The exclusion of the latter is the most shocking since Danny Boyle’s “Slumdog Millionaire” won Best Picture from the NBR back in 2008.  With the exception of Lisa Cholodenko’s comedy, all the other movies were fairly dark and gritty, which is not always well-received by the NBR.

This is a group notorious for high-profile exclusions, some indicative of where the race is going and others completely misguided.  “Precious,” “The Reader,” “There Will Be Blood,” and “The Queen” are some of the recent Best Picture nominees to be overlooked; the last winner to be snubbed was “The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King.”  Then again, they’ve sent some messages by passing up heavily favored front-runners which ultimately fell short like “Nine” and and “Dreamgirls.”

Here is the abridged winners’ list:

Best Film: “The Social Network”

Best Director: David Fincher, “The Social Network”

Best Actor: Jesse Eisenberg, “The Social Network”

Best Actress: Lesley Manville, “Another Year”

Best Supporting Actor: Christian Bale, “The Fighter”

Best Supporting Actress: Jacki Weaver, “Animal Kingdom”

Best Adapted Screenplay: Aaron Sorkin, “The Social Network”

Best Original Screenplay: Chris Sparling, “Buried”

Best Foreign Language Film: “Of Gods and Men”

Best Documentary: “Waiting for Superman”

Best Animated Feature: “Toy Story 3″

Best Ensemble Cast: “The Town”

Breakthrough Performance: Jennifer Lawrence, “Winter’s Bone”

Ten Best Films
“Another Year”
“The Fighter”
“Hereafter”
“Inception”
“The King’s Speech”
“Shutter Island”
“The Town”
“Toy Story 3″
“True Grit”
“Winter’s Bone”

The Gotham Awards.  A pretty minor awards ceremony with little relevance to the Oscars, the Gotham Awards have never been a very good predictor of Oscar tastes simply because it strictly limits itself to American independent film.  But their awards were more significant than usual.

Their 2010 pick for Best Feature was “Winter’s Bone,” the gritty Sundance favorite.  It’s a significant victory because of the competition that it beat out.  This category included heavyweights like “Black Swan,” “Blue Valentine,” and “The Kids Are All Right,” all of which have been in the thick of Best Picture discussion for quite some time.  This could really mark the rise of “Winter’s Bone” to a strong Best Picture contender; last year’s winner was “The Hurt Locker,” and we all know how that turned out.  (And for the record, it also beat out “The Kids Are All Right” for Best Ensemble Performance.)

Sight and Sound.  “The Social Network” took home Best Picture of 2010 from the British publication Sight and Sound, a very respected film magazine.  This might not be so significant if their past selections weren’t so incredibly artistic that 99% of the American population hasn’t heard of them.  “Brokeback Mountain,” the 2005 indie darling that almost took Best Picture, was the last American movie to top their top 10 list.  I think this victory means that “The Social Network” has incredible crossover appeal between the art-house theater and the multiplex that can’t be underestimated, which is what makes it such an appealing choice for the Academy’s Best Picture.

Read the rest of this entry »


Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags: , , , , ,
Categories : 2010 - Oscar Moment, Oscar Moment

F.I.L.M. of the Week (December 3, 2010)

3 12 2010

With the smash hit “Inception” hitting shelves next week, I thought now would be as good a time as ever to revisit a little-known movie of its star, Leonardo DiCaprio.  I’ve featured virtually every supporting cast member in the “F.I.L.M. of the Week” column before, and it’s time for the Academy Award-nominated DiCaprio to join their ranks.

(For the sake of reference and shameless promotion, I’ll list the other stars and their criminally underseen gems: Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s, “The Lookout,”  Tom Hardy’s “Bronson,” Ellen Page’s “Hard Candy,” Marion Cotillard’s “La Vie en Rose,” Cillian Murphy’s “Sunshine,” Michael Caine’s, “Children of Men,” and director Christopher Nolan’s “Following.”  Ken Watanabe … perhaps coming soon?)

So for Leo’s entry, I submit “What’s Eating Gilbert Grape?”  This is one of his early movies, four years before “Titanic” superstardom, and at 19, he shows the same mastery of acting as he does in the psychologically tormented characters that he played in 2010.  Here, his Arnie suffers a different mental affectation: a developmental disability that was supposed to take his life at the age of 10.

Eight years later, his care is left largely in the hands of older brother Gilbert Grape, played by a younger, red-haired Johnny Depp.  Gilbert struggles with his circumstances: he’s frustrated living in the small town of Endora, Iowa, where nothing seems to happen.  He’s tired of being stuck in a job at the down-home town grocery store, preventing him from using the modern supermarket that has opened nearby.  He’s fed up with his family whose apathy leaves him with all the responsibilities since his obese mother is practically immobile, his father has deserted the family, and his siblings are caught up in their own little worlds.

But when the yearly exodus of trailers comes through the town, Gilbert is offered some relief from his dreary existence by the prospect of romance with Becky (the ever-so-’90s Juliette Lewis).  Her presence shakes up his life, making him more hesitant to add sensuality to his grocery delivery for the maritally frustrated Betty Carver (Mary Steenburgen).  But there are more profound changes that happens in Gilbert and his life, and director Lasse Hallstrom unravels the Grape family saga with such sensitivity that it’s irresistible and profoundly satisfying to watch.

There’s so much emotional depth endowed to this character that isn’t externalized by Depp, and 10 years before his first Oscar nomination, anyone who saw this movie could have seen it coming.  But the real star of “What’s Eating Gilbert Grape?” is DiCaprio, who surrenders to the character to the extent that it’s possible to forget who you’re watching.  To think that this is the same actor who wowed us in “The Departed” and “Inception” becomes hard to believe as we watch his overwhelming physicality draws our eyes to him for the entirety of the movie’s two hours.


Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags: , , , ,
Categories : F.I.L.M. of the Week, Movie Reviews

“Inside Job” Poll Results

3 12 2010

I’ve weighed in twice on “Inside Job.”  First was back in October when I looked at its awards chances in an Oscar Moment.  I wrote:

“The movie makes the argument that Wall Street has been heading for collapse ever since the 1980s when institutions were allowed to trade on their own behalf.  The idea that banks and firms are betting against the customers is frightening, and the marketing campaign behind the movie seeks to make it look like an ‘economic horror movie.’  It’s an interesting notion, and given some of the movie’s revelations, Sony Pictures Classics may be on to something.”

And then I saw it for myself last month and went nuts.  In my review, I said among other things:

“No matter if you choose to agree with [writer/director] Ferguson’s assessment or not, it’s impossible to walk away from ‘Inside Job’ without feeling a little bit more knowledgable on the subject.  In my opinion, the more you know about the events leading up to the financial crisis, the more upsetting the whole debacle is.  There are certain facts you cannot slant, and Ferguson provides plenty of them that will have your jaw on the floor.  You can’t dismiss the movie as just an editorial piece because Ferguson researched it so comprehensively that he can back up any claim with statistics and the words of experts.”

But aside from my speculation, “Inside Job” is getting noticed by big names.  A few weeks ago, it got Forbes‘ Oscar vote.  But will it get the Academy’s vote?  That was the question I posed almost two months ago.

The poll only drew two disagreeing votes, one saying “yes” and the other “no.”  The low voter turnout was probably due to lack of knowledge of the movie and the category, but based on what I know, I think this is a safe bet for at least a nomination given its financial and critical success.  It made the shortlist of 15 nominees for Best Documentary, so now it has to prove itself superior to at least 9 of them.   We’ll see if politics get in the way or not.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags:
Categories : Marshall and the Movies, Polls

REVIEW: MacGruber

2 12 2010

There’s a great scene in “MacGruber” where Kristen Wiig really finds her comedic element.  Forced to masquerade as the titular tacky, mulleted ’80s mock-action hero, she futzes around awkwardly in a coffee shop and tries to explain to the cashier what’s going on.  It’s reminiscent of some of her golden work on “Saturday Night Live,” where she can turn just about any character into a hilarious one.

But alas, that is one scene, and this one moment of laughter is nowhere near enough to redeem the other 90 minutes of “MacGruber” that are void of it.  Honestly, whoever let this movie pass needs to be locked in a room with a bomb and left to defuse it with nothing.  These sketches have been trite filler for “SNL” for three years, and the only laughs they garner are uneasy ones.  Not to mention it’s a movie centered around Will Forte, who is often so pathetic that it becomes painful to watch.

Throwing Ryan Phillipe into the mix to give the movie’s acting corps some legitimacy outside of 30 Rock just makes things worse.  Trying to take the movie seriously, Reese Witherspoon’s frosty-curled ex-husband just looks like a buffoon.  It’s not difficult to understand that there’s nothing serious about this movie; “MacGruber” is a ridiculous, farcical send-up of the ridiculous 1980s action movies.  There’s no shame in presenting a movie in this style – provided that the satire is done well.  In this case, it feels like the movie was written on the back of cue cards for yet another uninspired “What’s Up With That?” sketch.

There are movies that beg you not to be taken seriously, and then there are those that beg you not to take the craft of cinema seriously.  “MacGruber” is the latter of the two, trying to fly on the flimsy premise that a sketch that can barely sustain two minutes on TV could make an entertaining movie that’s 45 times bigger.  Perhaps Lorne Michaels will come up with a more clever way to make money off this movie in the future: take “MacGruber” off the case and slap on the title “The Worst of Will Forte.”  D / 


Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags: , , ,
Categories : Movie Reviews

Random Factoid #492

2 12 2010

“I really wish I was awesome” is a pretty lame excuse for a factoid, yet it’s a good reason to show you some really good stuff I’ve been finding online recently.  (I used the same excuse 100 days ago in Random Factoid #392.)  But nonetheless, it’s entertaining, and I’m in a particularly large time crunch at the moment.

Courtesy of /Film: “Many people sincerely hate the new layout for the Internet Movie Database. We understand. It certainly takes some getting used to. One perfect addition, however, is on their page for ‘This is Spinal Tap‘. Referencing the famous quote from the film, the possible rating doesn’t only go up to 10 like every other film. It goes to 11. Which is one louder. Very cool stuff, IMDb.”

Courtesy of Cinematical: “Call it ‘Your Cheatin’ Queue.’ The disgruntled boyfriend posted a screen shot from his girlfriend’s Netflix account with the caption “My girlfriend cheated on me, so I rated movies in her netflix account until I reached the desired result.” As a result, Netflix now tells this woman that they think she’ll love watching ‘The Scarlet Letter,’ ‘Unfaithful,’ ‘Indecent Proposal,’ ‘Whore’ and ‘Slutty Summer.'”

So there you have it, two totally different uses of the internet for awesomeness: one for good, one for morally shaky revenge.  So while I think I’m creative typing with a purpose over my keyboard blogging, there are people making things go to 11 and give a cheating girlfriend what she deserves with the same tools.  Sometimes the Internet can make us feel so small and so big at the same time.


Comments : 2 Comments »
Tags: , , ,
Categories : Random Factoids

Oscar Moment: Final Preseason Predictions!

1 12 2010

It’s time!  The guessing is about to be over, so I figured I’d take my final stab at Oscar’s picks before the critics groups and guilds exert their influence over the race.

Past predictions: November 2010, September 2010.

Best Picture:

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

Dropping off: How Do You Know

Little change in the “TSN”/”TKS” dialectic as I still believe their duel will be the story of the season and that David Fincher’s Facebook movie will win out.  Other than that, the job of a prognosticator is to distinguish the dark horses from those just lucky to populate the top 10.

Noticeably different from the lineup a month ago is the position of “Black Swan,” which has received some massive praise in large amounts.  I’m just really feeling the love for this movie right now, and while it may just be a movie for the critics groups, I think the emphasis on its artistic achievement will push it through.

As for other motions on the chart, “Inception” moves up as the DVD release gives it an uptick; how much the movie can run with it, though, is yet to be determined. “127 Hours” moves down because I just don’t feel the passion for it has been able to sustain.

“True Grit” falls as reviews make it out to be great but nothing to stop the presses like ‘The Social Network” did, and since the Coens have already directed a Best Picture winner, the movie stands in a big shadow.  And I’ve never felt secure on “The Kids Are All Right” simply because it just seems too assumed, too “its a well-reviewed social commentary and comedy so it’s in” to be a safe bet.  The public didn’t quite catch on, and its DVD release didn’t revive much passion.

“Winter’s Bone” charts for the first time as it seems to be the “anointed indie” of 2010 after its triumph at the Gotham Awards and it led the pack of Indie Spirit award nominations (more on Friday.)

Best Director:

  1. David Fincher, “The Social Network” 
  2. Tom Hooper, “The King’s Speech” 
  3. Darren Aronofsky, “Black Swan”  (4)
  4. Christopher Nolan, “Inception”  (3)
  5. Danny Boyle, “127 Hours” 

Not much going on here other than the flop in positions of Aronofsky and Nolan.  For me, this is a stagnant category and not much will change unless the Coen Brothers knock out one of the bottom 3.

Best Actor:

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

Dropping off: Mark Wahlberg

Although I don’t agree with the commonly held conception that “The King’s Speech” will be the big winner of 2010’s Oscar race, I do think it will have a nice trophy haul.  The voters like this movie, and they want to give it some reward other than Best Picture.  Thus, Colin Firth, the very likable and talented performer, gets Best Actor as a testament to the film’s power.  I can see it playing out much like 2008 when “Milk” took home Best Actor for Sean Penn and Best Original Screenplay.  James Franco may just be too young to win (and he gets to host the show.)

Eisenberg stays at position #3, a safe bet for now but could be dislodged if little support is thrown his way.  Duvall reenters as Bridges/Wahlberg praise has been relatively muted amidst the raves for their movies.  “The Fighter” and “True Grit” will get their chance in the Supporting categories, both with a good shot at the win.  There’s the sentimental Peter O’Toole in “Venus” vote going for him here, although it does hurt that he’s won before.

And I still stick with Gosling simply because I stand to my guns on this movie being rewarded for its raw acting.  But I realize that the Academy could pull a “Revolutionary Road” on us and nominate neither he or Williams because the material is too depressing.

Best Actress:

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

Dropping off: Lesley Manville

Little change here as well.  I stil think this is Portman’s year, and she will run away with it.  Perhaps certain organizations where sentimental votes really count will choose Bening, but I think the Academy knows an incredible, transformative performance when they see one.  To quote my own review of “Black Swan” in a shameless plug, “Portman absolutely disappears into her character.  It’s a shocking and startling transformation due to Portman’s dedication to learning the craft of ballet and her impeccable acting.”

Kidman stays stagnant, and Michelle Williams is forced down a rung by the force of Jennifer Lawrence, an actress whose chances I was very cynical about (as shown by her fall off the chart from September to November).  But now I think I’m sure that she’s the real deal, although if “Winter’s Bone” falters in awards season, I may retract that statement.  I was hesitant to place her in my top 5 because she is so young; if nominated, Lawrence will be the second-youngest nominee ever at 19 years of age.  But she could easily be the Carey Mulligan of 2010, the breakout star no one can deny.  I doubt she could topple Portman or Bening, but I wouldn’t rule her out as the year’s critical darling.

Best Supporting Actor:

  1. Christian Bale, “The Fighter” 
  2. Geoffrey Rush, “The King’s Speech” 
  3. Matt Damon, “True Grit”  (NR)
  4. Andrew Garfield, “The Social Network”  (3)
  5. Jeremy Renner, “The Town”  (NR)

Dropping off: Aaron Eckhart, Sam Rockwell

Since I last updated these predictions, people actually saw “The Fighter” and confirmed my suspicion that Christian Bale would steamroll his way through awards season.  He has the respect to get there (despite his temper), and he is deserving.  Paramount will easily be able to make the case that this is “his time.”  Apologies to Geoffrey Rush, but your time was in 1996 when you won Best Actor.

Matt Damon makes his first appearance on the list as good word gets around about his performance in “True Grit,” replacing Sam Rockwell, who isn’t very good in the fairly pathetic “Conviction.”

My bad for the category fraud – I assumed Aaron Eckhart would be campaigned in Best Supporting Actor after reading a piece by Dave Karger.  But according to the FYC ads, I’m wrong, and he will be rightfully campaigned in the leading category.  With passion for Andrew Garfield’s performance seemingly slipping but nonetheless still present, who should fill that last slot?  I still think the men problem of “The Kids Are All Right” will keep Mark Ruffalo out again (unfortunately).

My pick is Jeremy Renner.  There’s a whole lot of good will for “The Town,” although I still dobut it has enough to crack the Best Picture shortlist.  The good feelings for the movie could translate into a surprise acting nomination, much like Maggie Gyllenhaal found herself in the Best Supporting Actress race without any prior attention when “Crazy Heart” wasn’t nominated for Best Picture.  Jeremy Renner, a nominee for last year’s “The Hurt Locker,” is really emerging as a big star, and what better way to mint him as a mainstream actor than nominate him in consecutive years?  This would prove him to be more than just a one-hit wonder, and it’s one way they could honor “The Town.”

Best Supporting Actress:

  1. Hailee Steinfeld, “True Grit”  (3)
  2. Helena Bonham Carter, “The King’s Speech”  (5)
  3. Melissa Leo, “The Fighter”  (1)
  4. Amy Adams, “The Fighter”  (NR)
  5. Dianne Weist, “Rabbit Hole” (4)

Dropping off: Miranda Richardson

I can’t wait for precursor season to start so we can GET SOME CLARITY ON THIS CATEGORY!  We have been wandering in the wilderness for months upon months now with everyone offering guesses, not predictions.  So my final guess is Hailee Steinfeld, the tenacious youngin of “True Grit.”  If the Academy wants to reward the movie with a trophy, this could be the simplest place to do it.  The socialism of the Oscars isn’t something dependable, but it happens enough to factor in to predictions.

With “The King’s Speech” taken care of in Best Actor, Helena Bonham Carter doesn’t pose much of a threat.  Ditto for Melissa Leo and Amy Adams, who will cede the carrying of the torch for “The Fighter” to Christian Bale.  I doubt Dianne Weist has a legitimate shot at winning since she has taken this category twice.  Can you picture her next to Jack Nicholson as the premier Oscar-winning actors of a generation?  I can’t.

Best Original Screenplay:

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

Finally, some commentary on the screenplay race that you’ve been craving since September.  Don’t lie, this is exciting to you.

While “Inception” and “The Kids Are All Right” are undoubtedly the most original of the bunch, this seems to be a category for “The King’s Speech” simply because of the broad acclaim the movie has received.  If the Academy is looking for a place to reward the movie other than Best Picture, this is another easy way they can elevate its statue count above the winner of the Best Documentary Short.  With a good shot at several technicals, “The King’s Speech” could walk away with three trophies while “The Social Network” takes the requisite four (Picture, Director, Screenplay, Editing).

“Black Swan” glides in on the movie’s success, although I don’t think the screenplay was particularly fantastic.  It could easily be overlooked in favor of another independent selection.  And “Another Year,” which seems to have fallen from grace since its Cannes premiere, hangs on in Best Original Screenplay because Mike Leigh movies always get nominated here.

Best Adapted Screenplay:

  1. The Social Network 
  2. Toy Story 3
  3. True Grit
  4. Rabbit Hole
  5. Winter’s Bone

If “The Social Network” should be eclipsed by “The King’s Speech,” it should still take Best Adapted Screenplay without a hitch.  Aaron Sorkin’s genius script will probably be the movie’s most appealing offering over the season, and this category seems to seal the deal for the Facebook flick to score at least one Oscar.  Then again, we said the same thing about “Up in the Air,” and then “Precious” came out of nowhere to steal.

“Toy Story 3” is probably the movie most likely to take down Sorkin, if that’s even possible.  The minds at Pixar have been ever so close to a Screenplay win for 15 years; it may be too soon to give them Best Picture, but why not Best Adapted Screenplay?  It’s a step in the right direction towards a time when a movie will not be discriminated against and excluded from the Best Picture race just for being animated, foreign, or a documentary.

The Coen Brothers always get nominated for their writing, and they’ve won twice.  So chances that they get in for “True Grit” are very high.  “Rabbit Hole” slides in because the category seems to be trending towards theatrical adaptations.  If “Doubt” can get in for a word-for-word adaptation, David Lindsey-Abaire’s cinematic reimagining shouldn’t have a problem garnering a nomination.

As for the final slot, I choose indie darling “Winter’s Bone” over “127 Hours” simply because it feels more literary.  Danny Boyle’s movie isn’t very scripted; the magic comes from Franco.

What are your thoughts heading into the season?  Am I right on “The Social Network?”  Am I missing something?


Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Categories : 2010 - Oscar Moment, Oscar Moment

Random Factoid #491

1 12 2010

While on StumbleUpon, I discovered a graphic that so perfectly encapsulates why so many people are fed up with DVDs.  The studios clutter them up with all sorts of warnings, discretions, legal protection, certification, previews, and menus that make plopping a disc in the player an ordeal.  Why not just have the movie at the click of a button on iTunes, Netflix instant streaming, or – god forbid – a pirated movie site.

If I want to watch a preview, I’ll YouTube it or show up on time to a movie in the theater.  I don’t care that what the people say in the commentary doesn’t reflect the views of your company; can’t you just put that in the fine print on the case?  I don’t care that Blu-Ray is the new DVD player; if I wanted to watch a Blu-Ray disc, I’d go buy a player and some movies.  I don’t care to be informed again by an FBI warning that piracy could land me in jail; why would I buy/rent a DVD, requiring some sort of spending of my own money, if I was planning on pirating it?

Ugh.  Lawyers, stop forcing the studios to make DVDs such a hassle.  For the chart that more humorously explains the frustration of the honest American who spends money on buying and renting DVDs, look below:


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: ,
Categories : Random Factoids

Shameless Advertisement #21 – December 2010

1 12 2010

Good choice, readers.

For the first time in the history of “Marshall and the Movies,” I can give my readers a pat on the back for choosing an excellent movie as their most anticipated movie of the month.  Thanks to the Houston Cinematic Arts Festival, I got a chance to see “Black Swan,” December’s top pick, about four weeks ago.  In case you didn’t read my overwhelmingly positive review, let me pick out a few quotables:

“At 18, I’m probably a little young to be using the phrase ‘they don’t make ‘em like this anymore,’ but I can’t help but have it come to mind when talking about ‘Black Swan.’  Simply put, Darren Aronofsky’s brilliant directorial artistry has culminated in a stunning masterpiece that is unmatched in vision or ambition by anything that cinema has churned out in a long time.

It’s so bold and daring that to call it wowing simply doesn’t do the experience justice.  Aronofsky weaves together the beauty of ballet with the terror of psychological meltdown with such nimble grace that it leaves you reeling long after leaving the theater.”

So needless to say, YOU NEED TO SEE “BLACK SWAN!”  Every minute until you do is wasted.  As for the other movies people wanted to see in December, “The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader” took second place with two votes.  “True  Grit,” “Rabbit Hole,” and “Another Year” each garnered one vote as well.

We are looking at a great month for movies, so enjoy all the options – there are plenty of movies that didn’t receive a vote that still look fantastic!

As for what you can expect from “Marshall and the Movies” this month, let me lay it all out for you:

Awards, awards, AWARDS!!! I’ve been building up to Oscar Season since March … and now it’s finally here!  To keep you updated on the trends, I will begin a weekly round-up of major trends involving critics groups, guilds, and everything else that plays a part in influencing the Oscar every Friday – starting December 3.  The “Oscar Moment” column focusing on individual movies will die down a little bit now that most movies have been covered, only popping up here and there to cover those that I have missed.

Reviews, reviews, REVIEWS!!! If you thought there were a lot of reviews in November, just brace yourself for December.  In addition to covering the multitude of December release, I’m also going to try to include my reviews of all the other 2010 releases I’ve seen this year.  The “Classics Corner” column will cover an old movie pertinent to December releases, and the “F.I.L.M. of the Week” column will tie into many things, including Christmas and the DVD release of “Inception.”  Also exciting – “Save Yourself!” returns with a warning against a movie you may be tempted to watch this month.

Year-end wrap-up. Just like any critic, I’ll wrap up what I’ve learned about the movies in 2010, culminating in my year-end top 10 list (and most likely an honorable mention list as well).

So look forward to a great month to cap off a great year?  (P.S. – Because I can’t find anyplace else to put this video, you should check this great YouTube video out.)


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: ,
Categories : Shameless Advertisements

Random Factoid #490

30 11 2010

Cinematical reported an interesting tidbit: in a few years, new audiences won’t see “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind” as a fantasy but rather as realism!  Here’s how:

Time reports that researchers at Johns Hopkins University think that by removing proteins from the brain’s fear center, they can permanently erase memories. This isn’t to stylishly morph memories at the whim of the rich, but rather “to enhance behavioral therapy for such conditions as post-traumatic stress disorder.”

In other words, they are developing a targeted memory erasure program similar to what creepers like Mark Ruffalo and Elijah Wood ran on Jim Carrey!  I really hope the people that market this technology don’t try to sell it using “Eternal Sunshine” because I sure as heck didn’t want to go erase someone from my memory after watching that movie.  There was almost a sort of cautionary tale nestled inside that script, particularly through the theme of destiny.  We are meant to meet who we meet and have the experiences that we have for a reason, and there’s no way to escape that.

So you will not find me signing up for permanent memory loss … even if Clementine Kruczynski was there.


Comments : 2 Comments »
Tags: , , ,
Categories : Random Factoids

Classics Corner: “Rebel Without a Cause”

30 11 2010

There’s an immediate resonance for any teenager who watches “Rebel Without a Cause” as youth rebellion feels eerily reminiscent to anyone experiencing it no matter how dated the story.  Sure, certain rituals have become obsolete and various practices have become laughably obscure.  The entire nature of being a teenager has changed dramatically even over the past decade, not to mention 55 years.  But the very fact that this movie can communicate its message in spite of the generational disparity really does stand substantiate the case that “Rebel Without a Cause” is a classic.

The movie looks at the nonconformity emerging among the youth in the 1950s, a topic of much controversy at the time.  For those whose history is a little rusty, this was the time of great American post-war optimism.  This was the era of the American Dream, and no matter what “Death of a Salesman” tells us, they bought into it.  When we look back at this decade, most of us think of the “Happy Days” paradigm.

So when a movie dared to explore the culture of youth rebellion, naturally it got people talking.  No one wanted their child to be “that kid,” the one stirring up the trouble, and the mindset of the time was that these types of influences were only prevalent among a lower class of people.  But the three troubled souls of “Rebel Without a Cause” all come from affluent, well-to-do families, making the social statement that much more powerful back in the 1950s.

James Dean plays the titular rebel, Jim Stark, in the second of the three major screen roles he completed before his death at age 24 in a car accident.  I had always associated Dean with the 1950s as a sort of mystical counterculture figure running against the cookie-cutter American image, and he certainly still has a large cult following from teens today.  It’s a lot easier to be rebellious in this modern time with so many forums open for dissent, but back in Dean’s time, there wasn’t much of a place for it, and this has made him all the more powerful a symbol.

I watched the movie to make Dean more than an image in my mind; I wanted to see what skills he possessed that have allowed him to become one of cinema’s most enduring figures.  He delivers, packing a performance full of internal conflict that ultimately manifests itself in shocking ways.  It’s particularly interesting to watch him struggle with the adult authorities who simply don’t understand him.

I found some striking parallels in the story to “Spring Awakening,” the play banned in Germany for nearly a century due to the inappropriateness of youth going unhinged.  In the musical adaptation, all adults are played by one male and one female, and this could certainly work for “Rebel Without a Cause” (not necessarily the musical) because all of the movie’s adults are aloof and lacking in any sort of understanding of the new generation of youth.  All form a brick wall of intolerance, and darned if Dean’s Stark can’t pound that wall down with his fists.

Stark also makes ties with two other teens living on the outskirts of decorum: a friendship with Plato (Sal Mineo), a virtually orphaned loner who is probably a closeted homosexual, and hints at romance with Judy (Natalie Wood), a girl struggling to make her transition to womanhood in the eyes of her family.  On one fateful night, together they form a kinship outside of the narrow-mindedness of their adult and teenage oppressors.  Since it is a melodrama, there may not be as much character development as there could be, yet their journeys are each so distinct and telling of the new directions of society that you can’t help but be glued to every exciting minute of it.


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , ,
Categories : Classics Corner, Movie Reviews

Random Factoid #489

29 11 2010

Every movie blog I read has been offering thoughts, thoughts, and more thoughts on the AMPAS’ announcement of the hosts for the 83rd Academy Awards.  But in case my blog is the closest you get to movie news, let me fill you in on a little secret: James Franco and Anne Hathaway were tapped to host.

In my opinion, this is something to celebrate.  Both are dramatic actors with incredibly potent comedic talent (as evidenced by their “Saturday Night Live” appearances), and they have an exuberant youthful charm that makes them incredible winning figures.  I think they will light up the Oscar stage, and if anyone has any doubts, see Anne Hathaway’s song-and-dance number with Hugh Jackman from two years ago.

It’s a curious choice indeed with the hosts having performances in play for big awards, but I think if we leave the politics out of it (which many Oscar analysts won’t), it will be an inspired show.  The pairing of Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin worked last year, and the 2010 variation on the buddy host scheme is meant to appeal to a younger crowd.  This generation (hem, my generation) has not traditionally shown an interest in the show, and Franco and Hathaway will certainly be a draw.

All I can say is: I’m still waiting for someone to top Whoopi Goldberg’s “African Queen” moment from 1999, which is one of the main reason why I’m obsessed with the Oscars.  (Read more about it in Random Factoid #221.)


Comments : 1 Comment »
Tags: , , ,
Categories : Random Factoids

« Previous Entries Next Entries »