Today, I discovered Redbox.
I really wanted to see “District 9” again but didn’t want to hassle with Blockbuster. I stumbled upon a blog that gave me codes for a free rental, so I decided to try it out.
Boy, some of those boxes had next to no movies. I practically had to scour the town to find “District 9,” but I managed to find it at a Walgreens.
I’m not sure if it’s worth the hassle (and yes, I know that I can reserve them online), so we’ll just see Redbox keeps my business.
About midway through “Nine,” Stephanie, the Vogue reporter played by the ravishing Kate Hudson, informs us that “style is the new content” for her readers. Applying that quotation to Rob Marshall’s latest film adaptation of a Tony Award-winning musical, the movie is a flashy work of pure artistry that dazzles the eye. While style is a crucial part of “Nine,” the movie will be remembered for its phenomenal cast who turn in mostly solid performances but are thwarted by inept direction.
The movie’s story is indirectly based on the life of Italian film director Frederico Fellini, yet it seems to now have some striking parallels to the recent downfall of Tiger Woods. Guido Contini (Daniel Day-Lewis) is a beloved director, yet his last two films have been somewhat underwhelming. He hopes to steer himself back on the path to success with a new film, “Italia.” However, he is in such mental anguish because he cannot commit himself to anything or anyone. Guido has a gorgeous wife, Luisa (Marion Cotillard) at home whom he constantly neglects in favor of the temptress Carla (Penelope Cruz).
And the problems with women don’t end there. He has to deal with his indignantly querulous muse (Nicole Kidman), an American reporter who is quite the flirt (Hudson), a sassy costume designer and old friend who can sense the torment (Judi Dench), and his mother (Sophia Loren) whose legacy still haunts him. As Guido tries to find inspiration through these women, bouncing between past and present, he only finds himself more conflicted and lost. One major success of “Nine” is using cinematic devices like choppy editing and constant changes between black and white and color to show this torture. Daniel Day-Lewis is plenty capable of showing it as well, although his voice lacks some of the vocal power that the Broadway actors had in this part.
Ever since I have had a laptop, the desktop wallpaper has been predominately movies.
Now, it is adorned by “Up in the Air.”
On my current laptop, the wall has been owned by “Funny People,” “The Hangover,” and “Star Trek.”
My previous laptop featured “The Kingdom,” “The Dark Knight,” and “Pineapple Express.”
Oscar nomination ballots have now been sent out to the Academy! Thus, I felt it was time to issue a new set of Oscar Predictions. Since I last went on record, we have heard from a multitude of critics groups, the National Board of Review, and have received nominations from the Golden Globes and the Screen Actors Guild. What conclusion can we draw from them? I draw mine here.
Best Picture
Big changes this week, though nothing changes at the top. I still think “Up in the Air” is going to win – and not just because I love it so much. It is slowly picking up steam at the box office, and it is a movie that pretty much everybody really likes. It is powerful storytelling with commanding performances, the recipe for usual Oscar success.
But its two biggest threats have changed since the last set of predictions. “The Hurt Locker” has clearly established itself as the critical favorite, the movie that scores the most with the various critics groups from New York to Oklahoma. This can be good and bad, but the good critical favorites are usually the ones that are mixed with audience support. With only $12 million in the bank, it is clear that “The Hurt Locker” does not have this. If people a more populist pick for Best Picture with the expansion of the field, this would most likely send a message of adherence to pretentiousness.
The opposite message would be sent with the selection of “Avatar.” I resisted for as long as I could, but now it is virtually undeniable. With critics clearly behind it and box office standing at a formidable $213 million, this has a lot going for it. Yet it has a gender prejudice going against it. Only rarely do action movies fly with the Academy; just look at how they snubbed “The Dark Knight” last year for “The Reader.” I think many will see it as little more than a visual spectacle and technological innovator.
“Inglourious Basterds” has really jumped on the scene, getting top nominations from the Golden Globes and the SAG. I didn’t think this was possible in August, but I guess I was wrong.
“An Education” didn’t really fall; everything else just went up. Same goes for “Invictus,” but I think we are looking at this year’s “Frost/Nixon” or “Good Night, and Good Luck” here. By that, I mean the movie that gets a bunch of nominations with no real chance at winning any of them.
“Nine” actually dropped, though. Audiences didn’t receive it well as shown by the lackluster $5.4 million it posted Christmas weekend. Critics aren’t digging it, and its Rotten Tomatoes score is now sitting at a dreadful 37% fresh. On the other hand, we can’t forget that it did get a SAG Best Ensemble nomination over high-flying “Up in the Air,” among others. This is a movie that the actors seem to like, and they make up a large portion of the voting body. I wouldn’t be surprised to see it slip off the charts completely, but don’t count it out just yet. (“Precious” dropped too, but I offer some explanation on that in the Best Director section.)
The tenth slot continues to puzzle me. Now, I have it going to the Coen’s “A Serious Man,” but this is another big question mark. It failed to get a nomination for Best Picture at the Golden Globes (where “It’s Complicated” did, so “ha!” to all my detractors on that one), which is pretty big considering that “Burn After Reading” made it last year despite being met with a slightly chillier reception. And it pains me to pick this while so many of my favorite movies sit in the cellar.
Best Director
Bigelow has gained a lot of strength with most of the critics groups on her side, and I can now see a Best Picture-Director split between “Up in the Air” and her. The momentum for her to become the first female director to win the Oscar may just be too big to deny. Not to mention the fact that if “Up in the Air” takes screenplay and picture, Reitman will walk away with two statues.
James Cameron is the real star of “Avatar,” and the Academy will no doubt want to honor his work. This is a project that he has had in his head for over 15 years, and his patience while the technology caught up with the idea should be rewarded.
Tarantino takes over the fifth spot from Rob Marshall because of the lack of love for “Nine” (which is mostly because of him). The “Inglourious Basterds” love the critics, Golden Globes, and SAG have displayed is enough to get its director a nomination. After all, it really is his movie.
Lee Daniels drops off the chart because of his Golden Globes snub when “Precious” was clearly well received by the group. “Precious” has lost a ton of momentum from its release in November, mainly due to bumbling Lionsgate who refused to capitalize on the limited release success by taking it nationwide then.
People see the Academy as Clint’s cronies, which isn’t necessarily true. Maybe they just set out to make a statement last year with their “Gran Torino” shutout, but I think that the financial success came too late to make an impact. “Invictus” hasn’t exactly lit the box office on fire; however, I just get the sinking feeling that he is still going to get nominated here. Call me crazy.
Best Actor
The only change here is Bridges falling to number 4. He has only won awards from critics whose awards truly mean something like the Los Angeles Film Critics Circle; Clooney and Firth have been taking all the others. I’m getting a vibe that this a performance that is being honored for honor, not because people really love it. I am getting the latter vibe from Clooney, who has been taking the prizes from a lot of the smaller, less renowned critics circles.
This is the standard top 5 now among almost everyone. I can’t help but feel like there has to be some kind of shake-up here, some surprise nominee. But who? Maybe Daniel Day-Lewis will find his way in like always, or perhaps Matt Damon will surprise for his turn in “The Informant!” He had a heck of a year, and the Academy could see fit to honor that with two nominations. Just spitballing here.
Best Actress
I’m sorry, but I cannot pick Sandra Bullock here. I keep seeing all these raves for her and wonder if I saw the same movie and performance as they did.
I moved Sidibe back a spot because the critics awards seem to be hinting that this race will be a duel between Streep and Mulligan, the veteran and the fresh face. However, I could see a possible vote split propelling the novice to victory.
With Abbie Cornish showing up nowhere and “Bright Star” seemingly forgotten, she falls off the list. I replaced her with Marion Cotillard because the Academy loved her enough to give her an Oscar when no one knew who she was. Even though the buzz on “Nine” is down, I have a feeling there will be plenty of love for the ladies. Cotillard does have two emotionally wrenching numbers in the movie going for her.
And I’ll use this post to congratulate Meryl Streep on receiving her 25th Golden Globe nomination.
Best Supporting Actor
This is the category with the big shake-up this week.
Christoph Waltz is winning almost everything, so I can still place him in the number one slot.
Stanley Tucci jumps from off the list all the way to number 2. I think its a mix of career achievement and a very good year (despite the apparent “The Lovely Bones” flop). Christopher Plummer shares the former of these; Matt Damon, the latter. I think the fact that Plummer is 80 years old, well-respected, and has no nominations is enough to get him into the field.
Woody Harrelson, Alfred Molina, and Matt Damon were the three men vying for my last three slots. Despite Globes and SAG snubs for Molina, I still feel confident that he can make it. Damon and Harrelson got the two nominations that Molina missed, so logic would probably say that they would be the two to fill the spots. But I just get the feeling that Damon will get in because of the one-two punch of “Invictus” and “The Informant!”
Best Supporting Actress
No large change here. Mo’Nique is becoming quite the juggernaut, and unless she goes full Eddie Murphy, there’s no chance she loses it.
If she does go full Eddie, Anna Kendrick takes it. Her “Up in the Air” co-star, Vera Farmiga, takes over the fourth slot from Penelope Cruz. “Nine” love isn’t very strong, but she is the scene stealer. And she gets her picture here because she was too stunning not to feature.
Best Original Screenplay
Tarantino’s dialogue has won over the Academy once before, and I think he may do it again this year. He could be the new Woody Allen (for the Oscar voters) – just don’t tell him that I said that.
“A Serious Man” moves into the the nominees mainly because I can’t ponder hearing “Winner of One Oscar Nomination – BEST PICTURE.” I know it will happen eventually, but I don’t think it can the first year.
If “(500) Days of Summer” doesn’t get nominated here, I will hit something. It is too creative and brilliant to be ignored.
Best Adapted Screenplay
“Up in the Air” is still king here. Even if it doesn’t take Best Picture, I have a hard time seeing it losing this category.
“An Education” moves up despite missing out at the Golden Globes. There is a sizable British faction of the Academy, and they will see to it that he gets his just reward for this great screenplay. “Precious” moves down not only because of the Globes screenplay snub, but also because of a general loss of momentum.
“Invictus” gets a bump up mainly because “District 9” moves into the field as a wild-card contender. “Avatar” has probably dashed its hopes in the Best Picture field, so the Academy could reward it here. This was a well-scripted movie that scored with audiences and critics alike, and it deserves more than technical nominations that it is bound to lose to “Avatar.”
So, what are your thoughts? Am I crazy to still think “Up in the Air” will win Best Picture? Or that Jeff Bridges won’t win Best Actor? I’m dying to know what you think, so don’t hesitate to tell me!
On Christmas Day, I hit triple digits on my AMC MovieWatcher card. I felt like a Ryan Bingham in the making (if you don’t understand this reference, you need to see “Up in the Air” NOW).
I was rewarded with a free night at the movies: a ticket, large popcorn, and a soft drink. Here’s to many more.
I usually don’t eat popcorn unless I am at the movies. I feel like eating it at home makes it feel a little less special when I munch on it at the theater.
When I do eat at home, I usually don’t have a preference of brand. My mom buys Pop Secret, and I taste very little to distinguish it from any other brand of popcorn.
However, after seeing this commercial tonight, they are officially my favorite brand forever.
Guess what I got for Christmas?
Guess.
Just guess.
$150 in gift cards to movie theaters. I’m so glad my friends and family get me.
2009 has been a great year for animation, particularly in the advances that were made in leaps and bounds this year. Wes Anderson used stop-motion animation to bring “Fantastic Mr. Fox” to life. Although they hesitate to call it animation, James Cameron and Robert Zemeckis continued to perfect the motion capture technology, the former practically reinventing it. To top it all off, our good friend Pixar, faithfully churning out magnificent movies year after year, had perhaps their finest moment yet with “Up,” and the Academy may just reward it with only the second Best Picture nomination for an animated film.
But what about old-fashioned, hand-drawn animation?
“The Princess and the Frog” is one of the best movies of the year not because it sets out to revolutionize its craft or because it tries to impress us with its bravura; in fact, it’s such a joy because it does just the opposite. It sticks rather simply to the way animation was done in the good old days, and it has the beautiful charm to make you feel like you did as a child watching the Disney animated classics.
“The Princess and the Frog” is able to channel the rapture of the golden age of animation while combining it with a more contemporary ethic. It doesn’t entirely belittle the power of wishes and dreams, which movies like “Cinderella” and “Snow White” trained us to believe was all you needed. But the movie’s main lesson is to teach the value of working hard to achieve your dreams, which is just what Tiana (voice of Anika Noni Rose, “Dreamgirls”) does. She works two jobs in New Orleans so she can open the restaurant that she and her father (Terrence Howard) dreamed about when she was a child. He is the main voice echoing in her head, always saying that you cannot rely on the cosmos to give you what you want. However, in a moment of desperation, she kisses a frog who claims to be a prince in hopes that she will get the fairy tale ending of “The Frog Prince.” But the frog doesn’t become a prince; Tiana becomes a frog thanks to a voodoo priest (Keith David) that is creepy on a level I reserve for villains like Jafar and Scar. The two must travel through the bayou to reach Mama Odie, a voodoo priestess that can set things back to the way they are. To navigate the perilous terrain, they enlist a trumpet-tooting alligator named Louis (Michael-Leon Wooley) and a thickly accented, love-struck firefly named Ray (Jim Cummings). The journey is filled with plenty of spirited musical numbers and enough fun to make your smile as wide as the Mississippi.
MERRY CHRISTMAS EVERYONE!
As I write this factoid at 8:53 P.M., I will admit to being completely and utterly exhausted. My, what a day can do to you!
My family has two “traditions” on Christmas Day. The first is eating enchiladas from our favorite Mexican restaurant on our fine china (although today we were tired and just ate them on paper plates).
And, with a few exceptions, we join almost every family in America at the movies. Keeping with the spirit of being with your family for the holiday, the choice is usually something that everyone will enjoy together. This year’s selection was “The Princess and the Frog;” in previous years, we have attended “Marley & Me” and “Cheaper by the Dozen.” By far the most memorable Christmas at the movies was “Dreamgirls” in 2006, the only time I have ever heard an audience applaud in the middle of a movie.
As you are hopefully enjoying Christmas day with your family, watch the “F.I.L.M.” of the week, Wes Anderson’s “The Darjeeling Limited,” and be thankful that you are not like this family. Distant and dysfunctional, the movie follows three brothers (Owen Wilson, Adrien Brody, Jason Schwartzman) on a spiritual journey across India. However, the trip becomes about more than religion; it brings to the surface many feelings of dissent simmering between the brothers. But this isn’t an unnerving family drama. It is a Wes Anderson movie, and he manages to delve into our deepest feelings using humor and panache. “The Darjeeling Limited” is easily his most uproarious and poignant.
Anderson’s characters are always a little quirky and off-beat, but here they are much less bizarre than his other movies (such as “The Royal Tenenbaums”) and hence more relatable. Each brother is stricken by some sort of painful feeling. The eldest, Francis (Wilson), has been in a terrible motorcycle accident, forcing him to don an arsenal of bandages. The middle, Peter (Brody) is still struggling to get over his grief from the death of his father. The youngest, Jack (Schwartzman), is reeling from a break-up with his girlfriend, obsessively listening to messages left by her. After a year separated from each other, they unite at Francis’ request on a train called the Darjeeling Limited that runs through India. He hopes that some sort of grand spiritual experience will unite them again, but factionalism begins to develop among the brothers. Francis and Jack are angry that Peter can’t seem to let go of his father; Francis and Peter are reviled by Jack’s pathetic handling of his break-up; Peter and Jack are constantly questioning the true motives of Francis and the trip. Ultimately, it is really the lingering agony at their father’s death and their disgust with the absence and neglect of their mother (Anjelica Huston) that brings them back together.
“The Darjeeling Limited” stands out from Anderson’s other movies not only because it is notably funnier, but also because it is a story told with a great deal of compassion and introspection. In less than 90 minutes, Anderson unravels the three main characters completely, getting to the core of what brings families together and tear them apart. The movie’s success is not a solely a triumph of Anderson’s direction and writing (technically speaking, the script was a collaboration with Schwartzman and Roman Coppola). Its success is due largely in part to the three leading men, constantly adjusting their emotions to fit the overall tone of the movie. These incredibly aware performances are at times comical, at others somber, and often both. Wilson, Brody, and Schwartzman are completely believable as brothers, and they are the perfect people to lead us on Anderson’s journey.
Merry Christmas Eve, everyone! I hope everyone is able to spend some time with family or loved ones and really catch the spirit of the season.
In my family, Christmas Eve follows a pretty set routine.
In the morning, we usually do some hard-core baking. At 2:00, we go to the Christmas Eve service at church. Before we go to a Christmas Eve party that we plan with three other families around dusk, we all gather around and watch a Christmas movie. This year, we watched “The Polar Express.” Previous years’ selections have included “Elf” and “The Santa Clause 2.”
I equate watching Nancy Meyers’ movies to taking a leisurely Sunday saunter through a beautiful park. Warm and delightful with plenty of laughs thrown in, her movies are always enjoyable to watch. But just because a filmmaker does one thing very well does not mean that they should do that and only that. With “It’s Complicated,” Meyers tries her hand at a different kind of movie. While most of her previous projects were relatively sweet, her latest piles on the raunch. Accompanying this vulgarity is a noticeable surge of laughter, although this comes at the cost of the charm her movies usually possess.
The title refers to the affairs of the characters and not at all to the story, which is actually quite simple. Jane (Meryl Streep) and Jake (Alec Baldwin) were married for many years, had three kids, and are now divorced. Jake moves on quickly, marrying the much younger Agnes. Jane, on the other hand, tries to “learn how to be divorced,” something she cannot seem to master even after 10 years. But after an inebriated evening leads to some ribald shenanigans with her ex-husband, she begins to wonder whether there might be some lingering feelings left for Jake. Jane tries to fight it and chastens herself severely for even thinking of having an affair with him, but the attraction becomes undeniable. However, this comes inopportunely as she is falling for her lovably dorky architect, Adam (Steve Martin). He reminds her of all the joy that a lively personality can bring, and Jane begins to recall all the reasons why her marriage with Jake failed. Sound too complicated? It really isn’t on screen, where the story unravels quite predictably and every plot twist can be called with relative ease. Read the rest of this entry »
I was faced with a tough decision regarding my ticket collection on Monday. I attended an advanced film screening at the Angelika Film Center, as the last two factoids have informed you. To gain entrance to these screenings, I usually have to present a piece of paper which they confiscate upon entry.
However, they did things a little differently. We had to exchange our pass for a real ticket that didn’t have the name of the movie on it, only “SPECIAL EVENT.”
What was I to do? None of these other advanced screenings had real tickets.
In the end, I decided to leave it out. But I didn’t make the decision haphazardly; I thought long and hard, weighing my options thoroughly.
It takes more than just gumption and chutzpa to get up on one of the world’s biggest stages and declare yourself king of the world; it takes conviction. When James Cameron did just this at the Academy Awards in 1997 after “Titanic,” it was shocking to some and bombastic to others (I’m too young to remember the occasion). What had he really done to gain the title “king of the world?” What separates him from the dozens of directors who stood in the exact same place as he had? What is the legacy of “Titanic” other than a firm position in the highest echelon of box office performance and a hefty loot on Oscar night? According to IMDb, it is now the lowest rated of the five Best Picture nominees that year. From what I understand, the movie electrified the people and was simply too popular to ignore.
Fast forward 12 years to today where James Cameron has just released “Avatar.” If he got up on national television and screamed, “I’M KING OF THE WORLD,” I just might buy it. His latest project is one fifteen years in the making, and he may have just sparked a revolution in cinema. “Avatar” is breathtaking moviemaking at its finest, with astonishing visuals that are designed to do more than just floor you. They engulf you and transport you to Pandora, a land of untold beauty complete with its own indigenous people, language, and wildlife, for an exhilarating ride and fascinating experience.
I knew the effects would be a slam dunk victory for Cameron, but I had my doubts about his ability to craft a story after “Titanic,” whose melodramatic plot I can usually summarize in one sentence (Leo and Kate have a lot of fun and the boat sinks). Much to my surprise, Cameron actually constructs a very engaging story with undertones about the dangers of imperialism. Cynics might call it the Smurf County production of “Pocahontas,” but the story still feels fresh even though it is a bit recycled. Jake Sully (Sam Worthington of “Terminator Salvation” fame) is a paraplegic Marine who is torn between the two competing human forces on Pandora after he develops a special bond with the native Na’vi. The scientists, led by the sassy cigarette-smoking Grace (Sigourney Weaver), want to discover how the Na’vi think in order to live in harmony with them. The military operation, commanded by the hulking Colonel Quatritch (Stephen Lang), works in tandem with the financial side of the project, run by a thundering businessman doing his best Ari Gold impersonation (Giovanni Ribisi), to figure out the best way to get their hands on the bonanza underneath the sacred tree of the Na’vi. They would prefer relocation but are not afraid to resort to subjugation if the natives prove to be a handful. While Jake tries to serve two distinctly different agendas, he becomes quite taken by the Na’vi and the way they live in cooperation with nature – and not to mention quite smitten by the Amazonian Neytiri (Zoë Saldana). Soon, the two forces tugging for Jake becomes not scientists vs. military but Na’vi vs. humans. Read the rest of this entry »
I sat for over an hour at a screening yesterday watching a trivia reel on a loop. I complain about the pre-show entertainment and the endless advertising, but having to sit through the same trivia questions dozens of times could drive Gandhi mad.
However, once, I managed to make trivia entertaining.
At the 8:10 opening night show of “Bruno,” the projector broke (I think I called it a “mercy killing” in my review). While the AMC staff slowly worked to fix the projector, they flipped on the trivia reel.
The first time, my friends and I offered our guesses at who said what quote. But by about the third time around, it was getting reaaaaaaaally boring, so we had to spice it up some. It was fun for a little while by yelling out BS answers to the quotes, yet even that got old.
We walked out.
Marshall and the Movies 
Recent Comments