Random Factoid #470

10 11 2010

My life is complete for two reasons today.  First, I just found out that the Houston Cinematic Arts Festival will be giving me the chance to see “BLACK SWAN” on Sunday, nearly a month before the general viewing public!  Needless to say, I’m pretty pumped!!!

But on a different level, one that you will probably appreciate and enjoy much more, a childhood fantasy may be coming true.  About a week away from the release of the first installment of “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows,” the invisibility cloak that a very young Harry Potter sports way back in the first film may become a reality.

Here’s the story according to Cinematical:

“AOL News reports that researchers at Scotland’s University of St. Andrews have come up with a fabric called ‘Metaflex,’ which is a step towards ‘smart fabrics’ that can ‘manipulate light waves to make objects, like clothing, invisible.’ At first, their studies only produced light-bending atoms on hard surfaces, but after continued research, they were able to develop the flexible Metaflex membrane, which should lead to smarter, wearable fabrics.”

I remember hearing about invisibility cloak technology being created a few years ago with cameras used to capture what was going on around the wearer.  But this is totally legitimate, and I can’t wait to put on my invisibility cloak and feel like Harry roaming through the halls of Hogwarts.  These scientists and researchers need to make one that dementors can’t see through, though.

However, this will mean that the powers of many a hero will become irrelevant.  Sorry, Violet Parr from “The Incredibles.”


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

Oscar Moment: “The Fighter”

9 11 2010

“The Fighter” was supposed to be sight unseen until after Thanksgiving, a move that lends a certain amount of prestige and mystery to an Oscar contender.  However, all assumptions are out the window after today’s announcement that it will be shown as a “secret screening” at the AFI Fest in Los Angeles tonight.  So tomorrow, official speculation begins on one of the most buzzed movies of the season.

To begin the chatter, it’s best to start with how this staked out a spot on every pundits top 10 list without anybody laying eyes on it.  “The Fighter” is a prestige December release for Paramount (the studio bringing us “True Grit” in the same month) about the boxer “Irish” Micky Ward, played by Mark Wahlberg.  Boxing is a very Academy-friendly sport: “Million Dollar Baby” and “Rocky” won Best Picture, “Raging Bull” was nominated, and acting nominations have been bestowed upon “Cinderella Man,” “Ali,” and “The Hurricane.”  Sasha Stone at Awards Daily attempted to figure out why the Academy is so in the ring for boxing and came up with a list of 10 reasons.  Here are the most pertinent:

3. During the fight, it is required that the fighter retreat momentarily to get rubbed down, stitched up, and sponged. During this time, the fighter is warned to back off because “it’s not worth it.” And if that doesn’t work, “cut me.”

5. If the hero does lose, he or she must manage to look like the winner because he or she won at the important stuff:  he or she was a good person and tried hard.  No matter what, never smash a champion belt for the jewels. It’s worth more intact and in its original condition.

7. There has to be something else at stake besides just playing the game. Palpable desperation for financial gain, for instance, personal recognition, a chance to play like the big boys do: nobody likes a rich fighter doing it just for sport.

With those in mind, “The Fighter” seems to be a straight down the Academy checklist movie.  Then again, I said the same thing about Clint Eastwood’s rugby flick “Invictus” last year, and it didn’t fare too well.  So is it really just the subject matter that gives us faith in the movie?  It’s certainly not because of David O. Russell, whose movies have hardly been a hit with the Academy in the past.  To make matters worse, Anne Thompson puts Russell in a category with Mel Gibson for despised people in Hollywood.  His quarrels with actors have been well-documented thanks to sites like YouTube, and Thompson says that the movie would have to be really good for people to get over the fact that he directed it.

I think the actors are the big selling point of the movie.  Mark Wahlberg is four years removed from a much-deserved Best Supporting Actor nomination for ‘The Departed,” and he tried to get back in the race last year for “The Lovely Bones” (which stunk and accordingly flopped).  The leading role of boxer Ward will offer up some meaty material for the actor to sink his teeth into, and as long as he does a good job, I don’t see what could keep someone like Wahlberg out of Best Actor.  He’s a likable actor who has a great success story of his own.  Besides, look at the boxing movies I listed that have found Oscar success.  With the exception of “Cinderella Man,” the movie’s main boxer has been nominated.  Swank and DeNiro won.

The movie also has three supporting performances that could each be big movers in the Oscar race this year, particularly given how volatile both fields are.  Christian Bale took off all the Batman brawn and went skinny for his role as Dickie Eklund, Micky’s older brother and trainer.  It’s really more of a co-lead from what I hear, and according to a nice chart laid out by Nathaniel Rogers of The Film Experience, one can learn that those were quite popular over the past decade.

Eklund also struggles with substance abuse, and addicts are another Academy favorite.  This category saw nominees Benicio del Toro in “21 Grams” as a reformed alcoholic, Thomas Haden Church in “Sideways” as a promiscuous wine enthusiast, Eddie Murphy in “Dreamgirls” as a recreational cocaine user, and Josh Brolin in “Milk” as the man who can’t put down the Twinkies.  Bale is playing a role that screams “OSCARS” from the rooftops; like Russell, he has a temper issue that people will have to forgive for him to go the extra mile.

Two-time nominee Amy Adams and one-time nominee Melissa Leo will both try to crack the Best Supporting Actress field, and given the year, both of them could make it provided that “The Fighter” is a big threat across the board.  This is a category especially friendly to doubly nominated movies; in six out of the last ten years, one movie has received two Best Supporting Actress nominations.  With “For Colored Girls” almost entirely out of the picture, this could be the only movie to swoop down and grab two spots.

But if there’s only one, I have a feeling it will go to Melissa Leo.  She was a surprise nominee back in 2008 for “Frozen River,” and the Academy picked her up out of obscurity and put her on the map.  That means they like her and want her to succeed.  From early buzz, she has a showier role as the mother of Wahlberg and Bale than Adams has as Wahlberg’s love interest.  Looking over the past decade of nominees, maternal figures, good or bad, show up a lot.  (Just for fun, Mo’Nique was the last bad mom to win, Jennifer Connelly was the last good mom to win.)

The movie could also score nominations in technical categories like editing, cinematography, and makeup because boxing movies require a lot of orchestration with the camera to make the fights coherent.  But the big question remains if this could be a Best Picture nominee.  It’s been assumed for months now, but it can’t stay hidden any longer.  Soon we will see the true colors.

We aren’t entirely dry on news about “The Fighter” as a whole; the movie showed at ShowEast for theater owners and won raves according to Steve Pond at The Wrap.  These aren’t Oscar prognosticators, but Pond said the consensus was that it would be a “likely Best Picture nominee, with a pair of performances that will definitely figure into the Supporting Actor and Actress races.”  We will know a lot more tomorrow, but until then, we sit back and predict.  And wait.

BEST BETS FOR NOMINATIONS: Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Supporting Actor, Best Supporting Actress (Leo), Best Film Editing

OTHER POTENTIAL NOMINATIONS: Best Director, Best Supporting Actress (Adams), Best Original Screenplay, Best Cinematography, Best Makeup


Comments : 2 Comments »
Tags: , , , , , ,
Categories : 2010 - Oscar Moment, Oscar Moment

Random Factoid #469

9 11 2010

I was ten when “Spider-Man” hit theaters and suddenly made the comic book movie cool again.  Suddenly, every comic book was getting a movie adaptation and making hundreds of millions of dollars.  Running almost concurrently was the explosion of the video game movie, making significantly less money but still came pointless adaptations of games clearly not meant for the silver screen.

Now that the video game movies are starting to die down again (at least until the “Halo” movie finally gets off the ground), Hollywood needs a new novelty to adapt into movies.  They have strangely settled upon board games.  I was OK with “Battleship,” skeptical when the “Candy Land” movie was announced, and genuinely worried when the Ouija Board was getting the cinematic treatment.  But today, the movie industry officially crossed the line.

According to /Film, a movie based on the Rubik’s cube – you heard me, the Rubik’s Cube! – is being developed.  Talk about a cinematic low point.  How on earth does something like this get financed?

“We’re going to pass on the probing adult drama and go with the Rubik’s cube,” says the studio executive with the power of the purse.  So bored with proposition after proposition, he glances at his desk and decides to finance a movie based on the first object he sees.  Coming in 2014: “Roladex, The Movie” and “Inside Newton’s Cradle” battling out “Paranormal Activity 6” for #1 at the box office.

(P.S. – Today’s post is one the first in over a month that I have published on time.  Phew, it feels good to be caught up.)


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

REVIEW: Fair Game

8 11 2010

It’s really a shame that we live in such a polarize political climate that we rush to affiliate any movie about current events with a political ideology.  Because “Fair Game” tells the story of a woman and her husband who did their jobs and were led to be skeptical of the Bush administration based on their information, it has been labeled a liberal movie.

Yet 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.

How is it possible for the story of a woman who dared to question the authority and logic of President George W. Bush to be patriotic?  At first glance, the movie seems to be painting an incredibly cynical and unflattering portrait of the government.  Without remorse, they ruin Plame’s career by outing her as a covert CIA agent.  Under the leadership of Scooter Libby, the office of the Vice-President takes steps to discredit her and leave her without support to face the most powerful institution in the country.

Read the rest of this entry »


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

Random Factoid #468

8 11 2010

When the highly esteemed actress Jessica Alba, whom the Oscars lavish with nominations and wins every year, opens her mouth with theories on acting, the world should listen.  She knows what she’s talking about.

In a cover shoot for Elle, she spewed this enlightened remark on acting:

“Good actors, never use the script unless it’s amazing writing. All the good actors I’ve worked with, they all say whatever they want to say.”

Talk about one of the dumbest things to say; this ranks only slightly below Jenna Maroney’s “I hate the troops!” outburst on “30 Rock.”  Yet now there is no mystery why Alba has been nominated for four Razzies (the counterpart to the Oscars) for SEVEN movies!  She does it all herself, and so does everyone else in her movies!

The screenwriter knows better than the dumb actor, who looks at a script and goes “BS, BS, my line, BS, my line, BS, my line, BS, end.”  They know what the movie should be, and they entrust their words to these actors who they hope will do it justice.  Looking at Alba’s resumé on IMDb, I couldn’t help but wonder what those terrible movies would look like if the actors had stuck to the script.

But I only take this from a blogger’s imagination.  Here’s John August, an actual screenwriter on Alba’s dumb quip:

“I have to believe she was misquoted, or excerpted in some unflattering way … Oh, Jessica. Where to start? … Following your logic, you’ve never been in a movie with both good actors and amazing writing. That may be true, but it might hurt the feelings of David Wain, Robert Rodriguez and Frank Miller. … Screenwriters can be your best friends. We are pushovers for attractive people who pay attention to us. I wrote that bathtub scene in ‘Big Fish’ because Jessica Lange made brief eye contact with me. So if you’re not getting great writing — and honestly, you’re not — ask to have lunch with the screenwriter. I’ve seen you on interviews. You’re charming. That charm could work wonders.”

I acknowledge that some great scenes have come from improvisation in some of my favorite movies, like Paul Sorvino slapping Ray Liotta in “GoodFellas” and Kevin Spacey chunking the asparagus in “American Beauty.”  But those are to enhance the script, not replace it.  So until Alba comes out and says she was horribly misquoted, she should be written off entirely.


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

Random Factoid #467

7 11 2010

Eek.  I hope this doesn’t mean I’m some freak of nature with my memory.

On her blog “Monkey See” for NPR, Linda Holmes wrote a post about pop culture misconceptions that we all have.  Her reawakening to the idea has an interesting genesis, which I’ll quote below:

“… it somehow came up that The Flash and Flash Gordon are not the same person. By which I mean, “it came up that I was not aware that The Flash and Flash Gordon are not the same person.” (I think I sang the Queen song when The Flash was mentioned.)

I have no idea how I’ve lived as long as I have while laboring under this particular misconception, but let me tell you: Monkey See comics guru Glen Weldon, as you can imagine, was filled with … I don’t even know if it was contempt. He later claimed it was just pity, and that was supposed to be good news. ‘So,’ I said to him, ‘you’re telling me that there is both Flash and The Flash.'”

I hate to say it, but I really haven’t had many of these for the movies.  Just look at Random Factoid #184 and understand how I’m “that person” who knows every movie, every actor, and every release date.  The day a movie comes out is how I calculate time; movies are my relative measure.

I’d say the closest I ever came to a misconception was back in 2009 confusing “A Serious Man” and “A Single Man” all the time because you can’t be Oscar contenders and have the same initials.


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

REVIEW: Megamind

7 11 2010

Pixar’s “The Incredibles” produced many great quotes, but I’ll never forget the grave statement that the villain syndrome made towards the end of the movie: “When everyone’s super, no one will be.”

The point I’m trying to make here is not to draw a comparison between “Megamind” and Pixar’s 2004 gem, and that’s not just because it hardly exists since the two aren’t even in the same ballpark in terms of quality.  What I want to say is that movies involving superheroes and supervillains have pervaded so far beyond the Marvel and DC universe that the word “super” has lost quite a bit of luster.

The latest creation from the minds at DreamWorks animation (their third in 2010) is following hot on the heels of “Despicable Me,” another supervillain movie that somehow managed to set the box office on fire in spite of its middling mediocrity.  The two do have quite a few similarities, largely the central characters who put on the façade of a villain when they are actually big softies.  Neither offer anything new for viewers who have sat through countless superhero movies for kids, and “Megamind” importantly raises the question of how long audiences will toleration this repetition before it all drowns into monotony.

There’s some nice humor throughout the movie to help offset the predictable plot, and it’s a bearable watch that could be marginally enjoyable given you watch it in the right disposition.  The talented voice cast brings their A-game to the table: Will Ferrell with his over-the-top schtick, Tina Fey with her brilliant sarcasm, Jonah Hill with his “Superbad” obsequious dork rambling, and Brad Pitt with his … well, he does the deep voice, and his kids will scream with excitement when they hear him.

I will give “Megamind” that it does attempt to jump into musings on the nature of good and evil and the inherent nature of man. However, these concepts are explored in the most basic, watered-down, “Sesame Street”-manner that they might as well have not been attempted.  Really, the whole movie could have just not been attempted to save us all some time.  Sure, it’s fine entertainment, but don’t we already have more than enough quirky superheroes and supervillains?  Do we really need a blue one with a giant cranium?  C+ / 


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

Random Factoid #466

6 11 2010

Sorry I missed this whole saga…

Apparently even in 2010, we can still believe that time travel existed back in the 1920s.  There has been a huge controversy over what looks like a cell phone in someone’s ear in 1928 at the premiere of a Charlie Chaplin movie.

Check out this Cinematical expose:

“It’s a wacky theory hatched by filmmaker George Clark: a person from the future visited the premiere of the Chaplin classic. The evidence? Bonus footage on the DVD, showing what appears to be an old woman (or, as Clark suggests, a man in drag) strolling toward the premiere while talking on a cellular phone. Seeing that the first cell phones weren’t invented for, oh, another fifty-some-odd years, this is it, definitive proof that there are time travelers among us!”

Turns out enough Americans were stupid enough to believe that she might be holding a cell phone that Live Science dedicated some time to it.  If you really want to know that it’s just an ear trumpet, something deaf people used to help their hearing, feel free to spend 9 minutes of your life watching this video:

But honestly, is this not ridiculous?  I don’t really buy into conspiracy theories, and this is one of the most ridiculous I’ve ever heard.


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

“The Social Network” LAMBcast

6 11 2010

For those of you that missed hearing my beautiful voice since the summer, you’ll be happy to know that I recorded an episode of the LAMBcast about a month ago that is just now hitting the web.

The subject?  “The Social Network,” of course.  When I stopped to think about it, I realized that David Fincher’s film is the only movie that I felt has merited serious thematic discussion all year.  We all had our “Inception” theories, but we all legitimately care about the social message being conveyed to us here by Aaron Sorkin.

So expect me to praise it enthusiastically, expect me to uphold my assertions that it really isn’t that much like “Citizen Kane,” and expect to hear me give me full take on what I think we are meant to take from “The Social Network.”  It’s a great listen and a fascinating conversation; I highly recommend you check it out.

So CLICK ON MARK ZUCKERBERG below to be taken to the link to listen!


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

Oscar Moment: “How Do You Know”

5 11 2010

No one knows much about “How Do You Know” at the present moment.  But any movie that comes from director/writer/producer James L. Brooks has to be considered given the man’s 60% track record in scoring Best Picture nominations for his movies.

I’ve only seen his latest two movies, “As Good As It Gets” (which I totally adore) and “Spanglish” (which is still good although to a much lesser degree).  But the man has directed a Best Picture winner with “Terms of Endearment” and picked up a nice Best Director trophy for himself while he was at it.  Brooks is an incredibly influential figure in comedy, and as I pointed out in my column on “Love & Other Drugs,” that’s not an incredibly popular genre with the Academy.  To land three movies in the winner’s circle is a pretty huge accomplishment.

So what’s he up to now?  A comedy with comedic actors laced with drama.  His previous movies have starred, for the most part, dramatic actors – unless you dare to call Shirley MacLaine, William Hurt, and  Jack Nicholson comedians.  It will be interesting to see how critics and voters react to this shift in tactics.  “Spanglish” starred Adam Sandler, and they pretty much spat that right back out; will “How Do You Know” be any different?

To its advantage, it does have two Academy Award winners on the marquee: Reese Witherspoon as the headliner and Jack Nicholson in a supporting role.  I think wins are out of the question; Witherspoon because she won for a much more serious role, and Nicholson because he has enough with three.  The Golden Globes could nominate Witherspoon in a heartbeat in the musical/comedy category, and I could even see Jack getting an Oscar nomination because they love so darn much.

The other two leads are played by Owen Wilson and Paul Rudd, both of whom have a fair amount of respect compared to other similar performers (cough, Jack Black/Will Ferrell).  I think it would be pretty amazing for Owen Wilson to score an Oscar nomination given the field (assuming he competes in leading actor) and his often poor selection of films leading up to this (“Drillbit Taylor,” anyone?).  Paul Rudd, on the other hand, has picked movies that have gotten his comedic talents some good notes from high up.  And according to Jeffrey Wells at Hollywood Elsewhere, he could actually be a contender for this movie:

“The guy who delivers the goods is Paul Rudd. This will raise his profile to the A-list. This is a guaranteed Best Supporting Actor nomination.”

I’m a huge Paul Rudd fan, and I can probably quote every single line in “Role Models” that he utters.  So I’m all for him getting an Oscar nomination.  Best Supporting Actor has been particularly kind to comedic actors in the past decade with winner Alan Arkin for “Little Miss Sunshine” and nominations for Robert Downey Jr. in “Tropic Thunder” and Thomas Haden Church in “Sideways.”  My only worry for Rudd is that he could be pushed out by Mark Ruffalo in “The Kids Are All Right,” which could be a stronger overall awards play.  But in my mind, the males of that movie were the weak link, and I don’t feel as much buzz around him as I do Bening or Moore.

As for the movie as a whole, I feel like Best Original Screenplay is a category that the movie could easily score in given the pretty slim field this year.  Best Director is not quite as likely given that Brooks has already won.  But Best Picture, now that’s an interesting proposition.

Smart comedy is something that many people speculated that the Academy would want to reward with the expanded Best Picture field.  They get their recognition at the Golden Globes, but very few find their way into the big dance (with a few notable exceptions over the past few years).  I think comedy has some unfinished business with the Academy, and “How Do You Know” could provide that perfect mixture of comedy and drama to score big with the voters.  Dave Karger of Entertainment Weekly stood up for it in October, writing:

“Here’s the one case where I’m apparently the most alone in my thinking, as no other participant has the film on his or her list. But I have faith in the upcoming Reese Witherspoon romantic comedy based on writer/director James L. Brooks’ selected track record (‘Broadcast News,’ ‘Terms of Endearment’) and the positive buzz I’ve been hearing about costar Paul Rudd’s performance. Here’s hoping it’s not another ‘Spanglish.'”

Karger ranked it as his fifth selection, which shows a lot of confidence.  It’s hard to judge anything until the movie gets seen by a lot of critics, so right now all I have is speculation based on little substantive evidence.  But with James L. Brooks, we can make those guesses pretty educated.

BEST BETS FOR NOMINATIONS: Best Picture, Best Supporting Actor (Rudd), Best Original Screenplay

OTHER POSSIBLE NOMINATIONS: Best Director, Best Actress, Best Supporting Actor (Nicholson)


Comments : Leave a Comment »
Tags: , , , , , ,
Categories : 2010 - Oscar Moment, Oscar Moment

Random Factoid #465

5 11 2010

“We don’t have an obligation to give consumers what they want when they want it.”

That’s a real quote from a studio executive, and if this profit-hungry motivation doesn’t have you up in flames, I don’t know what will.

I understand that the movie industry is losing money across the board (so much for the cries of recession-proof, eh?), but taking advantage of your consumers is NOT the way to make up the deficit.  According to /Film, this is the state of the industry:

“Despite a few prominent successes at the box office this year, the industry is in a state of financial turmoil, with DVD sales cratering, Blu-Ray sales not compensating, and the rise of rental companies like Netflix and Redbox, offering consumers a way to see a movie for cheap.”

I think Netflix and Redbox are great (I have become avid users of both this year), and with the latter announcing plans to go digital, the future is not in discs anymore.  It’s on the Internet.

Universal, Fox, and Warner Bros. have all been skeptics of the new frontier, waiting four weeks to release their movies digitally out of fear that it will affect DVD sales.  They are only about to get worse, according to /Film.  A Warner Bros. executive said, “To be honest, I think [the window] a little short today versus what we probably need … that will get revisited as those deals expire.”  And to make matters worse, they plan on limiting the movies released to Netflix instant streaming, which is quickly becoming their most used feature.

I buy few DVDs anymore, and thanks to iTunes and Netflix offering HD rentals and streaming, I don’t feel the need to buy a Blu-Ray player.  We are entering the digital age of movies, and it’s time that the studios embrace it.  I have embraced it, so should they.  There will always be a place for these discs, although first it will be in the dust and soon after in a museum next to the VHS tapes and LaserDiscs.

(For all those desiring a more business-savvy approach to this topic, check out the great piece that The Los Angeles Times ran a few weeks ago.)


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

F.I.L.M. of the Week (November 5, 2010)

5 11 2010

With Danny Boyle set to have the world eating out of his hand again with “127 Hours” opening in limited release today, I thought it would be wise to check out his full catalogue to see how this stylistically virtuoso director flew under my radar for so long.  I didn’t make it all the way through, so my judgement isn’t final.  However, I did conclude that the vibrant energy he brought to “Slumdog Millionaire” is nothing new; he has been perfecting it over the course of a decade.

In case the tacit implication wasn’t clear in that last paragraph, I still think that “Slumdog Millionaire” is Danny Boyle at his peak. Easily his most realized and lucid directorial work, it is clear that Boyle is a director worthy of Hollywood’s most coveted trophy.  However, I found that among his other films, “Sunshine” stuck out as another masterwork.  Set in 2057 when the universe is about to implode, the intelligent science-fiction movie is easily Boyle’s most underrated.

There’s a sense of claustrophobia not unlike that present in Ridley Scott’s “Alien” as the crew of the Icarus head towards potentially imminent demise on a mission to reignite the dying Sun.  The seven ethnically diverse crew members (because this is an international mission, after all) face immense psychological distress as the fate of the universe rides on their shoulders.  All seem ready for sacrifice – or are they?  As the ship moves closer towards the Sun, the astronauts begin to act more out of self-interest and less out of humanity’s interest.

The movie is more of a psychological journey than a visual one, although Boyle does a nice job of seamlessly integrating some very dazzling effects into the movie.  This journey is effective because of the movie’s authentic feel, accomplished through scientific consultation and the method acting procedures Boyle put his cast through.  “Sunshine” may not sound entirely original, and to a certain extent, it isn’t.  But imagined through Boyle’s eyes, it’s a blazing cinematic trek to the edge of space filled with excitement and suspense.


Comments : 4 Comments »
Tags: , , , ,
Categories : F.I.L.M. of the Week, Movie Reviews

“127 Hours” Poll Results

5 11 2010

With Danny Boyle’s “127 Hours” opening today in theaters, I figured it would be as good a time as ever to look at the results of the poll I attached to the Oscar Moment back in September.

It’s all but a shoo-in now for Best Picture.  If you don’t believe me, look at some of the glowing reviews that have been published this week.

A.O. Scott, The New York Times:

“There are scenes in ‘127 Hours’ that are hard to bear — the cracking of a bone, the severing of a nerve, the desperate consumption of a water bag filled with urine — but what these moments communicate is more than worth a jolt of discomfort or a spasm of revulsion. To say that this movie gets under your skin is only barely a figure of speech. It pins you down, shakes you up and leaves you glad to be alive.”

Owen Gleiberman, Entertainment Weekly:

“How do you rivet an audience when your protagonist can’t even move? The answer is that there’s an awesome freedom to Danny Boyle’s filmmaking. And freedom, too, is the theme of the movie. Aron may be pinned, but his soul gets unlocked, and when he finally faces up to what he has to do, he’s not just cutting off his trapped appendage. He’s cutting off the part of himself that was only pretending to be alive. ‘127 Hours’ is a salute to do-it-yourself existential bravery, and an ingeniously crafted one, but what makes it cathartic is that it’s about a guy who gets high by taking the ultimate plunge.”

Boyle has gotten plenty of praise as well, but I dared to ask the question if two years post-Oscar victory was too soon for the “Slumdog Millionaire” director.

You didn’t seem to think so.  When asked if it was too soon, 75% said “no, he’s Danny Boyle!” as opposed to 25% who dared to say that two years would indeed be too soon.  I think I have to side with the majority here simply because from what I’m reading, the movie soars thanks to his kinetic directing style.


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

REVIEW: Hereafter

4 11 2010

It’s interesting to see the growth of the “hyperlink cinema” filmmaking style over the past decade.  In an age where we often feel so isolated and alone, living out just our own story, these movies that manage to intertwine multiple apparently unrelated storylines fill us with a sense that we actually are connected with everyone in the world around us.

The latest entry in this style comes from writer Peter Morgan (“Frost/Nixon”) and director Clint Eastwood, “Hereafter,” a musing on the nature of life and death in modern times.  Eastwood, who has made a name directing gritty movies, would seem to be the last person to take on such a project.  Yet at 80, his age and experience give the movie an overarching sense of peace and placidity.

In one sense, “Hereafter” is more focused than more sprawling movies like “Crash” and “Traffic,” which attempt to weave together what feels like dozens of characters in the course of two hours.  Morgan gets us well acquainted with three principal figures spread across three countries.

George Lonengan, played with composure by Matt Damon, has the ability to talk to the departed but struggles to maintain control over their intrusion into the way he lives his life.  There’s the age-old “gift vs. curse” dialectic haunting him as well, and it has forced him to resign himself to factory labor in San Francisco.

Marie, a subtly affecting Cecile de France, makes contact with the hereafter when she nearly drowns in the 2004 Indonesian tsunami.  Her experience sticks with her when she goes back to her job as a news anchor in Paris, and it’s obvious to everyone around her that she has something more than mere survivor’s guilt.  Trying to move on but unable to let go of her experience, her views of what awaits us after death lock her into a “faith vs. reason” debate that has accompanied countless discussions of heaven.

In London, a touching and hard-hitting story of mourning arises after death separates Jason and Marcus (Frankie and George McLaren), leaving the latter feeling left behind and alone.  With a mother addicted to drugs, he feels he has nowhere to turn to but the supernatural.  Whether Marcus seeks companionship or closure is left much to the audience’s imagination, but no matter what the goal is, it’s an emotional journey.

Read the rest of this entry »


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

Random Factoid #464

4 11 2010

Whatever you say, James Cameron.

According to 3D’s biggest cheerleader, “Once we get to auto-stereoscopic, that’s watching 3D without glasses, it is going to be the way we watch all of our media. That’s probably eight to 10 years away.”  Apparently two dimensions haven’t been enough to satisfy moviegoers for over a century, so now we have to watch everything in an extra dimension from now on?

He predicts that just like color made black-and-white movies obsolete, the third dimension will make the second go the way of the dinosaur.  At the moment, I don’t think I’m ready to have every movie in 3D, mainly because I don’t feel like every movie needs it.  Even when the technology becomes available, it’s going to take several more decades for the technology to trickle down into the price ranges of independent filmmakers.

But until then, can you imagine a time when your movie theater is all 3D?  When there isn’t a 2D Best Picture nominee?  When you show your kids a 2D movie and tell them that all movies used to look like this?

So I’m calling it: as soon as everything is in 3D, James Cameron will be making “Avatar 4D,” a revolutionary experience in adding yet another dimension to your moviegoing experience.


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

« Previous Entries Next Entries »