Random Factoid #483

23 11 2010

The directors of the new and already forgotten movie “Skyline,” the Strause Brothers, were quite outspoken about the movie’s visual effects.  They worked on movies like “Titanic,” “300,” and “Avatar” but decided to make their own movie on a sort of DIY scale.  The movie’s release certainly made them feel entitled to call out in Vulture the special effects that movies still mess up: fur, dust, water, and breath.

I’ll admit that they are right, to a certain extent.  Those are things that are often botched, and much of the technology that has come out recently have been to correct the obvious errors in these elements.  But I’m not writing this post to speculate on visual effects’ flaws today; I’m writing to talk about visual effects of the past.

It’s so funny to watch “Spider-Man,” the 2002 release that sparked the superhero craze all over again, and see the visual effects.  Not that they are terrible because I remember being so wowed by them in third grade.  It was the talk of recess for quite some time.  But I want to say just how incredible it is that we can look at a movie only eight years old and see what incredible leaps and bounds technology has taken in that time.  You don’t watch it and say, “Oh, that looks terrible.”  You watch it and say, “Oh, we can do that so much better now!”

It’s an interesting phenomenon that I invite anyone who loves nostalgia to take part in.





Oscar Moment: “Frankie & Alice”

23 11 2010

How important is it for the diversity of Hollywood actors to be represented at the Oscars?  That’s a question many voters will be facing this year when they fill out their ballots.  Many pundits have put all the hopes of breaking up what appears to be 20 white acting nominees on the backs of 2001’s winner for Best Actress, Halle Berry.

Her latest movie, “Frankie & Alice,” made a last-second entry into the Oscar race not too much unlike “Crazy Heart” did last year.  But unlike Jeff Bridges’ Oscar-winning vehicle, Berry’s contention in Best Actress has hardly shaken anything up.  Of the 15 awards season analysts labeled the “Gurus o’ Gold,” not a single one of them included Berry in their five picks for Best Actress.  Ouch.

Perhaps it’s just the circumstances that make Berry feel like such a great contender.  As The Los Angeles Times put it, “for the first time since the 73rd Oscars 10 years ago, there will be no black nominees in any of the acting categories in the February ceremony.”  Who better than to prove that statement made in September wrong than Halle Berry, the first African-American actress to win Best Actress.  But ever since that tearful speech, things haven’t been going to well for Berry as she fell into the “Best Actress Curse” rut that has consumed so many worthy actresses.

Since 2001, Berry has been a Bond girl in “Die Another Day,” the movie so dreadful it caused the series to reboot, the notorious feline in “Catwoman,” which won her a not-so-coveted Razzie, and the star of two other movies scoring in the 10% fresh range on Rotten Tomatoes.  Her only movie to be certified fresh since “Monster’s Ball” won her the trophy was “X-Men 2.”  Clearly Berry has strayed far away from Oscar territory (and her 2007 attempt, “Things We Lost in the Fire,” got her nowhere).

This could work in two ways.  First, like the prodigal son, they could be willing to welcome her back with open arms.  Or, the alternative is that they could shun her for disgracing her title as “Academy Award Winner Halle Berry.”  The movies she has been taking don’t exactly merit the descriptor.

A woman in the 1970s with multiple personality syndrome is more traditional bait for the Oscars, and people losing their minds traditionally go over well with the Academy (see: Anne Hathaway in “Rachel Getting Married,” Julie Christie in “Away from Her,” and Judi Dench in “Iris”).  But until she gets some big critical support, I don’t see this campaign going anywhere.

She does have one admirer, though.  Here’s pundit Dave Karger of Entertainment Weekly last week on Berry in “Frankie & Alice:”

“The former Best Actress winner for ‘Monster’s Ball’ gives another strong, gutsy performance as a stripper with multiple-personality disorder (her other two personas are a racist white woman and, most arrestingly, a small child). Whether or not the film will be well-received enough for Berry to be able to challenge … Annette Bening and … Natalie Portman remains to be seen. But I’d certainly put her on the list of eight women … that have the best shot at filling out the five Best Actress slots this year.”

Perhaps there is hope.

BEST BETS FOR NOMINATIONS: Best Actress (Berry)





Random Factoid #482

22 11 2010

Welcome back to the random factoid column, which I should really just rename “Dumb Stuff Jessica Alba Says.”  As you may remember, she made the news last week for Elle interview in which she claimed that good actors never use the script.  Well, the rest of the interview was published, and now the whole world is left to wonder why she can’t just shut her trap.

In the interview, she also went after directors, particularly “Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer” director Tim Story.  Here’s an excerpt of the garbage spewing out of her mouth on this topic:

“[Story said] ‘It looks too real. It looks too painful. Can you be prettier when you cry? Cry pretty, Jessica.’ He was like, ‘Don’t do that thing with your face. Just make it flat. We can CGI the tears in.’ And I’m like, But there’s no connection to a human being. And then it all got me thinking: Am I not good enough? Are my instincts and my emotions not good enough? Do people hate them so much that they don’t want me to be a person? Am I not allowed to be a person in my work? And so I just said, ‘F**k it. I don’t care about this business anymore.'”

Right, I forgot that Jessica Alba was a three-time Academy Award winning actress who needed virtually no direction!  Oh, wait, that’s Katharine Hepburn, sorry for the mental snafu.

Alba claims that this role made her want to quit acting altogether.  Guys, let’s be honest, we don’t watch a Jessica Alba movie to see powerful acting; we watch it to see Jessica Alba looking pretty.  So if she just resigned herself to modeling, she wouldn’t be breaking any of our hearts.





REVIEW: I’m Still Here

22 11 2010

If Joaquin Phoenix managed to have me pretty fully convinced that he was serious when he did the “Hasidic meth dealer” act for over a year, does that make him a good actor … or me a gullible onlooker?  In a way, that’s the sort of question “I’m Still Here” wants you to answer, although there was enough media coverage surrounding Joaquin Phoenix’s committed transformation that a movie just seems unnecessary.

Directed by Phoenix’s brother-in-law, Casey Affleck, the movie is a piece of performance art by Joaquin Phoenix masquerading as a documentary.  He makes some interesting observations on the nature of the star, which detract from the actor.  The reasoning is that by excising the actor and becoming a rapper (something he is incredibly ill-suited to tackle) we will realize that we love the celebrity more than we love their talent.

And, in a sense, he’s right.  As we observe his year of withdrawal, we see the media circus in full tilt, quick as ever to judge.  They mistake the performance for the personality, much as I and many others did.  The documentary flirts with this blurry line, and there are many times when it’s hard to tell where one ends and the other begins.  This problem isn’t made any easier by Affleck’s unstable direction, but it makes for a perplexing experience that virtually requires the viewer to take on the role of a detective exploring Phoenix’s mind.

This artistic experiment Phoenix puts on for a year is never dull or boring.  The best word to describe it is bizarre, and all of his strange fetishes for strippers, drugs, and cruel pranks make him out to be either one sick actor or deranged man.  Either way, “I’m Still Here” doesn’t endear us to any side of Joaquin Phoenix.  It’s an uncomfortable watch at times as he borders on insanity, even knowing that it’s all a big hoax.

What I think Phoenix doesn’t realize is that this offbeat performance has forever enshrined him in our minds as a kooky celebrity, not an actor, in effect giving an averse reaction.  Whatever the case, I’ll certainly never see “Walk the Line” in the same way as before.  B-





“Waiting for Superman” Poll Results

22 11 2010

I’m fuming that I didn’t get a chance to catch “Waiting for Superman” before it left Houston theaters, but c’est la vie sometimes.  We can’t see everything.

But nonetheless, it’s still something to talk about.  It sure got people talking, just like a good documentary should do.  But will it be an Oscar victor?  That’s the question I posed in my Oscar Moment on Davis Guggenheim’s latest social issue documentary.  Remember, this is the man that brought us “An Inconvenient Truth,” no matter what Al Gore tries to tell us.

The I‘s have it.  3 voters said they thought it would take the path to Oscar gold, as opposed to 2 voters who thought it wouldn’t.  The movie hasn’t quite had a box office like that of Guggenheim’s last movie, so it doesn’t exactly have runaway success in its favor.  But when the President pays attention, you had better bet on the fact that Oscar voters are paying attention.





Oscar Moment: “Biutiful”

21 11 2010

There are two things going for “Biutiful” going into awards season – well, two names, really.  Javier Bardem and Alejandro González Iñárritu.

Bardem, winner of the 2007 Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor for his work in “No Country for Old Men,” has the respect to get into a crowded Best Actor category.  I can’t say he’s a threat for anything due to this year’s “Eat Pray Love,” but he’s been in the Academy’s consciousness for a decade now (Bardem was nominated for Best Actor in 2000 for his work on “Before Night Falls”).  He could definitely be a strong contender to take a trophy in the Leading Actor category, the more prestigious of the two male acting awards.

Bardem already has one nice award in 2010 for this role, the Best Actor award at the Cannes Film Festival back in May.  He tied for the award with an Italian actor, but that does not detract from this huge honor.  Last year’s winner was Christoph Waltz for “Inglourious Basterds,” and after receiving that prize, he steamrolled all the way to an Oscar.  However, you have to go back to 1987 to find the previous time when the opinions of the Cannes jury matched up with the Academy on actors.  So while this will undoubtedly help Bardem, it’s not the end of the race as we know it.

Alejandro González Iñárritu is also an Academy force.  In 2006, he was the first Mexican director ever to be nominated for the Oscar for Best Director for his work on “Babel.”  His other two movies, “Amores Perros” and “21 Grams,” both received Academy Award nominations.  His work is clearly respected by the voters, although given how 2010 is shaping up, he’s going to need a minor miracle to get into the 2010 field for Best Director.

“Biutiful” is Mexico’s selection for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Film, which is where the movie will have its best chance outside of Bardem.  It’s not often that the category gets work from well-known directors, and such movies usually manage at least a nomination.  This will make it tough for “Biutiful” to garner a Best Picture nomination since the Academy mindset has largely been dismissive of foreign films since they have their own category.  Only eight foreign language movies have ever been nominated for Best Picture, two of which came in the past decade.  However, with the nomination of “Up” last year, the voters don’t seem to let the Best Animated Feature category hold them back.  It may only be a matter of time before foreign films get their time in the sun.

Plus, on a closing note, this movie looks DEPRESSING.  The Academy has turned away from really bleak fare recently, and the plot of “Biutiful” centers around a dying man trying to make peace with some of the loose ends in his life.  Judging from this review by Variety‘s Justin Chang, this doesn’t feel like their cup of tea.

“… less invested in themes of fate and convergence than his previous work, this gritty, slow-burning melodrama nonetheless offers a very long descent into a private purgatory, and its scant emotional rewards can’t shake off the sense of a prodigiously gifted filmmaker stuck in a grim rut.”

BEST BETS FOR NOMINATIONS: Best Actor, Best Foreign Language Film

OTHER POSSIBLE NOMINATIONS: Best Picture, Best Director





Random Factoid #481

21 11 2010

This is totally random, out there, and will probably be discarded as one of those “too personal” posts that probably have no use to the average reader.  But if you made it past that first long sentence, then clearly you give some sort of a care about what I’m writing, so I’ll write it anyways.

For all those in need of a productivity boost, I have a tip that has been working for me a lot recently.  Simply play the track “In Motion” from Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross’ prodigious score for “The Social Network” and feel your fingers get in rhythm with the pulsating beat.  Then curl them up into a fist one a finger at a time, beginning with the pinky, a la Jesse Eisenberg as Mark Zuckerberg hacking into the Harvard network to create Facebook.  And then attack whatever task you need to do.

You may not feel like you are sewing the seeds for a multi-billion dollar company, but it sure feels a lot better than just diving into the task with a frown.

Just my advice.





REVIEW: Rabbit Hole

20 11 2010

Losing a child is painful in the real world, but in the sphere of cinema, it’s hardly breaking new ground.  In order to communicate the emotional trauma of such an event, movies have to take the material in different and unexpected directions.  “Rabbit Hole” is a success story, presenting the story of husband and wife affected by the preventable death of their four-year-old son in entirely different ways.  John Cameron Mitchell takes the great theatrical aspects of David Lindsey-Abaire’s Pulitizer Prize-winning play and reminds us the power that great dialogue can have while also using the great resources of film to supplement the already incredibly powerful film.

Nearing the one-year anniversary of their son Danny’s passing, Becca (Nicole Kidman) and Howie (Aaron Eckhart) are still reeling.  Caught in the unenviable conundrum of choosing to mourn or move on, each find a different way to cope with the void in their lives.  Becca tries to find life by acting like the hole isn’t there, removing the traces of Danny that remind her that he is gone.  She finds solace, strangely, through talking with the teenager that hit her son.  Becca also has to deal with the pregnancy of her irresponsible sister (Tammy Blanchard), which only complicates her volatile emotional state, and the intervention of her mother (Dianne Wiest), eager to offer advice after going through the loss of a son in her own right.

Howie, on the other hand, tries to hang on to the fading memories of his son, particularly by watching a video of Danny on his phone.  Rather than try to adjust to life without his son, he advocates starting a new life altogether.  He pitches selling their house and having another child, neither of which are received well by his wife.  Howie has faith in the traditional methods of dealing with grief, holding onto the belief that the group therapy sessions can work long after Becca gives up on them. When those who look to religion to solve their problems finally drive her away from the group for good, he strikes up a friendship with an eight-year veteran (Sandra Oh) still looking to make peace with the loss of her child.

Read the rest of this entry »





Random Factoid #480

20 11 2010

I have seen “127 Hours” – finally!  So now I can finally share my thoughts on the amputation scene that has caused more than a handful of people to faint!

To answer your first question, thank you, I didn’t pass out!  I was able to take it, flinching a little bit but never shutting my eyes.  There were quite a few people who screamed, though, and I heard a couple of ladies yelling “oh, Lord!” behind me.  But that’s not the behavior I want to talk about.

What I want to talk about is at the end of the scene – that is, when it is finished – the person next to me laughed.  For about 30 seconds.  While the rest of the theater was in total shock, all of us with our jaws about to hit the floor, he felt the need to laugh.  His behavior was totally inappropriate, and it ruined (or at least dampened) the emotional impact of the scene.  I know I say “I can’t stand” a lot of things about going to a movie like crying babies or odorous people, but this may require a second viewing to get the moment right.

Has anyone else had a movie ruined by an ill-timed outburst?





F.I.L.M. of the Week (November 19, 2010)

19 11 2010

Looking for a warm Thanksgiving-themed movie to watch while the turkey is in the oven?  Take a bite out of the delectable comedy “Pieces of April,” my timely pick for “F.I.L.M. of the Week.”  I watched the movie back in March because of Patricia Clarkson’s Oscar-nominated supporting role, but there’s so much more to love about the movie than her.  I’ve been an enthusiastic fan for quite some time now, and I held back posting about it until now, when the timing seems right.

Think about, we get a plethora of Christmas movies but no love for Thanksgiving?  By the time November rolls around, all the stores are already decorated to sell Christmas gear, XM Radio has already started their Christmas station again, and the retailers start to post their holiday sale information.  There’s so much to celebrate about Thanksgiving, one of the few holidays we have left that isn’t heavily commercialized.  So for all those who think that Thanksgiving is just the day before Black Friday, step away from the wallet and sit on the couch and watch “Pieces of April.”

Since Thanksgiving is a holiday about family, it makes sense that this a movie all about family, both the ones we are forced to be a part of and the ones we make ourselves.  April (Katie Holmes, pre-Tom and Suri madness) is the twenty-something rebel living in New York to maintain a distance from her dysfunctional family, but welcomes them to her tiny apartment for Thanksgiving dinner, potentially the last for her mother Joy (Clarkson), embittered by her breast cancer diagnosis.  The movie follows both sides as they think they have the hardest part of the deal: April actually attempting to cook a turkey and her family making the journey from suburbia.

Each encounter difficulties, with April’s oven breaking and Joy’s negativity forcing them to take some trite and unnecessary delays.  However, April finds that her cooking struggles force her to interact with her neighbors, with whom she had never associated before.  She finds that she can actually be friends with these people, and that’s what makes “Pieces of April” such a great movie for such a great holiday: it’s all about the relationships, both appreciating the ones you have and being open to making new ones.





Random Factoid #479

19 11 2010

In case you haven’t heard, there’s a new pairing of legendary director and actor to make every pundit go “Oscar winner in 2 years.”  Morgan Freeman and Clint Eastwood for “Invictus” was an example of just such a pairing.

Now it’s Daniel Day-Lewis as Abraham Lincoln, one of the most well-respected figures in American history, in Steven Spielberg’s long-delayed biopic “Lincoln.”  Liam Neeson was the original pick for the role, but due to scheduling and his eventual aging, he dropped out of the project.  Both are incredibly capable actors who would do a great job in the role, but there’s one issue I have – neither are American!

I hardly think ethnic casting is an issue for something as simple as American/British actors, as they cross over accents and nationalities with ease.  But when it comes to playing, in my mind, the greatest American in our history, I would think an American would be cast.  Not to say that Day-Lewis can’t, with the proper amount of research, know what a crucial role Lincoln plays in our history, but he won’t have the same passion as an American.

What do you think?  Should Abraham Lincoln be played by a non-American?





Oscar Moment: “Blue Valentine”

19 11 2010

You’ve probably heard about “Blue Valentine” for all the wrong reasons, particularly because of the absurd NC-17 rating it received at the hands of the violence-loving but genophobic (that’s the fear of sex) ratings boards of the MPAA.  Harvey Weinstein lawyered up and is now going to stare down the ridiculous organization until they renege on the rating that has led all other movies to final ruin.

Why is the movie NC-17, for all those curious out there wondering?  Because it dared to give an honest portrayal of a relationship in its most devastating moments.  The movie has gained a reputation over the past year, after playing at Sundance, Cannes, and Toronto, for being a brutal watch but incredibly powerful because it dares to not fall into Hollywood schmaltz.  As Guy Lodge of In Contention put it when he first saw the movie at Cannes, the movie’s tagline should be “don’t see it with someone you love.”

The reviews so far have been fantastic, and they have been consistently rolling in as the film plays a new festival.  Kris Tapley of In Contention wrote in October that he “found it to be a delicate and truthful examination of a relationship in crisis.”  Owen Gleiberman of Entertainment Weekly raved:

“No movie I’ve seen at Sundance this year conjures the possibilities — or the current, gloom-and-doom marketplace environment — of independent film more powerfully than Blue Valentine. A lushly touching, wrenching, and beautifully told story, directed by Derek Cianfrance with a mood of entwined romantic dreams and romantic loss …”

The movie is a promising debut for writer/director Derek Cianfrance, and if the critics really show their love for the movie through their year-end awards, I think he could be rewarded with a Best Original Screenplay nomination.  Best Director this year will be packed full of some fan favorites reaching their peak (Fincher, maybe Nolan and Aronofsky), and the choice newcomer of 2010 will probably be Tom Hooper for “The King’s Speech.”

But I get the sense that the reward for “Blue Valentine” will come through its actors, Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams.  It is their movie, and most reviews I read state that Cianfrance largely steps out of the way and lets them create the art.  According to Sasha Stone of Awards Daily, this movie is the culmination of a whole lot of work and passion from Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams:

“… Director Derek Cianfrance has been meticulously working on this film for a good ten years.  He brought it to Michelle Williams back in 2003, and a few years later they brough in Ryan Gosling.  The idea was to wait until the two of them were old enough to be believable in the part.  Since the film takes place in different moments in time, the actors had to take a hiatus and change themselves physically before coming back to film the later scenes of the couple.”

Cianfrance went to great measures to get the most authentic performances possible out of his actors.  Gosling and Williams largely lived their roles during filming, and Cianfrance captured as much of it as possible.  Praise has been pouring out for the two stars, ranging from “the performances of their careers” (Stone) to “pitch-perfect” and “gold” (Tapley).  Gosling and Williams, who both recently turned 30, are tremendously respected for their ages as can be seen through their previous nominations.  Both face difficult fields, but I think they can do it simply because “Blue Valentine” appears to fly because they knock it out of the park.

And then there’s the big question of them all: what about Best Picture?  For starters, it’s already racked up one nomination on the road to glory.  The Gotham Independent Film Awards recognized “Blue Valentine” as one of the five best independent movies of the year, along with other hopefuls like “The Kids Are All Right,” “Black Swan,” and “Winter’s Bone.”  This group picked last year’s Best Picture winner, “The Hurt Locker,” as their favorite and nominated “A Serious Man,” a 2009 Best Picture nominee, as well.  The Gotham Awards are hardly a reliable indicator for Oscar tastes, though, with a Best Picture nominee popping up every once in a while.

So who knows?  The publicity from the ratings drama isn’t hurting, but with the film’s release set for December 31, it will have very little time to find an audience, making it the “obscure indie” pick that the expanded field might be phasing out.

BEST BETS FOR NOMINATIONS: Best Actor, Best Actress

OTHER POSSIBLE NOMINATIONS: Best Picture, Best Director






Random Factoid #478

18 11 2010

Today, ladies and gentlemen, I feel like a real critic.

Thanks to my incredibly well-connected Young Life leader, I was able to see “The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader” nearly a month before it hits theaters.  I was in one of the first audiences in the ENTIRE COUNTRY to see this movie, something that fills my inner blogger up with so much pride I could pop like a balloon.

But because I have seen it so early, I received something that real critics have to deal with all the time: embargoes.  For those who don’t read enough movie speculation to know what this term means, I’ll let you in on a little secret.  Until a certain date, I am not allowed to publish a review of the movie!  I am now waiting on the major trades to weigh in, and as soon as I see the first review pop up on Rotten Tomatoes, you’ll see it here!

I am, however, allowed to share with you some initial thoughts and reactions.  So I’ll do that on this post as I gloat in my embargoedness, a noun which I am totally making up.  “The Voyage of the Dawn Treader” is definitely a step in the right direction for the “Narnia” series, much more like “The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe” than “Prince Caspian.”  Changing distributors really made a big difference as Disney turned the series more commercial, while Fox has allowed Walden Media to make the series more spiritual.  The movie leaves you with a whole lot of questions, ones that it challenges you to answer on your own.

The real question is: will you answer them?





REVIEW: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1

17 11 2010

Gone is the familiar comfort and charm of the Hogwarts castle in the first installment of “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows,” and the movie has a distinctively different mood throughout.  At times, it feels like Cormac McCarthy’s “The Road: Kids Edition” as the three undaunted friends Harry Potter, Ron Weasley, and Hermione Granger traverse through hazardous territory to find horcruxes, pieces of dark magic in which Lord Voldemort has stored his soul.  There are seven in existence – two have been destroyed in past movies, and over the course of 150 minutes, we get to watch them find and destroy not two, not three, but a single horcrux.

Take that in.  All the trouble to split the final book of J.K. Rowling’s series in two, and they squander an entire half on just one horcrux?  Standing alone, it feels like a whole lot of exposition amounting to little more than a section rising action that culminates in a pseudo-climax that just feels somewhat off.

The important thing to remember, especially for rabid “Harry Potter” fans like myself, is that this is the first half of a two-part saga.  Normally, the first half of any movie is its lesser component, and particularly so in this series. The first hours often struggle to remain totally exciting through the set-up, and they also have the daunting task of getting the rising action going, which can often be pretty slow.  If the first half of any movie had a full narrative arc, wouldn’t that essentially be defeating the purpose of the second half?

Read the rest of this entry »





Random Factoid #477

17 11 2010

I have to admit, I’ve always wondered if I would ever walk into a theater thinking I was seeing one movie and then see another.  I get particularly suspicious when the trailers before the movie don’t seem to match in tone with the movie I’m about to see.  What I could only imagine became a reality for some audiences this week.  According to Cinematical, here’s what went down:

“Families at Showcase Cinemas in Revere, Massachusetts were expecting to see ‘Megamind,’ a colorful, animated superhero adventure presented in eye-popping 3D. Instead, they got the first few minutes of ‘Saw 3D,’ a bloody, gruesome horror movie presented in 3D so that you can literally see eyes popping. It remains uncertain whether or not the traumatized children and their shocked parents began to flee after the footless man cauterized his leg stump with a burning steam pipe or after the woman got lowered into the buzz saw.”

Now these kids are scarred for life, all thanks to the negligence of a projectionist.  I didn’t think this actually happened, but now one person’s mistake could lead to a whole lot of therapy.

Did anybody else think this didn’t actually happen?