REVIEW: The Town

3 11 2010

Crime dramas are nothing new in Hollywood.  We see them year after year, mostly from some unproven director trying to be Martin Scorsese.  In “The Town,” Ben Affleck manages to distinguish himself from this crowd.  While he’s still no Scorsese, his second directorial feature is entertaining and effective because his message is clear from the beginning, and he executes it with precision and bravura.

With an impressive ensemble armed with Bostonian accents, the saga of family and criminality adapted from Chuck Hogan’s “Prince of Thieves” lights up the screen.  The movie opens with a bank robbery so marvelously orchestrated it could be symphonic that sets up the movie’s two storylines: the hunters and the hunted.

Don Draper – pardon me, Jon Hamm – leads the FBI’s investigation into the robbery.  Looking to make an example out of the expert criminals, they specifically focus on Claire Keesey (Rebecca Hall), the manager taken hostage and subsequently released by the group on their exit.

Evading capture, Doug MacRay (Affleck) is the leader of a band of Charlestown robbers-for-hire forever at the mercy of Fergie the florist (Pete Postlethwaite), the neighborhood’s kingpin of crime.  He and his brother Jem (Jeremy Renner) have known nothing other than this life, unable to escape the legacy of their now-imprisoned father (Chris Cooper).  Doug is looking for the much sought-after “last job,” the one heist that can successfully put at end to his criminal career.

Read the rest of this entry »


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

Random Factoid #463

3 11 2010

Big Brother, is that you?

How’s this for an invasion of our privacy – according to Cinematical, “Aralia Systems is taking this one step further and is using a grant ($350,000) to devise marketing-friendly technology that gathers data about ‘attention and audience movement’ in regards to films and advertisements.”  In other words, you had best be keeping your phone in your pocket or the government will file a lawsuit against you!

I’m not paranoid nor schizophrenic (I’m reading “One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest” in my English class so I know both of those), but this seems like a bit much.  There have got to be better ways to catch movie pirates than by surveilling everyone who attends a movie.  People were upset to know that the government was watching them when the Patriot Act was introduced to catch terrorists; how do you think people will react to find out that they are being watched to catch people illegally recording movies?!?  Those two causes aren’t in the same ballpark!

Technology makes everything harder for artists, and I understand how angry they are when people steal their work.  But this measure just screams of overstepped boundaries.  Of course nothing will ever stop me since I love going to the movies and I wouldn’t dream of pirating them, but won’t less avid moviegoers see this as yet another reason not to attend movies?

If something as silly as piracy leads to the decline and death of the movie theater, I think I’ll have to go vomit in a bucket of Blockbuster popcorn.


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

Oscar Moment: “Love & Other Drugs”

2 11 2010

“Love & Other Drugs” was chosen to open the AFI Fest this week, and I couldn’t think of a better time to discuss this interesting player in the 2010 awards race.

Comedies are always a wild card with the Oscars; sometimes they hit, others they flop.  Over the past decade, there have been eight Best Picture nominees that would fall into the comedic category at the Golden Globes (NOTE: I excluded musicals).  The last comedy to win Best Picture was 1998’s “Shakespeare in Love,” which is a romantic comedy not unlike “Love & Other Drugs.”

On the other hand, that movie was a period piece, an aspect that tickles Academy fancies more than the romantic comedy side.  Since 1998, no romantic comedy has been nominated for Best Picture, so “Love & Other Drugs” does face an uphill battle.  However, because of the expanded field, our only frame of reference with complete relevance to the movie is the 2009 Best Picture race.  Last year, popular romantic comedies “(500) Days of Summer” and “It’s Complicated” received Golden Globe nominations for Best Picture but failed to receive similar acclaim from the Academy.  Replacing them were darkly comedic “A Serious Man” and animated “Up,” ineligible for the award at the Globes.

So are we looking at a movie that has no power to extend its reach beyond the Golden Globes?  Based on initial critical reaction, that may be the scenario.  The Hollywood Reporter‘s Kirk Honeycutt calls it a melodrama and shockingly conventional romance with “ADD like you wouldn’t believe.”  Todd McCarthy of IndieWIRE writes that it’s “an enormously contrived and cloying romantic drama without a moment of believable reality to it.”  Kris Tapley at In Contention wrote the line that I found most discouraging: “it could have been this year’s ‘Up in the Air.’”

The movie is apparently charged with nudity that Variety‘s Justin Chang called “abundant” and sexuality that Honeycutt proclaimed “unusually bold.”  This could be off-putting to some of the older voters; however, it could pique curiosity among younger viewers and make it a box office hit.  If it does become a serious contender, expect much talk on the nudity/sexuality to surround any discussion of the film.

Not all see “Love & Other Drugs” as a lost cause.  Guru Dave Karger of Entertainment Weekly is on the movie’s side, writing back in October that “the Jake Gyllenhaal/Anne Hathaway comedic drama reminds me a lot of Up in the Air and Jerry Maguire (both past Best Picture nominees). And it’s perhaps the sexiest movie I’ve seen in years. It won’t be for everyone, but if most critics go for its blend of titillation and tragedy, then it’s a contender for one of the five ‘B-list slots.’”  Karger also listed it among his 10 best picture predictions (albeit last).

I could see it filling out one of those last slots, although until the film’s release, I won’t be able to say how much a nomination would surprise me.  Something tells me though that we won’t be looking at many other nominations for the movie, though.  Even though Anne Thompson of IndieWIRE wrote “writer-director Zwick has done what I have long wanted him to do—get into the James L. Brooks/Nancy Meyers smart comedy mode,” I have a hard time seeing him finding room in the Best Director field.

As Univarn wrote on my latest predictions, “you have a lot of directors who have been very good for a long time all coming into their own right now.”  Zwick has been directing many seemingly Academy friendly movies like “Glory” and “Blood Diamond” but has never been recognized for his directorial prowess.  (Interestingly enough, he won an Oscar for producing “Shakespeare in Love” and was nominated for producing “Traffic” in 2000.)

Zwick co-wrote the movie as well, but a tight Adapted Screenplay race with such heavyweights as “The Social Network” and “Toy Story 3” may keep his work out there as well.  In my mind, the movie’s best bet is in the acting categories.  It seems to be the one exemplary aspect of the movie that all critics agree on.  Said Honeycutt, “Gyllenhaal and Hathaway are terrific as two sarcastic, sexually hungry young people eager to hop into bed, or go up against the nearest wall for a knee-trembler.”

Both sub-30 actors have been nominated for Oscars before: Gyllenhaal for Supporting Actor in 2005 for “Brokeback Mountain” and Hathaway for Leading Actress in 2008 for “Rachel Getting Married.”  They are reaching the age of anointment quickly, and it’s only a matter of time before the Academy just caves and gives them the trophy.  Whether it will be for “Love & Other Drugs” is the question.

Let’s start with Gyllenhaal, the film’s leading man.  Since his nomination, he has only starred in four movies, three of which were Oscar also-rans and the other a Hollywood swords-and-sandals epic flop.  Gyllenhaal has gotten many raves for his latest role, ranging from Tapley and Thompson calling him the best performance in the film to Hollywood Elsewhere‘s Jeffrey Wells dubbing this “his most winning performance ever – not the deepest or darkest or saddest, perhaps, but 100% likable.”  He’s facing a tough Best Actor field with the likes of Colin Firth, Jeff Bridges, and Robert Duvall as well as fellow Gen-Y actors James Franco, Ryan Gosling, and Jesse Eisenberg.  If his performance is light as Wells alludes to, it may not be anything more than a Golden Globes play.

The more intriguing prospect for the movie is no doubt Anne Hathaway playing Maggie, the Parkinson’s-affected love interest of Gyllenhaal’s slick pharmaceutical salesman.  She has the more dramatically appealing and Academy friendly role, and the difficulty of tackling such a role will surely keep her in discussion all season long.  In the past decade, Academy Award nominees for Best Actress have included drug addicts, Alzheimer’s patients, a depressed writer, a psychotic killer, a paralyzed fighter, and an alcoholic.  Whatever physical condition causes leading women to ail, the Oscars have been there to reward them.

Zwick calls her “in bloom” in “Love & Other Drugs,” and early reviews seem to be in accord.  Chang calls her performance sensitive and understated, also adding that “the actress makes Maggie a vivacious presence, the sheer force of her spirit serving as a rebuke to her physical setbacks.”  Wells calls it her most appealing performance yet, praising Hathaway in writing “you can read every emotional tick and tremor on her face.”  However, the movie’s critical struggle could harm her; Tapley points out  that Hathaway plays a “one-trick, woe is me character who never finds a genuine end to her arc.”

There are plenty of great comedies made every year, many better than some of the dramas that typically make their way into the Best Picture field.  Here’s to hoping that “Love & Other Drugs” has the goods to bring glory to the genre at the Academy Awards.

BEST BETS FOR NOMINATIONS: Best Actress

OTHER POSSIBLE NOMINATIONS: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Adapted Screenplay


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

Random Factoid #462

2 11 2010

There has been pressure on the Academy to recognize stunt performers at the Academy Awards; the Screen Actors Guild recently added a category to award the best stunt ensemble of a movie.  If the Oscars do decide to add a new category any time soon, I definitely think this should be it.

I’m not a particularly daring person when it comes to attempting physical feats.  I wasn’t the kid to climb a tree to the top or try the giant leap down.  I’ve often watched a movie wondering how any sane human being could do some of the feats being performed.  I’ve grown a little more cynical with the dawn of CGI, but I know there are still many daring stunt performers at work in Hollywood.

I’m also pretty amazed when I hear about actors doing their own stunts.  This summer, Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Angelina Jolie did the work for “Inception” and “Salt,” respectively.  But they are all about to be put to shame by Tom Cruise, who pulled off a stunt dangling from the side of the world’s tallest building in Dubai.  I don’t care how much you pay me or how much publicity it got me, as an actor, I would NEVER do this stunt myself.

Although it doesn’t technically count as stunt work (at least to my knowledge), I still chalk up the most daring feat in acting of my time to Christian Bale for standing at the tip of the tallest building in America for “The Dark Knight.”


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

Oscar Moment: November Predictions!

1 11 2010

Folks, it’s time for a new set of predictions.  A lot has changed in the last two months since I issued a set of predictions.  Just a month away from the start of the horse race, I thought now would be a good time to step back and reevaluate.

(NOTE: I’m restructuring the change in position system from 2009.  The symbols stay the same, but listed in parentheses to the right is the previous position.)

Best Picture

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

Dropping off: Another Year, Never Let Me Go, Blue Valentine

I‘m still feeling confident forecasting a win for “The Social Network.”  It has audiences and critics behind it; with enough precursor love, it could be an unstoppable force.  “True Grit” and “The Fighter” remain strong possibilities even unseen, although I’m sensing less excitement for the latter.  “Toy Story 3” hasn’t dropped; two contenders have just risen above it.  Given a push, it could still make a run for the money.  And “How Do You Know” is still unseen, but I’m getting good vibes.  Probably stupid to put it on my list instead of “Another Year,” but I’m going gutsy.

Right now, my biggest comment is that the race feels really stagnant.  It’s too early for the race to boil down to “The Social Network” vs. “The King’s Speech.”  The enthusiasm has kind of died for any movie, although that could easily change with this week’s release of “127 Hours.”  It’s just kind of been a dead zone for Best Picture buzz recently … which is a huge bummer.

Best Director

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

Dropping off: Mike Leigh, David O. Russell

Same story between “Network” and “Speech” with the two battling out for the top spot.  I’m hesitant to say that two of the past three winners in this category could be nominated again this year, so I’ll pick Danny Boyle seeing as his movie is the safer bet at the moment.

I feel like this category will recognize visionaries this year.  This is only a hunch, of course, but I feel like directors such as Nolan are Aronofsky will get their just reward for creating pieces of art that don’t mold to any sort of convention.  Nolan has first priority of the two seeing as he was snubbed in 2008 and his movie will fare better with the Academy.  “Black Swan” is a risky movie and one that doesn’t align very well with Academy tastes.  An Aronofsky nomination means true progress.

Best Actor

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

Dropping off: Robert Duvall

I’m sensing the “127 Hours” reward will come in Best Actor for James Franco.  At 32, he’d be among the youngest winners ever, and his status as an elite dramatic actor would be forever cemented.  I see him as being the critics’ circle darling, putting him in prime position from the beginning of the season.  However, there will be stiff competition from Colin Firth, who has the subjective “deserving” card in his hand after losing last year for his performance in “A Single Man.”

Eisenberg drops a slot because the choice youth performance is going to be from Franco, and Wahlberg plummets thanks to the buzz being squarely in the ring of Bale and Leo, his supporting cast.  Nonetheless, I think the preparation he put into this role will pay off with a nomination.  I think Ryan Gosling will be nominated for “Blue Valentine” over, say Robert Duvall for “Get Low” or Jeff Bridges for “True Grit,” because the NC-17 rated domestic drama may be too intense for Best Picture, but the actors will love it and reward it here.

Best Actress

  1. Natalie Portman, “Black Swan”  (2)
  2. Annette Bening, “The Kids Are All Right”  (1)
  3. Nicole Kidman, “Rabbit Hole”  (NR)
  4. Lesley Manville, “Another Year”  (NR)
  5. Michelle Williams, “Blue Valentine”  (4)

Dropping off: Jennifer Lawrence, Julianne Moore

Focus needs to get their act together and figure out how to campaign Bening and Moore.  Amidst the controversy, I think Portman has emerged all the stronger, and she is now my pick to win in the seemingly two-way battle for supremacy.

Nicole Kidman moves onto the list after her performance in “Rabbit Hole” garnered significant buzz, and Manville as well because I think “Another Year” has to have at least one acting nomination.  And for the exact same reason I predicted Ryan Gosling to get a Best Actor nomination, I predict Michelle Williams to get a Best Actress nomination for “Blue Valentine” to reward the movie’s true grit.  However, the tragic romance could go the way of “Revolutionary Road” and leave the leads out in the cold.

Best Supporting Actor

  1. Christian Bale, “The Fighter” 
  2. Geoffrey Rush, “The King’s Speech”  (NR)
  3. Andrew Garfield, “The Social Network” 
  4. Aaron Eckhart, “Rabbit Hole”  (NR)
  5. Sam Rockwell, “Conviction”  (2)

Dropping off: Vincent Cassel, Mark Ruffalo

Could there be anything more boring than the supporting categories this year?  Yawn.

Sight unseen, I still think Bale is the man to beat in this category.  Got any better suggestions?  Rush has won before, yet he will still prove to be a big threat given he lights the movie on fire.  Garfield is young and unknown, but he is incredible in the role.  He could move up to the top if there turns out to be a tidal wave of support for “The Social Network.”

I get a good feeling about Aaron Eckhart for “Rabbit Hole.”  He’s a great actor, and he works alongside Kidman who is a very good bet for a Best Actress nomination. There’s always that movie with a ton of acting nominations, and I get a feeling it could be “Rabbit Hole.”  As for Sam Rockwell, I still feel a nomination is a good possibility, but a win seems pretty tough with the general lack of enthusiasm for “Conviction.”

Best Supporting Actress

  1. Melissa Leo, “The Fighter”  (2)
  2. Miranda Richardson, “Made in Dagenham”  (NR)
  3. Hailee Steinfeld, “True Grit”  (4)
  4. Dianne Wiest, “Rabbit Hole”  (NR)
  5. Helena Bonham Carter, “The King’s Speech”  (NR)

Dropping off: Keira Knightley, Barbara Hershey, Marion Cotillard

Another win for “The Fighter” sight unseen, this time for 2008 Best Actress nominee Melissa Leo.  You got any better ideas?  This category is still wide open with a month left until the critics’ groups for the field for us, and that’s no fun.

Miranda Richardson’s spunky turn in “Made in Dagenham” seems to be getting a lot of buzz, thus it’s in at this point.  “True Grit” hasn’t been seen, but Hailee Steinfeld sure looks impressive from the trailer, so she’s in.  Dianne Weist got the critics talking about her work in “Rabbit Hole,” and she’s won twice before, so she’s in.  Helena Bonham Carter is in a strong Best Picture contender, so she’s in.  See how flimsy my logic is?  No one has a clue what to expect in this race.

I lied when I said there would be screenplays in this set of predictions.  For the wins, I’d say “The King’s Speech” and “The Social Network” for original and adapted, respectively.

So, how do you feel?  What Oscar nominations do YOU foresee?


Comments : 6 Comments »
Tags: , , , , ,
Categories : 2010 - Oscar Moment, Oscar Moment

Random Factoid #461

1 11 2010

I sure have had a lot to say about “Up in the Air” in the past year, largely because so much of my life has been up in the air.  In particular, my future come this May – in other words, college – has been something particularly up in the air.

While I don’t think it’s possible for anyone’s life to be entirely not up in the air, a very large part of mine has come down to earth.  The burden that is my future education has been decided.  When I got home from school today, I received a very large packet from Wake Forest University.

Inside the package was my acceptance letter to the university.  So come next August, I will be a Demon Deacon in Winston-Salem, North Carolina and I couldn’t be happier or prouder.  While my access to independent film will be significantly diminished, I look forward to continuing to provide the same great quality from my new hub.

COLLEGE! (Maybe it’s time for me to watch “Animal House.”)


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

Shameless Advertisement #20 – November 2010

1 11 2010

The readers have spoken.  The most anticipated movie of November is Danny Boyle’s latest feature, “127 Hours,” based on Aron Ralston’s best-selling book of perseverence “Between a Rock and a Hard Place.”  The movie looks to be quite the Oscar contender, particularly for James Franco in the Best Actor category.  I didn’t write much about it in my November preview post, but I did write quite a bit in my Oscar Moment.  Here’s an excerpt:

“‘127 Hours’ isn’t a conventional movie.  Its success will be mainly because of Boyle’s directorial skills as the movie requires a firm hand behind the camera.  The movie tells the story of Aron Ralston (James Franco), a camper who winds up stuck in a canyon for over five days, ultimately leading to … well, you know.  It gets rough, and Boyle said he wants the movie to be a challenge to moviegoers.  The premise doesn’t seem very translatable to the big screen, and making it work is surely a directorial triumph.

The movie is also highly dependent on Franco’s performance, since he’s the only person we will get to watch for most of the movie.  Early reviews from Telluride and Toronto say he pulls it off marvelously, and a Best Actor nomination seems all but inevitable.  Franco nearly got one in 2008 for ‘Milk,’ but he’s been doing quality work for quite some time now that a nomination seems like it’s a long time coming.”

It’s worth nothing that “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Part 1” came in a close second with three votes, and “For Colored Girls,” “Love & Other Drugs,” and “The King’s Speech” each received a vote.  All good picks!

And here’s what I’m planning on writing for you all in November!

Lots and lots of Oscar Moments.  I plan on wrapping up my takes on all this year’s contenders for major categories in November, mainly to beat the National Board of Review’s picks to officially kick-off the Oscar season.  What’s left?  Unseen candidates “True Grit” and “The Fighter,” darker movies like “Blue Valentine” and “The Way Back,” and lighter fare like “Love & Other Drugs” and “How Do You Know.”  Expect a couple of surprising posts too.

From Rom-Com to Oscar Gold.  What does this mean?  Find out in a two-week feature starting next week.

Lots and lots of reviews.  Where were all my reviews in October?  Not written, that’s where!  I’ve been watching a lot and writing very little, but I’m going to try to make November’s trend to watching a lot and write a lot.  I’ve seen “Hereafter” and “The Town,” so both of those reviews will be coming up.  Expect plenty of reviews of November’s releases and some reviews of this summer’s release sprinkled in the midst of those.

Who knows what else is coming?  There’s Classics Corner, the weekly F.I.L.M. column, and random factoids galore!

 


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

Classics Corner: “The Exorcist”

31 10 2010

I know that the technical cutoff for classic movies is 1968, but I’m making an exception for 1973’s “The Exorcist” seeing as it’s Halloween and I’m still trying to atone for missing this column back in August.  I know I said that I never wanted to see this movie, but given the season, I was a little curious.  And as a movie buff, how could I not see a movie that was for a time the highest-grossing film ever?

I’m not a fan of horror, particularly the Satanic sub-genre.  I have just begun slowly introducing myself to these movies, largely because I feared them so much even into my teenage years.  At first, I discovered I wasn’t really that scared at all.  I thought it was a fluke, so I watched a few more.  Turns out, I’m really not that affected by horror unless something jumps out of nowhere and the volume shoots up.

“The Exorcist” is really no different.  It’s eerie and creepy, particularly Regan’s transformation from a sweet, innocent child to the Devil incarnate, complete with a tattered face and green vomit.  But on a scare level, it really isn’t very frightening.  The movie doesn’t give any indication that anyone we know could become the Devil at a moment’s notice, so what reason do I have to fear?

Perhaps I speak as the product of a dulled, jaded generation.  In my lifetime, horror has two camps: ultra-sadistic blood and guts to the point of excess, or subtle haunting.  There really is no middle ground, yet that is exactly where William Friedkin’s Oscar-nominated horror tale seems to fall.  The demonic child scenes are about as close to horror porn as I imagine the 1970s could produce, and everything else (including the exorcism) seems to be the movie’s subtler side.

I think my biggest issue with the movie was the enormous amount of exposition provided.  We get the characters set up and learn their situations for about an hour.  Usually the tacit contract between filmmakers and moviegoers states that if you give a lot of exposition, the movie needs to vamp up to a climax that much more.  “The Exorcist” doesn’t really build much, and for all we sit back and wait for the action to come, the payoff isn’t all that satisfying.

The movie all leads up to, you guessed it, the exorcism of the demonic child.  The word gets tossed around so much nowadays, and the ritual has certainly lost some of its mystical power with each haphazard exorcism movie thrown into production.  Regan’s exorcism, however, lasts for a disturbingly and unsettlingly long amount of time.  If it doesn’t affect you at first, it will after the ten millionth time the two priests shout out “the power of Christ compels you!”

As a a sort of origin for a lot of horror movies that have frightened audiences for the last 30 years, “The Exorcist” proves to be an interesting watch.  An Academy Award nomination for Best Picture, though, seems a little bit much.  This is a good movie, don’t get me wrong, but just because a horror movie has a plot, good performances, and a few chills doesn’t mean it deserves a shot at Hollywood’s highest honor.  Maybe it’s all the crummy rip-offs that the movie inspired that make feel so nonplussed by the movie, but according to Tim Dirks, “its tale of the devil came at a difficult and disordered time when the world had just experienced the end of the Vietnam War … and at the time of the coverup of the Watergate office break-in.”  Times have changed, and it could be a good sign that I can’t match the devil to any current events.


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

Random Factoid #460

31 10 2010

Happy Halloween, everybody!  I broke the trend I described last Halloween (Random Factoid #95) and didn’t dress up as a movie character for my school’s Halloween dress-up day.  The costumes are just too expensive; $50 for the Spock costume last year was awfully steep.  So I decided to be creative and be a teacher, and it turned out pretty well.

I guess one cinematic Halloween tie-in I could provide today was back in 2nd grade, I won a pumpkin decorating contest for my Grinch-inspired pumpkin.  My dad helped me spray paint it green, and then we stuck a Santa hat on it and called it art.  (This was just a few weeks before the Jim Carrey movie came out, to put this in a historical context).

But as for pumpkin decorating, I think you all would probably be more interested in this:

Have fun trick or treating – or just answering your doorbell!


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

Oscar Moment: “Alice in Wonderland”

30 10 2010

I’m sorry, did someone say “Best Picture nominee ‘Alice in Wonderland?'”  Are we talking about the Tim Burton version?

I don’t know what they are smoking over at Disney’s awards department, but apparently someone thought it was a good idea to launch an all-out awards push for “Alice in Wonderland” for Best Picture.  As some blogger put it, “I guess a billion dollars does buy you anything.”

If Disney had put out an FYC ad asking voters to remember the costumes, the visual effects, and the set design of the movie, I would be just fine.  But an ad asking voters to consider the movie for Best Picture and other major categories?  Get real.  This is a movie that was completely dismissed by critics, scoring a 51% fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes and a 53 on Metacritic.  I gave the movie a generous C, which in retrospect may have been too lenient.  Here’s an excerpt from my review to give you a slight taste of my feelings about the movie:

Burton said that his intention was to “try and make Alice feel more like a story as opposed to a series of events” because he never felt an emotional connection between the characters in the original.  In this respect, his version is an utter disaster.  I saw exactly the opposite of what he intended: Alice wandering from place to place with absolutely no plot building.

Just because “Avatar” was a good-looking movie that made a lot of money and got a Best Picture nomination does not mean that the formula works for every good-looking movie that makes a lot of money.  “Avatar” was a good movie, certified fresh on Rotten Tomatoes and reached universal acclaim status on Metacritic.  Disney has a bona fide Best Picture contender in “Toy Story 3,” and it could very well win if their cards are played right.  Why on earth they feel like wasting a penny on a movie that I think has no shot in hell at receiving an Oscar nomination is totally beyond me.

I expect the movie to pick up a few tech nominations and maybe win a few guild prizes.  However, if “Alice in Wonderland” gets a Best Picture nomination, it will be the final nail in the Academy’s coffin of irrelevance.

BEST BETS FOR NOMINATIONS: Best Costume Design, Best Production Design, Best Makeup, Best Visual Effects

OTHER POSSIBLE NOMINATIONS: Best Picture (?)


Comments : 4 Comments »
Tags: , ,
Categories : 2010 - Oscar Moment, Oscar Moment

Random Factoid #459

30 10 2010

Is “No Country for Old Men” really the most representative movie of the great state of Texas?

Several movie blogs I read have linked to this map (whose source/origin I am unaware) that lists the movie that best defines the state.  Check it below and see where your state fits in.

As scary as Javier Bardem’s psychotic killer Anton Chigurh is with his cattle gun and ’80s nightmare haircut may be, I don’t think he represents Texas.  The tumbleweed vision of the state hardly fits in with the recession-proof metropolitan state I know and love.  If you are looking for a movie to encapsulate the more rural side of Texas, I think a better pick would be Robert Duvall’s “The Apostle.”  It may lack as a movie, but it’s pretty spot-on in getting the atmosphere right.  “Friday Night Lights” is also good for that matter.

Come to think of it, there really aren’t many movies that capture the true spirit of the modern, urban Texas – save “Enron: The Smartest Guys in the Room,” which doesn’t pain the most flattering portrait of Houston business.  So I guess that begs the question: when will someone do my state justice?

Did this map assign a deserving movie to represent YOUR state?


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

F.I.L.M. of the Week (October 29, 2010)

29 10 2010

I feel a little corny using a movie I watched in a class at school as the “F.I.L.M. of the Week,” but to be fair, the class is Economics, which has many practical applications to life.  So on that note, “I.O.U.S.A.” is nothing like those History Channel specials you watched in your middle school history classes to provide a good nap.  In the Halloween season, this could be the scariest movie you will see because it provides a look into your future.  And the future doesn’t look bright.

I’m in no mood to spout off notes for you, and trust me, I took notes on the movie for my class.  I could easily just copy and paste from there, but that would do neither of us any good.  This documentary goes into great depth on one of the most pressing issues our great nation faces – no, it’s not healthcare.  I’m talking about our national debt.

Do you know what it is?  What contributes to it?  How much it is?  Take a wild guess.

Did it come anywhere near to $13.6 trillion?  That’s the current stat, and it will only grow the later you read this post.  If that number alone doesn’t frighten you, does knowing that you owe $44,000 as an American citizen do the trick?  “I.O.U.S.A.” takes you beyond the number you can observe on the National Debt Clock and explains in simple and understandable terms what is going on with our debt.  I don’t want to get into a political debate here, but whether you are a Republican, Democrat, or a Tea Party supporter, you can’t deny that this is a HUGE problem.  Featuring interviews and excerpts from prominent politicians and businessmen like Warren Buffet, the movie is wholly convincing to anyone no matter where they fall on the political spectrum.

Simply put, our government is overcommitting itself.  Thanks to the fiscal irresponsibility of the Baby Boomers, they put us into a terrible position in regards to our debt.  And now they are hitting retirement age, vastly increasing expenditures of Social Security and Medicare.  With healthcare on top of all that, our country simply cannot weather a debt that could grow to $70 trillion in a matter of decades.  If this movie doesn’t scare the pants off you for predicting a vast change in your quality of life in the very near future, I don’t know what will.  Thank goodness President Obama is making this a priority for the next two years; this is something all Americans can agree needs to be addressed and fixed.


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

Random Factoid #458

29 10 2010

Filmmaker feud alert!

Stop the presses … John Landis says “Inception” isn’t original!  In other redundant news, “The Social Network” isn’t entirely true and the world isn’t flat.  Here are his exact words, for all those wondering:

“Interestingly enough ‘Inception,’ which is wonderful, is not original. There have been a lot of movies like it; remember ‘Dreamscape?’ Oh that’s bad special effects but almost the same movie. It’s Dennis Quaid and Edward Albert is the president of the United States and they insert him into his dreams … ya know, I think, don’t misunderstand me I think Christopher Nolan is a wonderful director it’s just I don’t think he is yet to make a movie other than ‘Memento’ that I thought was really original, its just very stylish.”

Hello, “Inception” isn’t original, but it’s the closest thing we have to original in these meager times where imagination is about as dead as Generalissimo Francisco Franco.  These days, “original” has become synonymous with “not formulaic,” which is a shame.  Cynics would say that cinema is done being original, and now we are stuck with petty rehashes.  While Nolan presented the world of the dream in a highly creative and innovative way, it’s hardly original.  In a feature with The New York Times, the director even expressly laid out four movies that influenced “Inception” to a large extent: “2001: A Space Odyssey,” “Blade Runner,” “Heat,” and “The Matrix.”

So yes, I agree with Landis that it’s not original.  But Nolan agrees too!  Everyone can agree that they’ve seen something like “Inception” before, so Landis is rendered irrelevant.  I’ll close with a wonderful quote from director Jim Jarmusch that perfectly encapsulates the point I’m trying to make here – and why “Inception” has become such a beloved movie in 2010.

“Nothing is original. Steal from anywhere that resonates with inspiration or fuels your imagination. Devour old films, new films, music, books, paintings, photographs, poems, dreams, random conversations, architecture, bridges, street signs, trees, clouds, bodies of water, light and shadows. Select only things to steal from that speak directly to your soul. If you do this, your work (and theft) will be authentic. Authenticity is invaluable; originality is nonexistent. And don’t bother concealing your thievery — celebrate it if you feel like it. In any case, always remember what Jean-Luc Godard said: “It’s not where you take things from — it’s where you take them to.”


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

Oscar Moment: “Rabbit Hole”

29 10 2010

We didn’t really enter 2010 with a huge frontrunner, but when “Rabbit Hole” was cast back in spring 2009, it sure looked like one.  With Nicole Kidman and Aaron Eckhart tackling an intensely dramatic Pulitzer Prize-winning play, how could it not be an instant contender?

The movie flew under the radar for quite some time until it reemerged with a bang on the festival circuit, making a premiere in Toronto that got critics talking and buzzing.  In mere minutes, Nicole Kidman was sure-fire Best Actress nominee, and the trailer let everyone else know that this is a performance to make the Oscar voters giddy.  (For a hilarious take on Kidman and the trailer, see Stuart Heritage’s post for The Guardian.)

Kidman hasn’t exactly fared too well since her 2002 Best Actress win for The Hours, suffering unfortunate role after unfortunate role in the typical post-winner fashion.  Over the past fifteen years, only two winners in this category have been nominated again (Charlize Theron and Frances McDormand) and one has won again (Hilary Swank).  I think the Academy would love to recognize her again and show that an actress can maintain poise after winning their prize.  It also helps that the role won a Tony for Cynthia Nixon.  However, unless she gets serious traction from critics groups, I doubt she could be a real threat to win given the deserving factor of Annette Bening, Julianne Moore, and potentially even Natalie Portman.

But beyond Kidman, what are the movie’s chances?  Her spouse is played by Aaron Eckhart, a fantastic actor deserving of some Academy recognition.  He has been getting good marks for his role as a grieving father from people in high places.  Dave Karger of Entertainment Weekly writes:

“[Eckhart] shines in the film’s comedic and dramatic moments, showing range I’ve never seen before. And he gets to rant and rave a bit more than Kidman does, which doesn’t hurt with the Academy. He’s delivered sturdy work for years (“In the Company of Men,” “Nurse Betty,” “Thank You for Smoking”), and I’d love to see him score his first career nomination. And fortunately, the supporting actor field isn’t nearly as dense.”

I’m a huge Eckhart fan, particularly of his underrated and overshadowed work in “The Dark Knight” and especially his fast-talking tobacco lobbyist in “Thank You For Smoking,” which I thought was the best leading performance for any male in 2006.  He could easily find a place in the Best Supporting actor category, which has some pack leaders but no top dog yet.  He would be fighting out competitive players like Geoffrey Rush, Andrew Garfield, and Mark Ruffalo, but he has enough prestige to do it.  Plus film adaptations of plays usually score acting nominations with a fair amount of ease – just look at “Doubt,” which collected four in 2008.

I have also heard lots of love for Dianne Wiest, who plays Kidman’s mother.  She’s a two-time winner of Best Supporting Actress, and something tells me that the Academy isn’t quite ready to put her in the same category as Jack Nicholson in the parthenon of actors great enough to win three Oscars.  Nonetheless, in this complete ragtag band of actress in the supporting category this year, we have to consider any possibility.  She’s clearly a favorite, 62 years old, and apparently turns in quite a performance.  According to Katey Rich of Cinema Blend, “Dianne Wiest delivers a monologue about grief that is all the more stunning for how simply and succinctly she presents it.”

Although the movie may become more of an acting showcase, let’s not forget that this play won a Pulitzer Prize, so it has to be considered in Best Adapted Screenplay.  “Doubt,” written for the screen by the same man who brought it to the stage, managed to score a nomination in 2008 for being a nearly carbon copy.  According to the film’s director, David Lindsey-Abaire, who will be adapting the movie from his play, will be staging a “complete cinematic reimagining of the material.”  If it manages to enchant on a different level, the movie could easily net a nomination.

What about Best Director?  John Cameron Mitchell has never taken on a directorial venture anything like this.  “Hedwig and the Angry Inch” and “Shortbus” were both for indie, off the beaten path niche audiences; “Rabbit Hole” is a venture into serious Academy territory.  It would take a lot to get him onto a list that is bound to include names like David Fincher, The Coen Brothers, and Danny Boyle.  Mitchell wouldn’t be the first outsider to make the cut, but it seems like a longshot at best.

And I’d say if Kidman keeps up the strong buzz throughout the season, “Rabbit Hole” is a serious Best Picture contender.  According to Jeffrey Wells of Hollywood Elsewhere, “A few people applauded at the end of [the] press screening. I haven’t heard any clapping at all at any TIFF press screenings so far, so this probably means something.”  It will clearly have support from the actors, and I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see it get a SAG Ensemble nod (along with I’ll assume “The Social Network,” “True Grit,” “The Fighter,” and “The Kids Are All Right”).  The critics seem to really like it, and their support always helps.

The deciding factor could be the audience.  Are they going to fall head-over-heels for a depressing adult drama about a couple grieving the loss of their young son?  Not exactly light and uplifting, eh?  But “Precious” got a nomination, as have many movies considered too dark for the average moviegoer.  “Rabbit Hole” is definitely in the hunt, but it’s no sure bet at the present time.

BEST BETS FOR NOMINATIONS: Best Actress (Kidman), Best Supporting Actor (Eckhart), Best Supporting Actress (Wiest), Best Adapted Screenplay

OTHER POSSIBLE NOMINATIONS: Best Picture, Best Director


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

My “My Best Friend’s Wedding” Cast WON!

29 10 2010

Who, me?  Again?  Oh, stop it.  Seriously, stop it.

Thanks again to every LAMB voter who crowned me king of casting AGAIN.  I really do appreciate it.  Maybe I should go into casting as a career … the other day I recast “The Social Network” using the actors from my school’s acting company.  It’s something I sure like to do.

I’ll offer up a brief bit of rationale behind my casting – and who knows, maybe you can steal my crown!

Rachel McAdams was my choice to take over helming the movie from Julia Roberts.  She’s a fantastic actress with great comedic talent, plus she looks GORGEOUS.  Even if she stunk in the role, I’d forgive her as long as she looked good.  She is in the mainstream consciousness, but a huge role like this could propel her to superstardom.  I have adored her in movies like “Wedding Crashers” and “The Family Stone,” and I just hope the rest of America could catch up with me – er, her.

I had the hardest time casting Michael, the man of her dreams who happens to be engaged to another girl.  I settled on Ryan Reynolds, who has been heating up the rom-com circuit recently and could easily do a pretty good job with this role.

The two biggest no-brainers were the scene-stealing supporting roles of Cammy, Michael’s ditzy fiance, and George, Jules’s gay friend who steps in to make everything more complicated.  It was obvious from the get-go that Amanda Seyfried would have to play the part since she has proven herself so great at playing the dumb blonde type (“Mean Girls”) as well as being someone beautiful that an audience can care about (“Mamma Mia”).

And do I even need to explain choosing Neil Patrick Harris as George?  He’s one of the funniest people at work in the business and this role was practically made for him.  If there’s ever a Broadway version of the movie, he will be instantly cast.

Watch for the next edition of LAMB Casting, when the blogosphere attempts to recast “Forrest Gump!”  (My choice.  We’ll see how it goes.)


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

« Previous Entries Next Entries »