Random Factoid #91

27 10 2009

A few months ago, Apple introduced the Top Sites function of Safari.  This feature allows you to put up to 16 (I choose to do only 12, though) of your favorite sites on an easily accessible page.  Included in my 9 are Box Office Mojo (a site about the revenue of movies), Awards Daily and In Contention (my two favorite Oscar blogs), the IMDb (Holy Grail for movie lovers), Entertainment Weekly, the link to my AMC Moviewatcher Homepage, and a link to my own blog.  That is a whopping 8 out of 12, or 67% of my Top Sites dedicated to movies.





Random Factoid #90

26 10 2009

When I was younger, walking around the theater and looking at the posters was part of the moviegoing routine.  Eventually, I discovered that I could see all the posters I wanted on the Internet, but there was still something sacred enough.  Once, I even staged a minor fit in the theater lobby when my mom forced me to leave without looking at the posters.





Oscar Moment: “Nine”

25 10 2009

This edition of “Oscar Moment” concerns one of the favorites since last year’s Oscars finished.  People have huge expectations for “Nine,” and if it fails to live up to them, the repercussions could be disastrous.  It has every reason to succeed, though, based on a pedigree so impressive that it could be never be matched again.  It has been a favorite in the Oscar race ever since it was announced; however, at the time of this posting, it remains a wild card in the race because no one has seen the full film yet.

Christmas Day always brings some of the year’s most spectacular movies.  Possibly the best of this year’s offerings is the musical “Nine.”  If it is anything less than spectacular, it will be a disappointment.  It is directed by Rob Marshall, the Oscar-nominated director of Best Picture winner “Chicago.”  The star of the movie is two-time Academy Award-winner Daniel Day-Lewis as Guido, a film director tormented by the women in his life.  And these are not just ordinary women.  They are played by Oscar winners Marion Cotillard, Nicole Kidman, Penelope Cruz, Judi Dench, Sophia Loren, nominee Kate Hudson, and the illustrious Fergie.  The musical which provides the basis of the film won 5 Tony Awards including Best Musical.  The musical is based on the life of beloved and renowned director Frederico Fellini.  Are you impressed yet?  “Nine” had me at Rob Marshall. (NOTE: Recognize this?  It was in my November preview post, but Harvey Weinstein decided to push the movie’s release back to December.  It’s not plagiarism if you quote yourself, right?)

Let’s talk the ladies of “Nine.”  Because barring an absolute flop of the movie, Daniel Day-Lewis is assured a nomination just by virtue of being Daniel Day-Lewis.  The Academy loves him, and because he makes so few movies, they make it a point to reward him when he does.  Five of the women seem to have a legitimate shot at Oscar gold (Fergie and Kate Hudson have only minor parts), but as I discussed with “Up in the Air” earlier, this is great for moviegoers and bad for actresses.  The three scenarios I outlined there (one gets nominated, both get nominated, neither gets nominated) work when dealing with two actresses; “Nine” could have up to five campaigning for supporting actress.  Thus, we must deal with “Nine” in a completely different way.

Word on the street (and by street, I mean blogs) is that Marion Cotillard, who plays Guido’s wife, has enough screen time that she can be put in the leading actress category.  The filmmakers showed enough confidence in Cotillard that they turned a new number written for three women into a solo for her.  My guess is that this is where the ad money will push her.  Harvey Weinstein knows how to work the system, and he wants the most nominations he can get.  Voters might be hesitant to put three “Nine” ladies in one category, but he knows they would probably be willing to vote one for lead and two for supporting.

So if Cotillard goes lead, who will be the nominee(s) for Best Supporting Actress?  Despite all the talent, history tells us that “Nine” will probably be limited to two nominees in the category.  Only “Tom Jones” in 1963 managed to sneak in three women; that movie won 4 Oscars including Best Picture.  More notable though is that it did not collect the statue for Best Supporting Actress.  The loss is due to a familiar phenomenon: vote splitting.  It is how “Dreamgirls” and “Enchanted” managed to lose Best Original Song.  Voters want to reward the movie, but they can’t rally behind a single nominee and someone else wins.  But luckily for “Nine,” Harvey Weinstein has played this game many times.  My guess is that he will start campaigning all the actresses evenly, but as more reviews come in and people see the movie, he will push the clear favorite.

At this time, the favorite is unknown.  But based on the Broadway productions of the musical, an educated guess can be formed.  In the original Broadway production, the Tony Award winner for Best Featured Actress was Liliane Montevecchi for her portrayal of Lilliane, Guido’s producer.  In the movie, Liliane will be played by Judi Dench, who won this category back in 1998 for playing Queen Elizabeth for all of six minutes in “Shakespeare in Love.”  Dench also has 5 other nominations, only one of which came from the supporting category.  However, the research I have done seems to suggest that Lilliane is not a very flashy role.  She does not have a solo song, and even if she is an integral part of other numbers, that seems to suggests that she is more of a subtle presence than a central part of the plot.  (This is my interpretation from three years of musical theater experience.)

On the other hand, Penelope Cruz has the fiery role of Carla, Guido’s mistress.  This role won Jane Krakowski (“30 Rock”) a Tony Award for the revival of “Nine” in 2003.  Contrastingly to Lilliane, Carla has an absolute show-stopping number: “A Call to the Vatican.”  All the pictures of Cruz doing acrobatics in skimpy clothing are from this number.  I have been listening to it for months, and I am really excited to see what she can do with it.  Carla is more directly involved with the main storyline, really closer to a lead than a true supporting actress like Lilliane.  I think Cruz is the most likely nominee from the bunch for this reason, although voters might be hesitant to give her the prize because she won it last year.

The remaining prospects left to touch on are Sophia Loren, who plays Guido’s mother, and Nicole Kidman, who plays Claudia, the star of Guido’s new movie.  Guido’s mother barely appears in the plot summary anywhere, so I can only see a nomination plausible for Loren if the Academy falls head over heels for “Nine” and nominates Loren for nostalgic purposes.  Although I will say, Guido’s mother sings the titular track “Nine,” and it is the sweet thing that melts voters.  Claudia, on the other hand, has several beautiful numbers with Guido.  Nicole Kidman has shown her capability with handling musicals – in fact, it’s how she got her first Academy Award nomination.  But as for being an audience or critical favorite, Claudia has seem to have fallen short on Broadway.  The role was only nominated for one major award, the slightly less prestigious Drama Desk, during its two runs on the Great White Way.  I am most excited to see how this story plays out; that is, if audiences treasure Kidman especially or if she plays second fiddle to the other actresses like on stage.

As I now look back and see how much I have written, it just gets me more and more excited for Oscar season to really kick off!  Can we get the countdown started until Christmas please?

BEST BETS FOR NOMINATIONS: Best Picture, Best Director (Rob Marshall), Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Supporting Actress (Penelope Cruz/Judi Dench), Best Cinematography, Best Production Design, Best Costume Design, Best Sound Mixing, Best Original Song

OTHER POTENTIAL NOMINATIONS: Best Supporting Actress (Nicole Kidman/Sophia Loren), Best Adapted Screenplay

P.S. – Check out this amazing new trailer, showing the transformation of “Nine” from rehearsal to production.





Random Factoid #89

25 10 2009

The first movie that I ever saw with just friends was “Superman Returns.”  So, for those of you keeping track of chronology, that is summer 2006.  The summer before I went into eighth grade.  To put it nicely, if I had my way, it would not have been this late.





REVIEW: Garfield: A Tale of Two Kitties

24 10 2009

PREFACE: I mentioned back in Random Factoid #42 that I had gone through a stint of reviewing movies when I was 13. After rummaging through my old home computer, I managed to find some of these reviews. In a special five day mini-series, I will reveal these reviews in their unadulterated form. I leave it up to you to comment, see how my style has changed (or maybe hasn’t). The final movie reviewed in the series is “Garfield: A Tale of Two Kitties,” a kids movie with the guts to invoke Dickens in its title.

You can tell when movie companies are just trying to prime people for their money by making a crappy sequel to a semi-popular series, most often in kid’s movies because people go in flocks and not alone.  Jim Davis ought to be ashamed of Tim Hill and 20th Century Fox for ruining his loveably, lazy cartoon.  Garfield is a cat who cares about two things…food and himself.  In the first installment, it took him practically the whole movie to come around and care about Odie.  Meanwhile, in Garfield: A Tail of Two Kitties, the tile is about the most creative thing the movie has to offer.  The plot is incredibly predictable (but then again, what kids movie isn’t), and not to mention carelessly written.  Garfield’s owner Jon leaves he and Odie in an animal kennel while he hunts down his girlfriend to pop the question.  Of course, Garfield and Odie escape and stowaway in the luggage.  This left me to think that how could security not see or hear them.  If they wanted an exciting plot twist, they should have had them detained and somehow run to catch the plane.  Meanwhile, a pampered cat that looks remarkably like Garfield inherits an enormous castle while the human heir is left furious.  Well, do you think that he’s going to go after the cat?  The estate provides no protection and just assumes that a power-hungry man will just leave the cat alone.  The rest of the movie is just a mess as the two cats swap worlds, and there are more pathetic attempts to get rid of the cat inheriting the castle.  The animals’ talking doesn’t match their mouths, and the whole thing comes of the same way…sloppy.  Any adult taking their child will yearn for the time back when Bill Murray was young and creating comic masterpieces on SNL.  There was no comic spark for Murray that could have saved this movie.  You may end up begging the kids to leave this to walk into Cars, because this is pure kitty litter.  1halfstars





Random Factoid #88

24 10 2009

I got my second iPod in October 2006.  At that time, I had two major Hollywood crushes: Reese Witherspoon, fresh off her “Walk the Line” Oscar victory, and Rachel McAdams, who caught my eye in “The Family Stone.”  I was really into the enhanced capabilities of the new iPod, especially the ability to upload photos.  Naturally, I saw it necessary to do a Google Images search of the two actresses, download the pictures in which they looked the best (and also the ones without their significant others so I could still dream), and put them on to my iPod for some good natured fawning later.





F.I.L.M. of the Week (October 23, 2009)

23 10 2009

The “F.I.L.M.” (First-Rate, Independent Little-Known Movie) of the Week was unknown to me just a few short months ago.  I was looking at one of my moviegoing companion’s favorite flicks on Facebook and saw there was a movie that I did not recognize.  I, of course, had to ask her what this movie was.  The next day, she lent me her copy, telling me that she couldn’t believe I hadn’t seen it, much less never heard of it.  The movie was “Heathers,” and I quickly realized how criminal it was that I hadn’t seen it.  An absolutely brilliant satire of teenage angst, the movie has a more vintage ’80s high school feel than a John Hughes movie, yet it still retains its significance 20 years later.

Veronica Sawyer (Winona Ryder) has managed to infiltrate the clique of girls who rule the school, all of whom are named Heather.  But Veronica is not like the Heathers; she has qualms about participating in the degradation of other students and about the licentious behavior of the Heathers.  The divide only grows with the arrival of J.D. (Christian Slater), a mysterious, edgy boy that instantly attracts Veronica’s attention.  He shows her what life could be without the practically despotic rule of the Heathers, and she likes his vision.  Together, they begin picking off those who ruin the lives of others.  To clear the air, they do exactly what that last sentence sounds like: killing the tyrannical and making it look like suicide.  But they fail to realize that what they find poetic justice is seen by society as the latest fad among teenagers.  Suicide becomes viewed as an attitude, no different than the “Valley Girl” craze.

“Heathers” is a better version of “Mean Girls” with the guts to make a statement about the true nature of teenagers.  Don’t get me wrong, I love Tina Fey’s writing, but the characters here are fully realized and very real.  It is designed to really make you think, especially teens like me.  The movie calls upon you to wonder how seriously we should be taken.





Random Factoid #87

23 10 2009

For much of my life (and possibly still to this day), I have looked young for my age.  Up until about a year ago, I would occasionally be offered kids’ menus at restaurants.  But economically, this worked to my family’s advantage.  At my “home theater” of Edwards Greenway Plaza 24, the cut-off age for child’s tickets is at 12.  I was able to get into movies with a child ticket up until the beginning of high school.  This saved about $3 for my ticket, which could recoup the astronomical cost of parking (something to be covered in many factoids in the future).





REVIEW: Nacho Libre

23 10 2009

PREFACE: I mentioned back in Random Factoid #42 that I had gone through a stint of reviewing movies when I was 13. After rummaging through my old home computer, I managed to find some of these reviews. In a special five day mini-series, I will reveal these reviews in their unadulterated form. I leave it up to you to comment, see how my style has changed (or maybe hasn’t). The fourth and penultimate review is of “Nacho Libre,” the second film from the creators of cult hit turned mainstream “Napoleon Dynamite.”

Napoleon Dynamite became a comic success because of how incredibly pathetic it was.  After watching it, you were left to think, “What was that?”  Nacho Libre was advertised to be just that, but this movie actually had a plot.  I’m not so sure that is such a good thing.  Napoleon Dynamite was an anti-climatic string of strange and pitiful events, and Nacho Libre was awkward nonetheless.  I expected it to be Napoleon Dynamite Goes Mexico, and I couldn’t have been more wrong.  Jon Heder put his soul into Napoleon because no one knew who he was, so he had nothing to lose by performing the hell out of him.  Jack Black, on the other hand, feels afraid to dive into character.  He plays the friar Ignacio (nicknamed Nacho) at a Mexican monastery who cooks for the orphans.  However, he has two ungodly interests…wrestling and a new nun at the monastery (played by Ana de la Reguera).  He has no money to buy fresh food with, so he is often left to brew awkward concoctions with chips that a local restaurant owner leaves for him.  While picking up these chips, he gets attacked by a limber homeless guy who steals the chips.  Nacho later recruits this drifter to be his wrestling partner.  Together, they become “Lucha Libre” fighters.  2stars

(NOTE: I get the feeling that this review was unfinished due to its brevity.  I don’t feel right trying to finish it, given the desired effect of posting these reviews.)





Random Factoid #86

22 10 2009

At the end of 2003, I must have felt a certain boredom because I sat down and created what was called a “Moviegoer’s Challenge.”  This was a Word document consisting of one question from each movie I had seen that year.  I really created it for my own pleasure; when I gave it to my mom to take, she looked at it and instantly proclaimed that it was too hard for her.





REVIEW: Click

22 10 2009

PREFACE: I mentioned back in Random Factoid #42 that I had gone through a stint of reviewing movies when I was 13. After rummaging through my old home computer, I managed to find some of these reviews. In a special five day mini-series, I will reveal these reviews in their unadulterated form. I leave it up to you to comment, see how my style has changed (or maybe hasn’t). The third part in the series concerns Adam Sandler’s “Click.”

All great comedians have a style of humor.  Adam Sandler’s involves having every character curse at one time or another (kids included), overly long gags, and half-hearted attempts at having a heart.  Although Click still fits the Adam Sandler stereotype, you walk out of the theater feeling something…a first for the marvelous comedian.  Sandler plays architect Michael Newman who is torn between being with his family and working hard to give his family everything. Kate Beckinsale plays his wife, who looks gorgeous but does not show enough emotion to be convincing.  One day, he is fed up with his frustrating and seemingly mediocre life.  To make matters worse, he can’t find the remote for the TV.  He goes to Bed, Bath, and Beyond to look for a universal remote, where Morty (hint: there’s something in the name) gives him the top of the line.  Soon, Michael figures out how to control his universe using the remote.  He can turn down the volume on his dog, mute his sister-in-law, and do picture in picture.  Life is all good for Michael.  He can finally give his scumbucket boss (marvelously played by David Hasselhoff) a piece of his fist.  However, the remote has a mind of its own.  It begins to program itself by things that Michael has been doing a lot.  While he fast-forwards, Michael is on auto-pilot where he is there but doesn’t talk.  As he fast-forwards to his next promotion, he discovers a year has passed by and that his marriage is on the rocks.  The remote fast-forwards ten years to which he is CEO of the company.  His wife ran off with the swimming instructor who sports a Speedo at all times, he is incredibly obese from bad eating habits, and things are out of control.  Click is hysterical, but isn’t afraid to be melancholy to get across the message.  This is the best Adam Sandler movie yet, and without a doubt the only one with a relevant theme.  There is incredibly mindless humor at times, but it made the audience think…something new for this genre.  3halfstars





Random Factoid #85

21 10 2009

It’s another rant today, so enjoy/run for cover (circle ONE):

I want to throw my computer off the roof.  Why is it that I, the self-proclaimed “blogger” about MOVIES, gets the computer that consistently has problems with the DVD player?  I tried to watch “The International” the other day, but because the disc had the slightest scratch, Apple’s DVD player program decided to play God and skip to a spot where it wasn’t damaged.  This spot is usually 30 minutes later, and I have no idea what is going on in the movie.  Doesn’t it understand that I would rather watch a movie with a slight imperfection than watch a movie that I have no idea what is happening in the plot?  For those wondering, I ended up finishing “The International” on a portable DVD player.





REVIEW: Superman Returns

21 10 2009

PREFACE: I mentioned back in Random Factoid #42 that I had gone through a stint of reviewing movies when I was 13. After rummaging through my old home computer, I managed to find some of these reviews. In a special five day mini-series, I will reveal these reviews in their unadulterated form. I leave it up to you to comment, see how my style has changed (or maybe hasn’t). The second movie reviewed in the series is “Superman Returns.”

Silence. It is something you don’t get much in the summer, whether or not you are at the movies. This summer, Hollywood has produced mostly big, loud films that just ruin our eardrums. Silence gives the audience some time to think or to marvel about what is on the screen, while sometimes talking will just get overwhelming. Bryan Singer uses silence perfectly in the triumphant return of a disgraced series. It took plenty of changes in the cast and the director, but the wait was worth it. Brandon Routh dazzles as he tries to fill the enormous shoes left by the late Christopher Reeve, and the same goes for Kevin Spacey as he does a wonderful job as Lex Luthor. Everything is done to perfection. Before a big event, there is always some sort of silence for you to get the feel and to really get pulled in. The best example of this Superman returns to Earth after trying to find the distant remains of his home planet. His alter ego, Clark Kent goes back to work for The Daily Planet to find out that his perennial fave Lois Lane (stunningly beautiful Kate Bosworth) not only has a child with her boyfriend but has won the Pulitzer Prize for her article “Why the World Doesn’t Need Superman.” Lex Luthor is once again looking for a way to kill Superman. He collects some crystals from the Fortress of Solitude and combines it with Superman’s fatal weakness to try to destroy him once and for all. Along the way, the film is packed with emotion and intriguing plot twists. The best thing about Superman Returns is how it pays homage to its past by inserting clips of Marlon Brando from the original series. This is what a summer blockbuster should be, with action, emotion, and a perfect balance of silence. This movie is breathtaking and a work of magic in a summer littered with movies that Superman couldn’t save. 4stars





Random Factoid #84

20 10 2009

Because I call these “random” factoids, I feel no hesitation in throwing some really bizarro stuff at you.  I feel like putting your feet up on the chair in front of you at a movie theater, given that no one is sitting in that seat, is a virtually inalienable right.  If there were movies back in 1776, Thomas Jefferson would have written it into the Declaration of Independence.  Can’t you just hear it: “life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the ability to rest your feet on the chair in front of you while enjoying a quality movie.”  It really rolls off the tongue.  However, while watching “The Informant!” at the prestigious ArcLight theater in Hollywood, I decided to kick back in my chair and pop my feet up on the chair in front of me.  But almost instantaneously, I was approached by the manager and told to put my feet on the ground.  According to him, it was a health risk because they served food in the theater.  It seemed like a non-sequitur to me, but I had just paid $15 for a ticket and didn’t want to get kicked out of the theater.  No one sat in the seat during the movie, and it was so hard to resist the temptation to rest my feet on the headrest.





REVIEW: Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest

20 10 2009

PREFACE: I mentioned back in Random Factoid #42 that I had gone through a stint of reviewing movies when I was 13.  After rummaging through my old home computer, I managed to find some of these reviews.  In a special five day mini-series, I will reveal these reviews in their unadulterated form.  I leave it up to you to comment, see how my style has changed (or maybe hasn’t).  The first movie reviewed in the series is “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest.”

Something that the new installment of the extremely popular Pirates of the Caribbean series has in common with its predecessor is that it is a thrill ride.  However, they are much different. The Curse of the Black Pearl was smooth and fun, while Dead Man’s Chest is bumpy and leaves you with a headache.  Johnny Depp’s once-energetic character Jack Sparrow is starting to get on my nerves with his stale humor and over exaggerated body movements.  An intriguing and creative story is followed by a corny and horribly planned sequel.  The movie jumps right in to the action by showing Elizabeth Swann’s (Keira Knightley) ruined wedding to Will Turner (Orlando Bloom).  A lord not from the first movie comes out of the blue with a warrant for their arrest, which states that they should die for helping Jack Sparrow avoid his death.  How someone not around at the time of these acts can arrest them for it, not to mention how overdue this was, is just another flaw in the horrendous script.  Meanwhile, Jack Sparrow is being hunted down by Davy Jones (Bill Nighy, who unfortunately is hidden behind a computer animated face of tentacles) and wants his soul.  Jack needs souls to offer up souls to save his own, so he gives away Will Turner’s, who is after a compass of Jack’s in exchange for him and Elizabeth’s freedom.  The rest of the film is a random blur of CG effects as everyone searches and escapes.  Will searches for an escape from Davy Jones’ ship, Elizabeth searches for Jack who can help her to find Will, and Jack selfishly looks for the Dead Man’s Chest which will save his soul.  They all must escape the Kraken, which will drag them down to Davy Jones’ locker.  However, for all the pain of the first 140 minutes, the last five gain it partial redemption and might convince you to return for the third installment.  All I have to say is if it took three years to come out with a sequel this horrific, I am scared to see what At World’s End will be like after only one.  2stars