Let me preface by saying that I took the idea for today’s factoid from a post by EW’s Lisa Schwarzbaum on her blog. In the post, she debates the big screen experience. Does the theater experience add anything to a movie like “Frost/Nixon” in theaters, which will be watched in almost complete silence? Does the quality of a movie make it more watchable on the silver screen?
The post has inspired a feature (add one to a growing list which will be written as soon as I am finished with my show), but rather than debate here, I merely wish to state the facts. The only movie I feel that I have to see in theaters is a musical. They are clearly designed to emulate the full immersion of live theater, and watching a musical on a TV screen or a computer seems to be cheating the experience. “Dreamgirls” would be a different movie to watch now if I hadn’t seen it on Christmas Day and given Jennifer Hudson a standing ovation.
You’ve seen plenty of movies about corporate scandals, a few about whistleblowers, and maybe some about informants. But you have never seen one like “The Informant!” The pervasive quirks of director Steven Soderbergh’s latest outing spread all the way to its exclamation point-laden title. Even if it doesn’t make you bust a gut, something in the movie is bound to make you grin from ear to ear, be it Matt Damon’s zany performance or Marvin Hamlisch’s retro score teeming with horns and whistles. Much to my surprise, the movie succeeds not because of Damon’s adept acting skills but rather because of Soderbergh’s expert handling of the eccentric script. His willingness to delve into the depths of the mind of Mark Whitacre (Damon) is nothing short of sensational.
“The Informant!” dares to explore Whitacre, a high-ranking executive at Archer Daniels Midland. While the company is under close scrutiny by the FBI, Whitacre tips off them to a completely unexpected goldmine – ADM is part of one of the biggest price fixing scheme in history. He reveals this not out of some sense of moral rectitude but rather due to the coerciveness of his concerned wife. The FBI instantly puts Whitacre to use, placing him undercover in the heat of the fire. Under conditions that agents are trained for years to cope with, the FBI’s most improbable informant manages to collect hundreds of hours of evidence relating to the criminal activity. While on the surface everything looked perfect, the stress was inflaming a certain affliction of Whitacre. Despite his bumbling demeanor, he is a very cunning man who may be not just a great informant but a informed threat the FBI.
I hog all the TiVo recording space at my house with movies that I am saving to watch at a later hour. As my younger brother reaches the age where he can start to intelligently use the household appliances, we are starting to butt heads over who gets the recording space. It’s difficult to find space when I have 10 movies saved. Usually, I end up erasing my stuff and either rent it from the library or tape it again at a later date.
The holiday movie season begins to kick into high gear in the month of November, as does exciting Oscar season. Accordingly, this post is longer than the previous monthly preview posts. Brace yourself for movie mania coming your way in a few weeks. Sit back, relax, and let Marshall guide you through the coming attractions.
November 6
From the mainstream movie perspective, the hot movie of this weekend will be Robert Zemeckis’ adaptation of “A Christmas Carol.” Shot with the same motion capture technology that Zemeckis used to make “The Polar Express,” the movie will cash in on premium ticket prices from 3D and IMAX 3D screenings. My main concern about the quality of the movie itself lies with its principal actor, Jim Carrey, who will act as Scrooge and all three ghosts. I doubt Zemeckis will permit it, but I fear that Carrey will make a mockery of Dickens’ classic novel much in the fashion of Mike Meyers with “The Cat in the Hat.” Regardless of what critics say, I will probably end up seeing this with the family for some good old-fashioned family fun at the movies.
“The Men Who Stare at Goats” is the first movie of the holiday season to which George Clooney lends his talents. Here, he plays a a military man in charge of a secret unit that attempts to use psychic powers for military purpose. One such activity is to attempt to kill goats just by staring at them. The movie also stars Ewan MacGregor as the reporter who discovers it all; the cast also includes Jeff Bridges and Kevin Spacey. The movie is directed and adapted by Grant Heslov, previously nominated for an Academy Award for his work on “Good Night, and Good Luck.” The trailer seems to show Heslov’s approach as similar to the Coen Brothers who usually provide a fun-filled romp. Maybe the film will be a bona-fide indie hit, and Overture Films will be able to claim their first movie to gross over $50 million. But we’ll have to see.
I’ve already written about the Oscar favorite, “Precious,” in a previous Oscar Moment. I’ll post the trailer here just for the sake of promoting it, but if you want to hear my thoughts, read the post.
Two thrilling movies also open this week. First, “The Box” with Cameron Diaz and James Marsden, seems to have an intriguing premise: if you push the button on the box, you will get a million dollars, but someone you don’t know will die. However, it looks to be more interested in cheap thrills than exploring moral issues. The other, “The Fourth Kind,” looks downright scary. If horror is your thing, this looks like the movie for you. I saw the trailer at “District 9,” and even if you don’t want to see it, you have to ponder the validity of the “true story” behind the movie.
November 13
Disaster porn reaches its pinnacle this weekend. “2012,” Roland Emmerich’s apocalyptic film, will have some of the biggest destruction and explosions the world has ever seen. The trailer was so mind-blowing that I am willing to overlook all vices in the plot to see the world’s greatest landmarks get wiped off the earth. My only comment is that if John Cusack somehow finds a way to stop the end of the world, I will be enraged.
The other major wide release of the week is “Pirate Radio,” a movie that Focus Features so desperately wants you to see that they changed the title from “The Boat that Rocked” just a few weeks ago to appeal to you. Are you flattered? You shouldn’t be. The movie seems like comedic Oscar Bait, but it didn’t do well Britain, the country of production. Focus scrambled to change their focus from awards movie to popular movie. So whenever this pops into a theater near you, be armed with the knowledge that “Pirate Radio” is merely a washed-up Oscars wannabe. But make the decision to see it for yourself.
New York and Los Angeles get the treat of watching Wes Anderson’s adaptation Roald Dahl’s “Fantastic Mr. Fox.” I have the utmost respect for Anderson for not conforming to the growing trend to do all animation through computers. Anderson’s film uses the stop motion technique, moving an object gradually to give the illusion that it is moving. Even more exciting that Anderson’s eccentric style in an eccentric medium is the voice cast. Clooney voices the titular character, the cunning Mr. Fox. The cast also features Meryl Streep, Jason Schwartzman, Owen Wilson, and Bill Murray. What’s not to like? (NOTE: The movie expands on November 20 and enters wide release on November 25.)
For those who like very obscure indies, “That Evening Sun” with 87-year-old Oscar bridesmaid Hal Halbrook has his latest shot at the gold.
I can name every Best Picture winner back to 1970 by memory on a good day. The most common winners I drop are “The Last Emperor,” “Platoon,” and “The Sting.”
In middle school, a speaker asked my assembly if anyone knew the last five movies to win the Academy Award for Best Picture. Of course I was the only one to raise my hand.
I don’t like watching movies on Blu-Ray. I think that the character seem awfully one-dimensional. When they move, I think they look like paper dolls. But then again, maybe I watched the wrong movie on the display at Sam’s Club. If my memory serves me, it was “Hairspray.”
3D glasses hurt my eyes. I think its cool to watch a movie in 3D, but I have to take off the glasses every 20 minutes or so and rub my eyes. Every once in a while, they will even give me a headache.
I sound like an old man with my health problems, I know. But I actually have 20/20 vision according to my doctor, so there’s nothing wrong with my eyes.
Do you feel the same way? Do the 3D glasses bring some unintended side effects of moviewatching? Did they cause a particularly painful experience for you? Or am I just a lone wolf here? COMMENT and let me know!
(NOTE: This post was inspired by a feature I saw on Entertainment Weekly today. It’s only a few short paragraphs long, so take the time to read it. WordPress gives me the powers of Big Brother when it comes to monitoring your activity on this site, so I can see if you clicked it or not. Please do. I even went to the trouble of putting a picture on the factoid…that’s something I haven’t done since #15, if I recall correctly.)
You’ve already heard me say my fair share about “Up in the Air,” but a new trailer was released and I couldn’t help myself. This trailer gives us more information about the plot, yet it still leaves us with curiosity and excitement.
Most pundits are now calling “Up in the Air” the frontrunner for many Oscars including Best Picture. They say this with confidence after the movie opened to unanimous critical acclaim at the Toronto Film Festival last month. As I stated in a post a few weeks ago, I am really pumped for this to open. If only George Clooney didn’t have two other movies opening in November, I could be seeing the movie a month earlier than I am forced to now.
I have already made a point to highlight Clooney and Reitman, so I will take this “Oscar Moment” to focus on the supporting cast. Of these, the most prominently featured in the trailer is Anna Kendrick, who plays Natalie, the naive Cornell graduate assigned to shadow Ryan Bingham (Clooney). I have not seen any of Kendrick’s previous work; some girls might recognize her from a certain movie that I refuse to mention (if forced to reference it, I will simply call it “the T-word”). But Reitman wrote the part of Natalie specifically for Kendrick, so clearly she has chops.
Another supporting actress worth noting is Vera Farmiga, who plays Alex Goran, the frequent traveler of Bingham’s dreams. Unlike Kendrick, I have seen one of Farmiga’s performances as the spellbinding lone female presence in “The Departed.” Like Kendrick, Reitman wrote the role especially for her. From my limited vantage point, it would appear that Farmiga has the more daunting character to tackle because Alex seems to illuminate a sensitive side of Bingham through their encounters.
While having a great supporting cast makes for an outstanding movie, it can often prove troublesome around awards season. In supporting categories, it is not unheard of to have two nominated performances from the same film. But the supporting actress category is teeming with talent this year. Mo’Nique is a virtual lock, and, barring a complete meltdown, “Nine” will most assuredly have one actress in the category (my money is on Marion Cotillard). I see three possible scenarios for Farmiga and Kendrick, sorted below in order of probability:
One of the women will emerge an audience favorite and will be nominated.
The movie proves so unstoppable that both are nominated.
Voters are split between the two and neither receives a significant enough showing to receive a nomination.
Most experts seem to be leaning towards the first scenario, and they think it will be to Kendrick’s benefit. I have to say I agree because the Best Supporting Actress category has traditionally been one to reward young talent. The second scenario seems more likely to play out in favor of “Nine” just because the actresses are already so established and loved (Winners Nicole Kidman, Marion Cotillard, Judi Dench, Penelope Cruz; nominee Kate Hudson). I just love thinking about these types of situations because it means a lot of great performances and movies – who doesn’t want that?
BEST BET FOR NOMINATIONS: Best Picture, Best Director (Jason Reitman), Best Actor (George Clooney), Best Supporting Actress (Anna Kendrick and/or Vera Farmiga), Best Adapted Screenplay
Brace yourself because this is probably the most pathetic factoid yet, potentially ever.
Back when I still watched edited movies, I sat down and watched “The Wedding Planner” with Jennifer Lopez and Matthew McConaughey. Like all romantic comedies, it has the cliché of a special phrase that the romantic leads share. Here, McConaughey tells J. Lo that he only eats brown M&Ms because they don’t have extra stuff (because chocolate is already brown.). Of course, when they inevitably come together at the end, this is that special memory that they reference.
What does this have to do with me? My mom leaves a big bowl of M&Ms in our den. When I pass it by, I usually grab only brown M&Ms for the reason that McConaughey gives. Like I said, pathetic.
I really like to get to movies early because I prefer sitting in the middle and towards the top. Usually, I am able to get a reasonable seat. I can, however, think of two horrible moviegoing experiences that were strongly affected by my seat.
I have described this experience in a previous factoid, but for my 8th birthday party, the theater reserved us a row right behind the railing for “The Grinch.”
I saw “The Reader” from the second row. I had to crane my neck for two hours to watch a lackluster movie. Also, Kate Winslet doesn’t look quite as good from such an angle.
“Notes on a Scandal” is this week’s F.I.L.M (First-Class, Independent Little-Known Movie). The movie opened in 2006, and it barely received a wide release. It didn’t exactly light the box office on fire, but the right people took notice and nominated it for 4 Oscars, including Best Score, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Supporting Actress (Cate Blanchett), and Best Actress (Judi Dench).
I watched “Notes on a Scandal” with very little knowledge of the plot, but little did I know that a shockingly provocative movie was awaiting me. The movie revolves around the themes of passion, jealousy, and greed, but it uses pedophilia, lesbianism, and adultery to highlight them (yet another movie I recommend with discretion). The script is practically immaculate, but the movie soars to great heights mostly because of its incredible performances. Dench takes the lead and creates a character that you can really loathe, yet she infuses the crotchety old hag with enough warmth to make you feel the tiniest bit of sympathy. Blanchett reminds us why she is one of the most respected actresses in Hollywood with an absolutely dynamite performance.
The movie will undoubtedly remind you of “Doubt,” but replace doubt with certainty. Barbara Covett (Dench) catches her fellow teacher Sheba Hart (Blanchett) involved in a sexual act with one of her teenage students. Rather than report the relationship, Barbara decides to befriend Sheba and help her. Sheba reveals all to her colleague, and her deplorable rationale will assuredly lead you to hate her. But as events continue to unfold, Barbara’s true motives begin to surface, exposing her to be practically The Joker with wrinkled skin. Unfortunately, Sheba is so distraught that she falls right into Barbara’s web of deceit. But as the film draws to a conclusion, we are never sure who is the hero or villain, much less who is doing the right thing.
“Notes on a Scandal” is a movie that will remind you of Hollywood’s dearth of thought-provoking films. Guaranteed to get your mind racing and your heart pumping, it provides an intimate portrait of emotions that we so often try to hide. At a slim 92 minutes, it is a good rental if you want to watch a movie that you can still be pondering next week.
I can’t stand watching edited versions of anything. I refuse to watch movies for the first time on TBS, TNT, or any other network that not only edits for content but also for advertising time. In the case of this viewer, I would watch the networks more if there were less commercials. I usually watch movies on planes if I am interested, but I am growing weary of the sloppy editing for content.
I got an independent movie called “Sugar” from the library the other day (I wouldn’t be surprised if you’ve never heard of it), and I popped it into my DVD player on the flight back from Los Angeles. As soon as I hit play, a message preceding the film stated that it had been edited for content from its original film. As soon as we touched down in Houston, I did some research and found out that the DVD copy had been edited. In fact, it moved from R to PG-13. Outraged, and refusing to watch anything else but the original, I returned the movie unwatched to the library. I plan to wait until I can rent the R-rated version on iTunes in the coming days.
Thanks to all 6 people who voted in the poll (half of which only came with prodding). Just in case anyone has missed the explanation, at the end of my monthly preview post, I ask readers to pick the movie that they are most excited to see from that month. The winner of this poll is shamelessly plugged on the site.
629 of the 2045 songs in my iTunes library are from soundtracks. That’s about 31%, for those who don’t like dealing with fractions. After further analysis of my catalog, I discovered that this number is so high because of the vast number of complete soundtracks I have. Up until a few years ago, I only looked in the soundtracks when browsing for music. But I still love soundtracks; I grab them off the shelf at the library every time I go.
Hollywood seems to have made it a habit to take successful children’s stories and completely reinvent them, usually in a way that alienates those who loved the original story. “Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs” is the paragon of the above description. The movie’s source material was probably my favorite book as an emerging reader. I loved the phenomenon of raining food, and it really inspired me to turn on my imagination. Best of all, the authors allowed you to accept this without ramming some explanation for their creation down your throat. The filmmakers, however, did not feel the same way. Apparently, it was necessary to completely change the plot in order to make it scientific. Taking nothing but the idea of raining food, they created a completely new movie, leaving me with a predisposed hatred before I even donned the 3-D Wayfarer glasses.
The movie replaces Grandpa Henry telling a story to his grandchildren about mashed potato snow and soup rain with Flint Lockwood, an eccentric inventor whose innovations never quite live up to his dreams. But one idea finally works: turning water into food. When hamburgers and filet mignon start flying from the sky, Flint is the town hero. But as Johnny from “The Outsiders” reminds us, nothing gold can stay. Eventually, Flint loses control of the machine, wreaking havoc on his poor town. Kids movies often love to sell a message or a moral, and “Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs” could have served a double whammy with greed and overeating. However, it decides to give a relatively soft sell and focuses on more strange foods falling on the sky than thematic development.
There is rightfully a hierarchy of computer animation with Pixar at the apex, DreamWorks slightly below, and all others still lagging behind in technology at the bottom. “Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs” doesn’t have many exciting visuals even in 3D. What shocks me even more is how unrealistic the characters look. Unless Pixar is hoarding the technology, I don’t really see any excuse to not make them look real.
Overall, the movie could have been a lot worse. The first half was pretty dreadful as it trudges through the stale plot devices that characterize these types of movies. I don’t think there is anything wrong in the slightest with telling kids to reach for their dreams or to do what makes them happy, but they hear it in every stinking movie catered to their interests. Wouldn’t it be nice if one of them respected them enough to quit telling them what they already know? The second half, much to my surprise, succeeds despite its shortcomings. It was strangely fun to watch the characters use a flying car and trudge through all sorts, and I was actually able to drop my pre-existing grudge and just enjoy some mindless fun. I have to give it a low grade because I am still enraged at the filmmakers decision to throw my beloved story down the drain, but I raised it a smidgeon because the smaller members of the audience were howling. C /
You’ve already heard me say my fair share about “Up in the Air,” but a new trailer was released and I couldn’t help myself. This trailer gives us more information about the plot, yet it still leaves us with curiosity and excitement.
Another supporting actress worth noting is Vera Farmiga, who plays Alex Goran, the frequent traveler of Bingham’s dreams. Unlike Kendrick, I have seen one of Farmiga’s performances as the spellbinding lone female presence in “The Departed.” Like Kendrick, Reitman wrote the role especially for her. From my limited vantage point, it would appear that Farmiga has the more daunting character to tackle because Alex seems to illuminate a sensitive side of Bingham through their encounters.
“Notes on a Scandal” is this week’s F.I.L.M (First-Class, Independent Little-Known Movie). The movie opened in 2006, and it barely received a wide release. It didn’t exactly light the box office on fire, but the right people took notice and nominated it for 4 Oscars, including Best Score, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Supporting Actress (Cate Blanchett), and Best Actress (Judi Dench).
Marshall and the Movies 
Recent Comments