Random Factoid #52

18 09 2009

I hope I don’t sound like a goody-goody when I say this, but I have never watched a pirated movie online.  I respect the amount of time and hard work that the director, actors, and crew put into making a movie, be it “Milk” or “Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs,” that I feel that it would be wronging them to cheat them of the money that they deserve.





F.I.L.M. of the Week (September 18, 2009)

18 09 2009

The “F.I.L.M.” (gentle reminder: the acronym stands for “First-Class Independent Little-Known Movie”) of the Week is “The Lookout.”  Released in 2007, the movie flew under the radar of most moviegoers.  But with the movie’s star, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, now being hailed as the new Heath Ledger, perhaps there is no better time than the present to check out one of his hidden gems.  The movie is a spellbinding crime drama on the surface, but if you dig deeper, you will find that there is much more than meets the eye.  The film finds a quiet strength in Gordon-Levitt’s Chris, affected by short-term memory loss after a car crash that killed his friends, just trying to find a way to contribute to the world.  But his mental incapacitation makes it hard for him to do even the simplest of things, and he writes down his routine in a notebook.

Chris’ position as the night cleaner at a small-town bank attracts the attention of a gang of bank robbers who intend to exploit his shortcomings in order to get the money.  Led by the smooth Gary (Matthew Goode, “Watchmen”), the gang is able to coax Chris into helping, mainly through the strategic use of Luvlee (Isla Fisher, “Wedding Crashers”).  But Chris’ blind roommate, Lewis (Jeff Daniels), provides a foil for the gang.  He has street smarts and can see right through the gang.  And as time goes on, Chris begins to realize what Lewis can so clearly see.  The result is a wild and unpredictable third act, which excites and thrills.

I could speak volumes on Gordon-Levitt’s delicate performance, but I should let the movie speak for itself.  It is a refreshing take on the crime thriller, ranking up with “Inside Man” and possibly even close to “Reservoir Dogs.”  It is a very plot-driven movie, but “The Lookout” takes equally as much of its strength from the powerful performances of Gordon-Levitt and Daniels.  But now, it is time for me to stop writing and let the movie speak for itself.  Go give it a spin; you won’t be disappointed.





Random Factoid #51

17 09 2009

If you haven’t noticed, when I love a movie, I will never stop talking about it.  If you go and look at some of the very first posts, I mentioned “(500) Days of Summer” in almost every post.  As I was thinking about my factoid for today, I had a friend remind me of all of the movies that she saw only because I was constantly raving about them, such as “American Beauty” and “The Dark Knight,” both of which are in my top 10 at the moment.





Random Factoid #50

16 09 2009

I am firmly against cell phone usage during movies, but I must admit, I have done that which I condemn.  During the movie “You, Me, and Dupree” in 2006, my neighbor called me about talking care of her dog, and I picked it up and had a brief conversation.  There were very few people in the theater, so no one seemed to notice.  But that doesn’t mean that people weren’t bothered by it.  So, at the risk of sounding preachy, I once again push the point DO NOT TALK ON YOUR PHONE DURING A MOVIE.

This has been a life lesson from Marshall and the Movies.





No More .wordpress.com!

15 09 2009

Has the pain of typing 10 extra characters to get to my website led to aching fingers?  Well, pain, pain, go away!  “Marshall and the Movies” is here to help.  No longer do you have to type “www.marshallandthemovies.wordpress.com”.  All you have to type now is “www.marshallandthemovies.com.”  That’s it!  But for those who like the extra keyboarding practice, you are still able to type in the longer URL and get to the same site.  So kiss those aches and pains goodbye thanks to your good buddy Marshall who wants to make it easy for you.

Yes, I did intend for that to sound like a bad TV commercial.





Random Factoid #49

15 09 2009

My subscription to Entertainment Weekly began in July 2003 when my family became members of Blockbuster Video.  They extended a free trial, and I loved looking at it so much that my mom began paying for a subscription.  I often saved them and cut pictures of movies out of them.  I stored the cut-outs in an old Nike shoebox.  On occasion, I would take similarly themed clippings and put them together in a collage which hung on my wall.  I recall creating a Star Wars, Walk the Line, and a Reese Witherspoon collage, who was then my favorite Hollywood star to drool over.





Random Factoid #48

14 09 2009

A few years ago, after having seen several movies that were ruined by their trailers, I went through a stretch where I would walk out of the theater or bury my head in my seat to avoid seeing anything about the movie.  Call me strange, but for anyone who saw the movie “Funny People,” doesn’t this trailer basically tell you the whole movie? (Sorry, no one on YouTube was kind enough to lend me an embeddable and unadulterated trailer.)

Because I’m really tired, you were spared my tirade on overly revealing trailers.  Lucky you.  But check out my other posts in which I am more than happy to feature trailers that are the polar opposite of that.





FEATURE: Define “Best Picture”

14 09 2009

For those of you not familiar with the movie industry, several high-profile film festivals (Toronto, Telluride, Venice) have occurred over the past week, inciting much talk about the upcoming onslaught of movies that will be highly considered for Academy Awards.  For those who read the factoids, it is hardly a secret that this season also brings a rush of euphoria for me.  I will keep you posted with trailers and buzz, and I will also soon be posting early predictions for nominees.  But as kind of a warm-up for what is to come, I wanted to give my answer to the question an age-old question: how do you define “Best Picture”?  What you will read below is an English paper that I wrote last year for a compare and contrast essay, mainly what critics think and what audiences think about the best movie of the year.

One Sunday in February or March every year, all the focus of popular culture turns to the Kodak Theater in Los Angeles, California, for the Academy Awards.  The glitz and glamour dominates the red carpet, yet the two most important people glide down the red carpet almost inconspicuously. Cameras do not flash in their face; people do not ogle at their outfits or speculate about whether or not they will end up in the tabloids; Ryan Seacrest from E! might interview them just for kicks.  Although just accountants, these two people hold a briefcase filled with twenty-four envelopes that will change the lives of many people.  Millions of moviegoers across the world watch the ceremony to find out the names inside the envelopes, but they stay tuned in to hear the presenter call out a movie, not a name.  They want to see what over 5,810 people working in the movie industry voted as the Best Picture.  However, for many moviegoers across America, their opinions do not match the Academy’s. Many of them have never heard of some of the nominated movies; some of the movies might not have played in their town.  With each passing year, a divide between what the general public perceives as Best Picture and what the Academy chooses as its Best Picture has grown wider and wider.

The Academy gave two awards for motion pictures at the first ceremony: one for “Outstanding Picture” and “Unique and Artistic Picture.”  At the next awards ceremony, they merged the two awards into “Best Picture,” claiming that the two categories were similar enough that they only merited one award.  And still to this day, the Academy Award for Best Picture represents the ultimate prize for any movie.  But are the members of the Academy voting for a movie that is outstanding or one that is unique and artistic?  Any movie can be outstanding, yet few merit the term “unique and artistic.”  It appears that they choose to award the outstanding because such an adjective is so opinionated that it can easily be swayed by many factors.

Recently, the process of selecting a Best Picture in recent years has become less subjective and more political.  The most well known case occurred in 2005 when “Crash” won Best Picture over “Brokeback Mountain,” the latter of which had won almost every award possible.  Because the movie focused on the lives of two closeted homosexual men, most people attributed its loss to homophobia.

The voters are often hand out Best Picture to a director that they like.  Handing out Best Picture along with Best Director has become all but standard practice: 59 of the 81 Best Picture winners also won Best Director. Many people assume that 2006’s Best Picture winner, “The Departed,” won only because they felt obliged to give an award to Martin Scorsese, then the perennial Oscar bridesmaid.

The Oscar voters also like to play it safe, rarely awarding controversial or provocative films.  In 1993, they awarded Best Picture to “Schindler’s List,” a film about the Holocaust.  Although many acclaimed movies were produced about the subject in the 50 years since the horrific genocide, “Schindler’s List” marked the first nomination for Best Picture for a film about the Holocaust.  The Academy generally receives movies set in the past more favorably than movies set in the present or future.  In 2008, “Slumdog Millionaire” was the only movie set in the present day.

The voters are notorious for selecting similar types of movies, which have become known as “Oscar Bait.”  To qualify as “Oscar Bait,” a movie needs an acclaimed director, a respected cast, and a subject matter that appeals to the Academy.  The Holocaust, elaborate period pieces, and biographies have become recent favorites.

It is difficult to gauge what the general public perceives as the Best Picture of the year.  Are box office grosses telling of the Best Picture?  Clearly not, otherwise Best Picture winners from this decade would include such classics as “Spider-Man 3,” “Star Wars: Episode I – The Phantom Menace,” and “How the Grinch Stole Christmas.”  Usually the highest grossing movie of the year involves an adaptation of a comic book or another popular book series; often times sequels top the list.   These movies are made to pack audiences into the multiplexes.  The People’s Choice Awards cannot truthfully depict the public’s perception because they pick the same kind of movies that dominate the box office.

Perhaps the most accurate indicator of the moviegoer’s Best Picture is the IMDb (Internet Movie Database) poll.   On this website, hundreds of thousands of moviegoers rate movies on a scale of one to ten stars.  IMDb uses a weighted average to get a rating of the movie, and they maintain a chart of the 250 best-rated movies.  The ratings give a fairly accurate representation of how the public feels about a movie; however, the system has a few flaws.  When a movie initially hits theaters, people flood the site and rate the movie very highly.  After some time, people revisit their ratings and lower them, and the average drops.   Readers often give movies with controversial subject matter one star to drop their average.  “Milk,” a 2008 Best Picture nominee about the first openly homosexual man to hold public office in the United States, was in the IMDb’s 250 highest rated films before it received the nomination.  But once the nomination highlighted the theme of the movie, homophobic voters rushed to IMDb to rate it one star.  Now, “Milk” has received 1,146 ratings of one star; unforgettable films like “Paul Blart: Mall Cop” and “Fool’s Gold” have less one star ratings.  With no completely legitimate means of discovering what movie audiences across America think is the Best Picture, maybe the Academy voters discount the opinion of the average moviegoer in general.

So why can’t the mainstream moviegoer and the Academy voter find harmony in a pick for Best Picture?  Perhaps the Academy has forgotten what Best Picture really means.  David Carr of The New York Times said, “It should be the kind of movie that is so good that it brings both civilians and the critical vanguard together.”  Ideally, a mixture of box office success and critical praise would result in a Best Picture win (or at the very least a nomination).  But if the Academy believed in such a formula, “The Dark Knight,” the film with the highest critical praise and box office gross, would have won Best Picture in 2008.  And while that year’s Best Picture winner, “Slumdog Millionaire,” was a box office sensation, the film relied on the awards season to fuel its box office.  According to Boxofficemojo.com, over 65% of its gross was accumulated after it received the nomination for Best Picture.

The average moviegoers of America have a way to show the Academy how they feel about the Best Picture choices.  Ratings of the Academy Awards telecast have shown how pleased America is with the likely winner.  When “Titanic,” the highest grossing movie in history, won Best Picture in 1997, over 57 million people watched the show.  The highest ratings that the show has received came from when the Best Picture winners were box office successes, such as “The Lord of the Rings.”  But when the Best Picture went to low-budgeted, little seen independent films like “Crash” and “No Country for Old Men,” the ratings fell to all-time lows.

Every individual looks for something different in a Best Picture.  Some are looking for a movie with cultural resonance.   Some are looking for the movie that can make them laugh until they cry.  Some are looking for a movie that makes a unique, artistic statement.  Some are looking for a movie with most exhilarating car chase.  Although the process of choosing a Best Picture winner is subjective, maybe a day will come when a movie will find us that can satisfy all that we are looking for, both for Academy voters and normal moviegoers alike.

What do you think?  Is it possible to have a movie that can unite the critical vanguard and the audience at the megaplex?  How do you define Best Picture?  How many questions do I have to pose before you comment?!?

Until the next reel,
Marshall





Random Factoid #47

13 09 2009

I participate in the My Coke Rewards program only to get free movie tickets at AMC Theaters.  A ticket is 485 points, and it usually takes me a few months to get it (or rather, for my parents to down all that Diet Coke).  There are probably much cooler things out there, but they cost too much and I would use a free movie ticket more than anything else.





Random Factoid #46

12 09 2009

I have 25 movies in my iTunes library, and it takes up an obscene 30.5 gigabytes on my hard drive.  The sad thing is most of the movies really aren’t that great.  A lot of them I bought because I always wanted a movie on my computer that I had yet to see (this was before the dawn of iTunes movie rentals).  Thus, I have “The Longest Yard” on my iPod but not “American Beauty.”  I know it’s a problem; I’m working on it.





Random Factoid #45

11 09 2009

As I stare at the blinking cursor struggling to come up with a factoid at this late hour, I think to myself, “What could I possibly say to to entertain my readers more?”  I am waiting, watching that cursor appear and disappear pensively as if it holds the key to unlocking the factoid inside of me.  From black to white it turns, and I’m sure by now, you are thinking, “Quit buying time and give me the darn factoid!”  Well, fine!  Here it is, you voices resonating in my head.

I make my own “Academy Awards” each year; that is, I nominate and award who I think should be receiving the Oscar.  Sorry, “Slumdog Millionaire,” all your Oscars went to “The Dark Knight.”  And Helen Mirren, hand back that statue; it’s going to Kate Winslet for “Little Children.”

I used to make this list at the end of the year, but now I start in May.  I already have the majority of the big categories filled with the exception of Best Supporting Actress and Best Adapted Screenplay, in case you were wondering, which obviously you were if you have trekked through the entire factoid to get to this last extraneous bit of information that I could let run on for forever, but I have chosen to give you a break and end the sentence now.





F.I.L.M. of the Week (September 11, 2009)

11 09 2009

The “F.I.L.M. of the Week” is “A History of Violence.”  I watched it this weekend and was absolutely blown away by it.  The movie tells the story of Tom Stall (Viggo Mortensen), a small-town diner owner who is thrust into the spotlight after killing two robbers in self-defense.  However, the attention brings several mobsters into the town, confronting Tom about a past he claims never to have lived.  This threatens to rip Tom’s family apart at the seams, leading to some shocking revelations and startling actions.

Although Tom’s story arc is the most prevalent and important, I was extremely taken by the subplot of his son, Jack, and the effect of his father’s actions on his own as he strikes back against his intimidators.  The movie presents an unwaveringly honest portrait of high school, and I admired the commitment to realism.

There is a lot to interpret in “A History of Violence,” and it is one of those great movies that lingers in your mind for days on end.  Director David Cronenberg packs a great punch with only 90 minutes, quite a remarkable feat.  The movie centers around the concept of violence (if you couldn’t deduce as much), and by neither abhorring it nor glorifying it, he leaves it up to the viewer to decide what they think about it.  I do recommend this with a disclaimer though: squeamish should stay away.  The movie features some unsettling scenes of sexuality in addition to the graphic and gory violence.

If you watch this movie because of reading about it here or have seen it already, why not comment?  Even if you don’t agree with me, I still want to hear what you think.





Random Factoid #44

10 09 2009

I still practice my Academy Awards acceptance speech in the shower.  It has slowly been refined over the course of a decade.  The award itself fluctuates between Best Actor, Best Director, and Best Screenplay.  I can’t decide whether I am going to cry yet.  I don’t know whether to spend my speech thanking people or using it to express sincere gratitude.  I’m debating on whether I would even write it down because if I didn’t, that might make the speech seem more heartfelt.

And my Oscar is usually a shampoo bottle.  I like to imagine that I will hold it tightly when I get up to the podium.





What To Look Forward To: “Up in the Air”

10 09 2009

I’m sorry, but I couldn’t resist posting this before my November preview (coming soon to a blog near you).  I am eagerly anticipating “Up in the Air,” the latest film from Jason Reitman, director of “Juno” and “Thank You for Smoking.”  (Does the last name sound familiar?  He is the son of Ivan Reitman, director of “Stripes” and “Ghostbusters.”)  “Up in the Air” looks to be more like the latter.  It premiered this week at the Telluride Film Festival and has garnered heaps of praise, most of it centered around Reitman and its star, George Clooney.  The Oscar-winning actor plays Ryan Bingham, a man who flies around the country firing people for a living.

But you know what’s great?  I didn’t know any of that from watching the trailer but rather from my excessive blog reading.  The trailer is impeccable, giving a taste of what to expect but never unveiling any significant plot details.  As the talk has increased about “Up in the Air,” I have slowly become more and more excited to see it.  But with the release of the trailer, I can hardly contain myself.  If it does not open in Houston on November 13, the opening day in limited release, I might scream.  It is schedule to open nationwide November 25, making for a good Thanksgiving one-two punch of this and “Nine.”

UPDATE: I just got some awful news.  “Up in the Air” will not be making its nationwide debut until Christmas Day.  It will open December 4 in limited release and expand some on December 11.  It has to open on December 4th in Houston.  It has to.





Random Factoid #43

9 09 2009

I have never seen a movie that has made me want to go wait in line and watch it again.  When that movie comes, I will be banging the gong again and again on the blog.  Trust me.

NOTE: I am referring to movies in theaters.  I have rewound many DVDs, mainly out of confusion as to what happened in the end.