I walked into “Identity Thief” after having a pretty dismal week. I knew I wanted to blow off some steam in the form of laughter, and I was willing to sit through just about anything to get that satisfaction.
Thankfully, Melissa McCarthy delivered. She didn’t do it big time, but she brought enough fun and humor with her improvisational comedy that it gave me the bare minimum of the need I was looking for the movie to fill. Now, I was hoping it would do a little bit more … but as Osgood would say in “Some Like It Hot,” well, nobody’s perfect.
The movie is enjoyable and fun when McCarthy gets to have free play and improvisation with Jason Bateman, an average joe who gets his identity stolen by her habitual plastic kleptomaniac. Sadly, his Sandy Patterson and her “Diana” do not get nearly enough of this unstructured time.
They are often reduced to gimmicks and clichés that are beneath McCarthy’s talents for sure. I don’t mean to suggest Bateman isn’t a capable comedian or actor; indeed, I think he plays an easily identifiable everyman that resonates with a lot of people. He has excelled in supporting roles in Jason Reitman’s films “Juno” and “Up in the Air,” yet his starring vehicles all seem to totally miss the mark.
From “Couples Retreat” to “Horrible Bosses” to “The Change-Up,” Bateman has yet to prove himself as a capable comedic leading man. I think this might have something to do with his persona’s defining characteristics of rigidity, though I will admit I have never watched “Arrested Development” – and that might change my opinions on Bateman.
Films about filmmakers often teeter on a precarious line. If they want the viewer to appreciate that director or star, then they have to encapsulate their skill or charm in a way befitting of their name. For example, “Hitchcock” worked because it evoked the joy of watching an old Hitchcock classic, and “My Week with Marilyn” was light fun because Michelle Williams captured the ethereal grace of Marilyn Monroe.
On the flipside, “Hugo” (though I know I’m in the minority) feels unsuccessful because it doesn’t quite reproduce the magic of the early days of cinema it so gushingly tributes. Similarly, Richard Linklater’s “Me and Orson Welles” fails to pay proper homage to Orson Welles’ genius by not having any ingenuity of its own. I mean, at least “Hugo” was sweet and entertaining. This is not so lucky.
This biography is saved from being unwatchable by Christian McKay’s spirited portrayal of Welles, pre-“Citizen Kane” glory. The movie takes place during Welles’ days on the stage, directing a visionary production of Shakespeare’s “Julius Caesar.” But from the urgency and dignity granted it by Linklater, you would think it was a community theatre production of “Godspell.”
The biopic also suffers from Welles being far from in focus. Granted, “My Week with Marilyn” was about Eddie Redmayne’s Colin Clark being romanced by Monroe, but it knew who the main character was. “Me and Orson Welles” can’t really decide if McKay’s Welles is the protagonist or if it’s Zac Efron’s Richard Samuels, a teenage actor swept into the production. Of course, they both vie for Claire Danes’ Sonja, a production assistant on the show.
So there’s a bit of a love triangle, a bit of a coming-of-age story, AND a portrait of an artist all colliding in “Me and Orson Welles.” If these different aspects were layered, perhaps the movie would work. But it’s just a muddled mess that reeks of ambivalence and indecision rather than the bold, brash brilliance of the real Orson Welles. C- /
A lot of people were looking to “Abduction” as a test of whether Taylor Lautner could carry a movie on his own. Away from the comforts of the “Twilight” saga where Lautner could just rip off his shirt and no one seemed to mind, would he be a viable action star? Or is Lautner nothing more than a set of good-looking abs, destined to have girls drooling on Tumblr for all of eternity?
The quick answer to that is no, and “Abduction” is an abysmal movie that struggles to be so bad that it’s good at times. The ridiculous romance, the half-baked plot, and the characteristic Lautner sporadic shirtlessness definitely provide some fun moments of unintended laughter.
And most people pinned the failure of “Abduction” on Lautner. That’s not fair. Everyone else in this movie was just as bad.
Looking at you, Lily Collins. My goodness gracious, she grated on my last nerve. Maybe with enough training in an acting studio and not in a gym, Lautner could be a half-decent actor one day in the way that Channing Tatum surprised us all in “21 Jump Street.” I don’t know that I have the same hope for Collins.
I’ll hold back on some extremely harsh words for her, but know that she tried really hard to put on her big girl panties. However, Collins just falls face first into the pavement, and no one bothered to tell her that her face is busted up and she’s bleeding everywhere (in a strictly hypothetical sense, I mean).
The concept behind “In Time” is actually fairly interesting, and maybe that’s why I was willing to overlook some of the film’s shortcomings. In a dystopian ultra-classist 2169, people stop aging at 25, and living any longer than that requires you to literally buy time. Extra time seems to come from just one extra strong and special handshake.
Such a kind of transfer begs the question of why people don’t just go steal it from the rich people why they sleep. Or why people don’t just use tight grips or shake with superglue. Needless to say, the broad strokes of inspiration blinded writer/director Andrew Niccol to the many plot holes in this world.
Watching the movie from a post-Occupy world certainly highlights this extreme case of social inequity as the rich live forever and the poor die young. From my sociology classes in college, I can tell you that inequality is corrosive for society and poverty is quite literally a lethal force. “In Time” is very conscious of these things and holds an interesting mirror up to the audience watching the film.
Sadly, that mirror is fogged up by some sloppy storytelling and a plot that ultimately can’t sustain beyond the novelty of the “time as life” concept. The characterization is decent, but the cast of good looking actors who can still pass for 25 – including Justin Timberlake, Amanda Seyfried, Cillian Murphy, Olivia Wilde, Matt Bomer, and Alex Pettyfer – don’t do much to elevate the material. The intelligence of the social commentary ultimately gives way to a fairly standard action film, but the themes raised in the beginning are enough to make me feel that “In Time” was not entirely wasted time. B- /
Before it’s too late and no longer topical, I wanted to share a list that has been floating in my mind for a while. On Sunday night, the Academy welcomed Jennifer Lawrence and Anne Hathaway into their club. Now, they can join Daniel Day-Lewis and Christoph Waltz in adding the phrase “Oscar Winner” before their name is mentioned.
But within the next 10 years, who will join them in the pantheon of acting? I have a few suggestions…
Male
Leonardo DiCaprio
3 Oscar nominations
9 Golden Globe nominations, 1 win
8 SAG Award nominations
COMMENTARY: The question isn’t “if.” It’s “when.” And that could be as early as this year.
Joseph Gordon-Levitt
2 Golden Globe nominations
4 SAG Award nominations
COMMENTARY: With the boy-next-door turning into a renaissance man as he heads behind the director’s chair, JGL is headed towards golden child status. Now it’s just time for the Oscars to catch up.
Ryan Gosling
1 Oscar nomination
4 Golden Globe nominations
2 SAG Award nominations
COMMENTARY: I don’t really think I need to elaborate here as Gosling is one of the emerging Hollywood leading men. The only thing keeping him from an Oscar, in my mind, is his eclectic role selection.
Brad Pitt
4 Oscar nominations (3 as actor)
5 Golden Globe nominations, 1 win
5 SAG Award nominations, 1 win
COMMENTARY: As one of the highest-wattage stars of the past decade moves into a slower, more retrospective phase of his career, the role that will land Brad Pitt his Oscar should materialize.
George Clooney
8 Oscar nominations (4 for acting), 2 wins (1 for acting)
12 Golden Globe nominations (8 for acting), 3 wins
13 SAG Award nominations, 4 wins
COMMENTARY: Yes, Clooney has already won his Oscar(s). But I am convinced he will win his trophy for a leading role as he is such a prominent leading man in Hollywood.
Female
Amy Adams
4 Oscar nominations
4 Golden Globe nominations
5 SAG Award nominations
COMMENTARY: 4 nominations in 7 years. That’s impressive. It’s going to happen, soon. Perhaps the first time she gets a big leading role?
Laura Linney
3 Oscar nominations
6 Golden Globe nominations, 2 wins
4 SAG Award nominations, 1 win
4 Primetime Emmy nominations, 3 wins
COMMENTARY: Though as of late Linney has been more television oriented, I still don’t think the cinematic community is done paying its dues to this talented actress.
Julianne Moore
4 Oscar nominations
7 Golden Globe nominations, 1 win
10 SAG Award nominations, 1 win
1 Primetime Emmy win
COMMENTARY: If “Game Change” had been released in theaters and not on HBO, Moore would have her Oscar. It’s been over a decade now since her last nomination, but I don’t think that means the impetus to give her award has disappeared.
Emma Stone
1 Golden Globe nomination
1 SAG Award win
COMMENTARY: She’s a new Hollywood “It” girl. Once she lands the big and flashy role, she will get an Oscar. (Heck, they had her announce the nominations this year, something usually reserved for prior winners/nominees.) She’s a beloved figure with all the charm and accessibility of Jennifer Lawrence with a little more polish and refinement.
Michelle Williams
3 Oscar nominations
3 Golden Globe nominations, 1 win
4 SAG Award nominations
COMMENTARY: Williams showed she had some serious range in “My Week with Marilyn.” Not that her mopey characters weren’t good, but now we know she’s the real deal.
What do YOU think? Who else is destined for Oscar glory in the next decade?
Well, this got pushed to the bottom of my to-do list all day, whoops. Now the Oscars seem like a million years ago, especially since Harvey Weinstein already got us thinking Oscars 2013 (or 2014, depending on how you date the awards) by leaking this picture of Nicole Kidman as Grace Kelly in “Grace of Monaco.” The season never ends. Just like how everyone started talking 2016 on November 7 of last year.
I thought this year’s crop of winners was good, for the most part. And by that I mean, my happiness for “Argo” and “Les Misérables” winning 6 Oscars combined was probably greater than my anger at the lackluster “Django Unchained,” “Life of Pi,” and “Lincoln” taking home a combine 7 Oscars.
Really, I just wanted Anne Hathaway to win. Just as last year, I really only wanted to see “Midnight in Paris” win Best Original Screenplay. And the year before that, it was Natalie Portman for “Black Swan.” Thankfully, these mildly difficult request have been met by the Academy.
Though I will say, I get all worked up predicting the winners every year … and then it all unfolds generally according to plan. Was there really much surprising at all about this ceremony, save maybe Christoph Waltz’s win? (It shouldn’t have been a surprise if we had taken into account that he has never lost a major award on the American film awards circuit that he has been nominated for.) I think Meryl Streep’s win last year is the biggest surprise since “Crash” winning Best Picture in 2005.
“Argo,” not unlike “The Artist” last year, is a Best Picture winner I can live with and be happy for. Someone posted an article recently saying that awards season seems to have a way of making us hate the movies we once liked. I’d say that’s pretty fair. I got sick of “Argo” winning everything by the end. It removes the suspense and the fun from the game! And such an industry consensus gives you all the more opportunities to wonder how much it really deserves its accolades.
In other news, Jennifer Lawrence is one of my new favorite human beings ever … if you want to know what it would be like for me to win an Oscar, these next few clips would give you a great idea.
And the cast reunion of “Les Misérables” was absolute heaven. I mean, really, I felt so deeply in that moment that I was once again filled with that sense of spiritual renewal and revival that only one musical can bring.
As for the ceremony itself as a whole, Seth MacFarlane was OK. At least he knew not to take it personally when jokes would flop, and building in a safeguard against his own failure to dull the excoriation was smart. But I found his humor to be always just slightly off-the-mark. And the “We Saw Your Boobs” song was just ridiculous. Sadly, it’s a reality that many esteemed actresses might feel the pressure to drop their drawers to appeal to the older men that make up the majority of the Academy … but it was reduced to a sexist punchline.
The one thing that was SPECTACULAR though was the red carpet fashion for the women. I mean, holy cow! I was bowled over by how gorgeous Amy Adams, Jessica Chastain, Anne Hathaway, and Jennifer Lawrence looked. Their beauty is rivaled only by their talent.
So I guess this is, sadly, more or less a wrap on a season of Oscar reporting. Always sad to see it go, but this year was especially fun. Don’t know what will be my “Les Misérables” of 2013, but I can’t wait to see some new movies to find it!
12:53 A.M. To put the finishing touches on the evening, “Life of Pi” was the big winner with 4 Oscars including Best Director. “Argo” took home 3 trophies to boot including Best Picture, the one that really counts. “Les Misérables” had a nice haul of 3 as well, winning Anne Hathaway her first Oscar! “Django Unchained,” “Lincoln,” and “Skyfall” each won a pair of Academy Awards too.
Thanks for tuning in, everyone! You were a wonderful audience! And you helped make this a banner night for the site as well, breaking my all-time daily traffic record.
Check back tomorrow for my Monday morning wrap-up where I attempt to break down the implications of the night, the best-dressed women, and the precise moment I went and returned from heaven during the “Les Misérables” cast reunion. Take care, readers and Oscar watchers!
11:59 P.M. Aww, Ben Affleck and Jennifer Garner. And what an incredible speech of redemption, justice, and vindication!
11:58 P.M. Giving the Academy the finger with the mention of Affleck as a director.
11:56 P.M. What a wild ride for Ben Affleck. Congratulations to all involved on this fantastic movie!
11:53 P.M. Because Bill Clinton on the Golden Globes wasn’t enough, Michelle Obama had to upstage everyone at the Oscars…
11:52 P.M. Does Jack Nicholson always present Best Picture?
11:51 P.M. Biggest shocker of the night! A nice, eloquent speech as always. History has been made … and will probably be made again when he takes his next role.
11:48 P.M. BEST ACTOR: DANIEL DAY-LEWIS, “LINCOLN“
10:10 P.M. Glad Seth MacFarlane can joke about his movie’s mediocrity.
10:07 P.M. Is this what heaven is like? Oh my god!
10:05 P.M. HYPERVENTILATION!
10:03 P.M. I CAN DIE HAPPY NOW! THIS IS SO FANTASTIC!
10:02 P.M. LES MIS LES MIS LES MIS LES MIS I AM DYING
9:59 P.M. Jennifer Hudson being amazing is good enough. Why has she disappeared?!
9:57 P.M. HOW CAN THEY DO “DREAMGIRLS” WITHOUT BEYONCE!?!
9:54 P.M. I’ll never look at “Chicago” the same way. Catherine Zeta-Jones sounds awful and looks like a totally different person than the woman that won the Oscar 10 years ago.
9:53 P.M. I’m sorry, but I just can’t take John Travolta seriously…
9:44 P.M. BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE: “SEARCHING FOR SUGAR MAN”
9:41 P.M. “The actor who really got inside Abraham Lincoln’s head was John Wilkes Booth.” Yeah, maybe too soon…
9:40 P.M. By breaking up the Best Picture nominees into 3 trios, I hope this doesn’t mean they think they can get away with not doing one giant montage…
9:37 P.M. The modern American superhero who isn’t American … Liam Neeson.
9:36 P.M. Darn, there goes my streak of getting all the short films right.
9:35 P.M. BEST SHORT FILM (DOCUMENTARY): “INOCENTE”
9:33 P.M. Love that feeling of getting a short film prediction right!
9:32 P.M.BEST SHORT FILM (LIVE ACTION): “CURFEW”
9:30 P.M. This is how I knew who Shirley Bassey was…
9:27 P.M. Pretty impressive finish for Shirley Bassey there.
9:21 P.M. So glad “Les Misérables” isn’t going home empty handed!
9:11 P.M. What a terrible way to play someone off – with “Jaws!” He was trying to say something meaningful about their company that was going bankrupt and they just totally cut him off!
8:59 P.M. So great of the Academy to send out all the short films!
8:58 P.M. BEST ANIMATED SHORT FILM: “PAPERMAN”
8:57 P.M. Never mind, misread the envelope.
8:56 P.M. Screenplay already?! Not again….
8:55 P.M. Loving all this “E.T.” music!
8:52 P.M. Well, I guess lightning does strike twice. The same performance wins another Best Supporting Actor Oscar.
8:50 P.M.BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR: CHRISTOPH WALTZ, “DJANGO UNCHAINED“
8:45 P.M. Sally Field, what a great sport!
8:42 P.M. So THAT’S why Daniel Radcliffe and Joseph Gordon-Levitt showed up to their first Oscars (which is a fact that surprises me).
8:40 P.M. Channing Tatum and Charlize Theron seem like an odd couple to be doing this dance … but they have some kind of grace! This reminds me of a “Family Guy” episode with all these random tangents.
8:37 P.M. This “we saw your boobs” number is true but just rubs me wrong…
8:31 P.M. Really, Tommy Lee Jones? Way to break character! Jimmy Fallon, you are in good company…
Only the second movie since 1930 to win Best Picture without a Best Director nomination – that is the feat “Argo“ looks to pull off tonight. On nomination day, I wrote “All that talk of it being a surprise come-from-behind winner all just came to a screeching halt with that Best Director snub.” That has quickly been proven dead wrong as it wins top honors from the Critics Choice, Golden Globes, PGA, DGA, SAG, and BAFTA. If it only had that pesky Best Director nomination, we wouldn’t think twice.
What looked to be a tough race to predict has been blown wide open by “Argo.” But if anything will prove us wrong, it would be “Silver Linings Playbook.” Then “Lincoln.” Then “Life of Pi.”
8:05 P.M. Ladies are looking PHENOMENAL tonight. Scroll down for Chastain, and also check out Anne Hathaway, Amy Adams, and Jennifer Lawrence!
8:00 P.M. Best Director will be more interesting tonight than it has been in quite some time … will they do it before or after the leading acting races? Hopefully it’s just right before Best Picture.
A part of me wonders if David O. Russell won’t steal this, but his nomination for Best Adapted Screenplay could lead to some vote splitting. Steven Spielberg just doesn’t feel right, not with how “Lincoln” seems to have faded at the end of the season. Ang Lee’s work on “Life of Pi” just seems director-y, so something tells me I ought to pick him.
7:50 P.M. The “breath of fresh air” category of all former winners – Best Supporting Actor. Who will win their second – or third – Oscar? Saved this category towards the end because I was still thinking about it…
He hasn’t won anything yet. But it’s a gut feeling I’ve had since the nominations. SAG winner Tommy Lee Jones or Globe/BAFTA winner Christoph Waltz seem to be more safe or likely choices. But if Riva upsets Lawrence, they run the risk of nominating “Silver Linings Playbook” for all acting awards and then giving it zero wins. I don’t think that happens, so DeNiro wins on sympathy and insurance votes.
7:40 P.M. The Best Actress race is crazy tight this year, and I will be on the edge of my seat as the envelope is opened.
Between the Golden Globe, the SAG, and “The Hunger Games,” this is Lawrence’s year. There seems to be a late surge for Riva with her BAFTA win, but I think Jennifer Lawrence should take this one.
7:32 P.M. How incredible does she look?!
7:30 P.M. I mean, do I even need to predict the next two categories?
Will win: Anne Hathaway, “Les Misérables“ Could win: Sally Field, “Lincoln“ Should win: Anne Hathaway, “Les Misérables“ Should be nominated: Shirley MacLaine, “Bernie”
Will win: Daniel Day-Lewis, “Lincoln“ Could win: Hugh Jackman, “Les Misérables“ Should win: Joaquin Phoenix, “The Master” Should be nominated: Jack Black, “Bernie”
Again, duh.
7:20 P.M. Best Adapted Screenplay is one of the night’s most unpredictable races involving five major Best Picture contenders. Who will win?
Again, since they can’t give Best Director to Ben Affleck, they’ll give “Argo” some consolation prizes so it doesn’t ONLY win Best Picture. Perhaps this is where “Silver Linings Playbook” breaks through, but I think the momentum is unstoppable for “Argo.”
7:00 P.M. Time to move into the heavy hitters … can’t believe some of these people will be holding a golden statue soon!
“Zero Dark Thirty” may be too controversial, but it did win the WGA. However, it was not competing against Quentin Tarantino’s “Django Unchained” nor Michael Haneke’s “Amour.” I’m seeing a foreign film triumph like in 2002 when “Talk to Her” unexpectedly took the trophy. Just a gut feeling I have.
6:55 P.M. Jennifer Lawrence just referenced “Father of the Bride” – MARRY ME!
6:53 P.M. The sound categories always prove to be a bit of a conundrum – do you predict a split? They haven’t done so since 2008!
Did you know they sang live on “Les Misérables?” No movie has shone more of a light on sound mixing than this one, so it should handily win. And musicals always seem to score here.
A “Life of Pi” technical sweep should get back on track and take the other sound category. 6:46 P.M. Cute Quvenzhané Wallis and her adorable puppy purse!
6:45 P.M. Best Film Editing, according to Dave Karger, is an even more necessary nomination than Best Director. So having said that…
I think it would be great if Roger Deakins, a perennial Oscar bridesmaid, won for his superb lensing of “Skyfall.” But his name isn’t on the ballot, just the movie’s name. And there seems to be a Bond bias in the Academy. So I say the technical domination of “Life of Pi” continues here.
6:20 P.M. That one time I ran into an Oscar nominee. It’s super casual.
(That’s Emmanuelle Riva of “Amour,” in case you couldn’t tell.)
6:15 P.M. Almost forgot the other two short film categories … whoops!
Best Documentary Short
“Inocente”
“Kings Point”
“Mondays at Racine”
“Open Heart”
“Redemption”
Will win: “Mondays at Racine” Could win: “Open Heart”
I’m thinking heartstrings-tugger “Mondays at Racine,” about two female cancer patients who become unlikely friends, will triumph over “Open Heart.” The latter seems to similar to “Saving Face,” last year’s winner in the category about reconfiguring women’s faces in Pakistan that have been disfigured by acid.
Best Live Action Short
“Asad”
“Buzkashi Boys”
“Curfew”
“Death of a Shadow”
“Henry”
Will win: “Curfew” Could win: “Death of a Shadow”
I did my research and “Curfew” sounded right, but now I don’t remember what it was about. I do remember that Matthias Schoenaerts of “Rust and Bone” was in “Death of a Shadow,” though.
6:05 P.M. Eddie Redmayne arrives! Why isn’t he nominated for Best Supporting Actor?!
6:00 P.M. What was once “Best Makeup” is now “Best Makeup and Hairstyling.” So that adds a whole new dimension to the category (slightly kidding, slightly serious).
Consider how much that makeup and hairstyling contributed to Anne Hathaway’s soon-to-be-Oscar winning performance. I think that’s enough to trump the showier styles of “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey.”
5:45 P.M. Time for my predictions for the costume drama awards. The movies that win here are usually made solely to win these Oscars.
Some say the digital scenery of “Life of Pi” will triumph over the traditionally Oscar-y sets of “Anna Karenina,” like how “Avatar” won in 2009. And maybe it will, indicating a HUGE technical sweep for the movie. But I think given that the scenery and setting of “Anna Karenina” is a major plot device, it will walk away with the award.
4:45 P.M. 84, soon to be 85 years of Oscar, all in one picture. Awesome.
4:00 P.M. I saw all the Best Picture nominees so you don’t. Here are some of my favorite quotes from my reviews of each nominated film.
At times, it can be fairly difficult to watch … but how hunky-dory do you want movies about death to be? How can you even begin to comprehend the ennui of watching someone slowly lose their grip on life when you are treated to watch from a coolly removed distance?
However, I don’t attribute the success of “Argo” merely to coincidence and fate. The movie works because it was meticulously and intentionally crafted by director Ben Affleck, who continues to make leaps and bounds with each movie he makes.
Have no doubt about it, “Beasts” is a movie that could only by an uncorrupted visionary like Zeitlin. His ambition soars to the sky, and even in the rare occasions where it falls short, we are left in awe of the sheer gutsiness of the decision.
[R]ather than use the forward momentum to lead to further exploration of his craft, Tarantino chose to take a victory lap fueled by the high of inhaling too much of the exhaust fumes of his own success. ”Django Unchained” just feels like Tarantino on autopilot, lacking the vibrancy or surprising eccentricity of his prior films.
Even when the novelty of the close-ups wears off, we are still left to ponder just how radical and revolutionary Hooper’s “Les Misérables” is. The musical genre has favored sweeping grandiosity for years in an attempt to replicate the stage experience for cinematic audiences. Hooper, on the other hand, respects the live theatre’s conventions but throws out those that do not translate well to screen.
The core ideas of “Life of Pi” get diluted, passed over in favor of a little more cinematic grandeur. Don’t get me wrong, Lee’s grand canvas for the movie is exciting and stunning. But I can get that in any movie; few dare to delve into the psyche like he meagerly attempted to do.
Once the process wraps up, it is revealed that Kushner and Spielberg are really more interested in hagiography than biography with “Lincoln.” While it delves deeper than just mere Honest Abe iconography, their film is not one that attempts to tell his story.
Russell’s editing facilitates emotional rapport, [and] the two feel like parts of ourselves that we usually try to pretend don’t exist. But on screen and embodied by Cooper and Lawrence, we embrace them and allow them to illuminate the crazy that lives within us all.
Through the journalistic proceedings of “Zero Dark Thirty,” Boal cleverly utilizes Maya as an important through-line to keep us drawn in. And Chastain in turns creates a character so scarily resolute that we can’t help but root and cheer for her.
3:45 P.M. Remember when “Zero Dark Thirty” was the frontrunner for Best Picture? Read my piece for “LAMB Devours the Oscars” to see what happened to what was once a prized darling.
3:30 P.M. Animation is a little tougher than normal this year…
Best Animated Feature
“Brave”
“Frankenweenie”
“ParaNorman”
“The Pirates: Band of Misfits”
“Wreck-It Ralph”
A few years ago, it would be unimaginable that Pixar could lose this category. They may not cede their turf tonight, to be fair. “Brave” won the Golden Globe and BAFTA, but “Wreck-It Ralph” had better reviews and took the PGA and Annie Award. I admit to picking the movie I think is clearly better and hoping the Academy feels the same way. But they could remind us that this category belongs to the studio of Woody and Buzz.
Best Short Film – Animated
“Adam and Dog”
“Fresh Guacamole”
“Head Over Heels”
“Maggie Simpson in The Longest Daycare”
“Paperman”
Will win: “Paperman” Could win: “Adam and Dog” Should win: “Maggie Simpson in The Longest Daycare”
Disney’s short film “Paperman” should clean up here. It seems like the most substantial nominee, but I could be totally wrong. I saw it before “Wreck-It Ralph” and was very impressed with the way it rehashed silent film charm.
Best Picture nominees have dominated this category since 2008, so I give the advantage to “Life of Pi.” On the other hand, “The Lord of the Rings” did win this category three times in a row, so a sneak attack is possible.
2:45 P.M. Some more predictions for you … again, I consider these to be pretty much no-brainers.
Best Documentary Feature
“5 Broken Cameras”
“The Gatekeepers”
“How to Survive a Plague”
“The Invisible War”
“Searching for Sugar Man”
Have only seen two of the nominated films, so I can’t speak much from my own aesthetic tastes. But “Searching for Sugar Man” has been totally dominant on the precursors circuit, and I don’t expect its dominance to let up now.
Best Foreign Language Film
“Amour”
“Kon-Tiki”
“No”
“A Royal Affair”
“War Witch”
Will win: “Amour” Could win: “Kon-Tiki” Should win: “No” Should be nominated: “Rust and Bone”
Are any movies other than “Amour” in this category nominated for Best Picture? Nope, didn’t think so. Some have speculated crowd-pleasing “Kon-Tiki” could pull a “The Lives of Others”-style upset on Michael Haneke’s downer, but I think that’s doubtful at best.
And I base my should win for “No” on the trailer, which is seriously AMAZING! Shameless plug:
2:30 P.M. Honest posters for the Best Picture nominees. So incredibly accurate.
2:25 P.M. Subtext?
2:15 P.M. Might as well start some predictions. What better place to start than with the music categories? This year’s ceremony promises to be quite a celebration of music between performances by Adele, Norah Jones, Barbra Streisand, and Shirley Bassey. There’s also the celebration of “Chicago,” “Dreamgirls,” and “Les Misérables.” And the show will close with a number by host Seth MacFarlane and Kristin Chenoweth. Oy.
Really don’t have any sense of certainty, but “Life of Pi” certainly seems to be headed towards a large below-the-line haul. And it won the Golden Globe. Perhaps if the momentum for “Argo” extends beyond Best Picture, it will lift up Best Score. It would be a much-deserved win for workhorse Alexandre Desplat. Then again, we also should not count out John Williams EVER. But I don’t think that will happen with the lack of “Lincoln” love in the late phase of the season.
Best Song
Before My Time from “Chasing Ice,” music and lyrics by J. Ralph
Suddenly from “Les Misérables,” music by Claude-Michel Schönberg, lyrics by Herbert Kretzmer and Alain Boublil
Pi’s Lullaby from “Life of Pi,” music by Mychael Danna, lyrics by Bombay Jayashri
Skyfall from “Skyfall,” music and lyrics by Adele Adkins and Paul Epworth
Everybody Needs a Best Friend from “Ted,” music by Walter Murphy, lyrics by Seth MacFarlane
Will win: Skyfall from “Skyfall” Could win: Suddenly from “Les Misérables” Should win: Skyfall from “Skyfall” Should be nominated: Who Were We from “Holy Motors”
Easiest race of the night to call. It’s “Skyfall” all the way.
2:00 P.M. Kids Oscars. Let’s go!
1:50 P.M.Feel free to comment below and I will respond in the post itself!
1:45 P.M. For reference’s sake, many people will refer to tonight’s proceedings as “The 2013 Academy Awards.” In fact, probably most people will. But I, for whatever reason, choose to refer to the ceremony by the calendar year in which the nominated films were released.
1:40 P.M. Already a quick note to the E! hostesses … stick to fashion, please. Leave punditry to Dave Karger. “Argo” will not win “Best Oscar,” it will win “Best Picture.”
1:30 P.M. Who the heck is already watching Oscars red carpet coverage?! ME, of course! I can’t get enough of this stuff, who cares if no one famous shows up for 5 hours? I’m now on my fourth live Oscars blog, and it has quickly become one of my favorite parts of the night. I love sharing my thoughts with everyone – and also being able to go back and see my thoughts from past ceremonies.
(If curious, check out the live blogs from 2011, 2010, and 2009.)
So who will win Best Picture, Best Director, and other coveted trophies? In a few hours, we will know. But in the meantime, we have this list of nine…
Gareth Edwards, helmer the latest reincarnation of the Godzilla franchise, is about to work with monsters on a very big scale (and budget). However, if you want to see the skill and directorial poise of Edwards on a more modest, personal level, there’s no other option than to check out his debut film, “Monsters.”
It’s not quite found-footage, but “Monsters” offers you the intimacy that the emerging subgenre always attempts to provide and usually fails to deliver. Edwards makes the rare movie whose exposition might be more complicated than the story. But if you decide to take the plunge into his subtly nightmarish world, you’ll discover that such simplicity of story is a noble quality, not a flaw.
The film follows the journey of Scoot McNairy’s Andrew Kaulder, a photojournalist sent down to Mexico to recover and return his boss’ daughter, Whitney Able’s Samantha Wynden. And no, his search for her is not the main plot of the film. In fact, he finds her within the first 10 minutes.
The titular monsters barely appear, and when they do late in the film, it’s anti-climatic and not exactly thrilling or terrifying. “Monsters” is a movie about the effects of these creatures, extra-terrestrials who landed in Mexico six years before the events of the film. There’s now a large “infected zone” that Andrew and Samantha have to pay a great deal to go around – or risk their lives to go through.
There are, of course, some allegorical implications for the alien invasion (creatures that Americans try to confine in Mexico by a giant fence along the border, anyone?). But the thrill of “Monsters” is not in the political but in the personal. It’s fascinating to watch the natural relationship and rapport develop between Andrew and Samantha in ways that are subtly affected by the presence of these monsters. Though watching them becomes slowly less and less interesting as the movie progresses, the clever and subversive filmmaking on display from Gareth Edwards makes this 90 minutes fairly well spent. B /
The fact that Edward Norton is in cornrows for “Stone” should tell you about how seriously you need to take this movie. Which is to say, not at all.
Don’t get me wrong, Norton has played a shaved skinhead in “American History X” and a tough-as-nails convict in “25th Hour.” But those were … well, characters. He took them very seriously, gave them humanity, and we responded. Norton’s titular arsonist feels like an attempt to impersonate Steve Carell’s Prison Mike from “The Office.” Perhaps this was his audition for Wes Anderson’s “Moonrise Kingdom?”
The rest of the movie also unintentionally plays out like a comedy as well. DeNiro, in yet another role that reminds us just how long ago “Raging Bull” really was, plays Jack Mabry, a correctional officer about to retire. Yet he’s no match for Stone and his siren of a wife, Milla Jovovich’s Lucetta.
As Jack contemplates one of his final parole cases, he finds himself torn by passion for Lucetta. You know, despite their large age difference. And the fact that he’s married to a loving wife. And of course, she’s married to the man whose fate lies in his hands.
The whole movie is as laughable as Norton’s hair. Plausibility goes out the window as one of the most absurd love triangles in cinematic history takes flight in “Stone.” The whole enterprise should be avoided as much as prison itself. D /
Gus Van Sant has called “Promised Land” his attempt at Capra, which is a noble thing to aim for – and it has certainly been largely MIA in today’s cinema. But his film is hardly “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,” a truly inspiring extolling of the virtues of the common American. Even when you factor in adjusting the tale for our grayer, more morally relativistic culture, it still falls well short.
“Promised Land” aims for pro-small town goodness but winds up being mostly anti-corporate. Matt Damon and John Krasinski, both the stars and writers of the film, spend most of their efforts vilifying the businessmen. The homely townspeople, on the other hand, merely speak in vaguely familiar talking points that make them really only function for the sake of the narrative.
And I think that’s a lost opportunity for the movie to really make a great case against natural gas fracking. As Leonardo DiCaprio’s Cobb postulated in “Inception,” positive emotion trumps the negative every time. Maybe if we cared more for the well-being this tiny agrarian Pennsylvania town, we would come out of the movie and call our Congressman. But all that Damon and Krasinski convince us is that businessmen are vile leeches who will go to any lengths possible to suck all the natural gas out of the ground – with as much cost to the environment as necessary to provide little cost to them.
Eventually, I believe we will look back at “Promised Land” as an interesting relic in the ongoing saga of the United States’ quest for energy independence and climate control. The film lands at a critical nexus in our culture, where it makes sense to revive the economy and decrease our dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuels by fracking the natural gas underneath our own soil. Yet the process is so unrefined at the moment that it can cause vast environmental damage. You know, just never mind what it does to social capital because Damon and Krasinski are only seeing green – the color of money and the color of the environment.
But they make a mild and familiar argument within a generic framework to convey their message. Perhaps their passion would have been best channeled into a documentary. Although non-fiction films rarely reach large audiences, those movies can be as polemical as they want because that’s often what they are designed to be. (For an example of how they could have frightened you with the horrifying truth, look to “Gasland.”) What they settled on in “Promised Land” just feels like preaching to the converted; I don’t think it has the narrative or emotional strength to create any new believers. C+ /
Welcome to “Whose Movie Is It Anyway?” – also known as “Hyde Park on Hudson.” Here, you’ll get to see a multi-million dollar production that shows you what a movie is really like at the stage where it’s still being scribbled out on cocktail napkins! To call it a first draft of something great would be generous – that is, calling it a first draft would be generous. It hasn’t even made it to that stage yet!
Roger Michell’s slapdash film changes protagonists throughout the entire movie like Britney Spears changes outfits at a concert. Go to the bathroom, and you’ll come back and find an entirely different storyline being pursued. One minute, it’s the story of Laura Linney’s Margaret Suckley, a cousin of FDR portrayed here as his mistress (though that’s based on an extremely loose interpretation of her personal letters).
Then, it’s also a biopic of President Roosevelt, played as a perpetually horny tortoise by Bill Murray. Chronicling both the personal and the political aspects of his life, it fails to provide anything mildly interesting to observe. Not to mention, doubts about the accuracy of his affair with Margaret put the entire movie’s validity in question.
Oh, and don’t forget the history lesson that makes up most of the mid-section of “Hyde Park on Hudson.” The King and Queen of England comes to visit FDR’s private Idaho in New York, but sadly, this companion piece to “The King’s Speech” couldn’t land Colin Firth and Helena Bonham Carter to reprise their roles. Nor, for that matter, could it capture the same sense of gravity about an impending world war that Tom Hooper’s film conveyed so well for a film that was otherwise rather lightweight.
In essence, there are three movies in “Hyde Park on Hudson,” and you will feel it drag under the weight of that confusion. Expect to feel like you’ve watched three full-length features … but come out only an hour and a half later from the theater. And don’t expect some kind of great convergence that makes it all worthwhile. The climactic scene all boils down to the consumption of hot dogs. Not kidding. D /
Musical theatre thrives on the creative sparks of others. Not to diminish the many accomplishments of that art form, but in recent years, just about everything has been an adaptation. (Except “The Book of Mormon” – you go Trey Parker and Matt Stone!) Many have been taken from books, but recently, the trend has become to adapt films onto the stage.
One of the greatest advances has been the invention of the “jukebox musical,” where a story forms around immediately recognizable music, whether a fictional tale like “Mamma Mia!” or a biographical one such as “Jersey Boys.” (It also gave us “Rock of Ages,” but we can pretend it didn’t.)
Before you ask, no, “Pirate Radio” is not an adaptation of a Broadway or a West End musical. There’s plenty of music, but the record player does all the singing. However, I felt that while watching Richard Curtis’ film, it was practically BEGGING to be staged as piece of musical theatre. The music is phenomenal, and there’s so much capability for it to define a generation – because it does.
The story of the film isn’t all that interesting: banned from playing rock and roll on normal British airwaves, a group of rebels broadcast it in international waters. The gang is full of eclectic types, ranging from characters played by Philip Seymour Hoffman and Bill Nighy to then unknown Chris O’Dowd (the cop from “Bridesmaids“). There’s little character or story development, and when the boat finds itself in peril, I could have cared less what happened to whom. Not to mention that it feels interminable even at 20 minutes shorter runtime from its British release under the name “The Boat That Rocked.”
But with some slight tweaking of the story – a little bit less of the people on the boat, a little bit more of the people on land, the same amount of the government censors led by an uptight Kenneth Branagh – “Pirate Radio” could actually play quite well on stage given the caliber of music. Think about it … and I’d like to request royalties if it happens because of this review. C /
NOTE: This post was originally published on Dead Politics Society, a blog for my Political Sociology class in the spring of 2012, as my final paper.
“Let me tell you about the very rich,” wrote F. Scott Fitzgerald, “they are different from you and me.” If you look at eight movies that specifically tackle economic malaise following the 2008 recession, you would find that Fitzgerald rings true still today. They have Degas paintings in their office (The Company Men), expensive sports cars in their garage (Margin Call), and pools with a $100 bill painted on the bottom above their penthouse (Tower Heist).
Never mind that hundreds of feet below their offices and miles from their mansions, the unemployment rate swelled to 10% and 2.3 million Americans had their homes foreclosed. These films depict the fat cats of corporate America thriving off the misery of the middle-class, setting up two powerful frames for moviegoers to view the tough times. To borrow terms from Diana Kendall (2011), the upper crust is repeatedly portrayed through “bad apples framing” while the middle-class is seen through “victimization framing,” a clash which sets up audiences to view the post-recessional landscape as a class conflict.
Each of these films represents a frame that is episodic in nature since they are limited, unrelated narratives dealing with the financial crisis in some way; these reports attribute individual responsibility to large societal problems (Iyengar 1996). So rather than closely scrutinizing how capitalism itself might be responsible for middle-class woes, post-recessional cinema endorsed a theory of “bad apples capitalism.” This belief, rooted in the idea that a few people who refuse to play by the rules can ruin an entire system (Baum 2011), allows viewers to direct their anger at a person rather than an abstract concept (Kendall 2011).
Indeed, it is much easier to blame Gordon Gekko, the banker who refers to money as a “b*tch who never sleeps” (Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps), and John Tuld, the CEO who calls money “made up” (Margin Call) than to find the entire capitalistic system guilty for the current American misery. The “bad apples” emphasis allows the movies to rile cages and stir anger without inciting revolutionary sentiment. They villainize the products of corporate America without actually attacking corporate America. (Corporate profits make these movies happen, so “bad apples” is about as close as they can get to critiquing the system.)
To emphasize the corruption of the rich corporate moguls, the movies shower us with lavish descriptions of their lifestyles. They chat about their million-dollar paychecks while the financial system teeters on the verge of collapse (Margin Call), and we hear about their private islands in Belize (Tower Heist) as well as how they make 700 times the salary of the average worker in their company (The Company Men). And all of this has blinded them to the plight of their workers – they claim to work for their shareholders instead of their employees (The Company Men), rob hardworking staff of their pensions (Tower Heist), and claim that massive layoffs present an “opportunity” for those left at the company (Margin Call).
Meanwhile, the middle class, out of their sight and most definitely out of their minds, is shown as trying to preserve their virtues and lifestyles amidst the turmoil. They have to sell their car to get by (Larry Crowne), take on a bartending job at night to put food on the table (Win Win), and move back in with their parents out of necessity (The Company Men). Jason Reitman’s Up in the Air takes the most wrenching look at their economic woes, putting real downsized workers in front of the camera to reenact their firings and rehash their financial fears. Current cinema has, in other words, provided a fresh set of faces to fit the bill for the “new poor” archetype that first came to prominence during recessions in the 1980s (Gilens 1999).
(NOTE: Both of these clips show firing scenes with staged actors, but they echo the general sentiment of the truly unemployed.)
However, the middle class is normally defined by their values rather than income (Kendall 2011), and post-recessional cinema makes its depiction go further than just merely downward mobility: the crisis threatens to break the country’s moral backbone. The economy forces them to contemplate taking money unethically from the elderly (Win Win), relapse into alcoholism (Everything Must Go), and launches them into depression that ultimately proves suicidal for some (Up in the Airand The Company Men). In the extreme case of Tower Heist, a comedy that borders on farce, fired workers even hire a convicted felon to help them steal $20 million from a rich man who conned them. Sadly, Hollywood showed through this recession that the squeeze forced them to budge on their values.
Ultimately, a hopeful Hollywood ending comes for the middle-class that allows them to reconnect with their values and inherent goodness (Kinkle and Toscano 2011). Yet most films provide a pass to the people who caused the suffering as well. They make over a billion dollars off the crisis (Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps), walk out the door with a $90 million severance check (The Company Men), and giddily look forward to profiting from the meltdown (Margin Call). So why do they get off easy? Honesty.
In real life, these executives not only escaped punishment but also saw their fortunes grow. The filmmakers want us to be angry when the movie ends. So far, it has worked. Polls show that 60% of Americans supported cutting payroll taxes, and over half support raising taxes only on people who make more than $250,000 a year. If Obama ever gets the Buffet rule passed, he owes Hollywood a debt of gratitude.
Cannes Film Festival 2012 / Sundance Film Festival 2013
(NOTE: I saw “Mud” at the first showing in Cannes last May. I have no idea if the movie being shown in Utah is the same one I saw in France. I have some lingering suspicion it might have been reworked and tweaked a little bit since it disappeared from the festival circuit for eight months.)
Third features are, for most filmmakers, really the first time we can gauge their capabilities and career trajectory. A debut film is, well, a debut film. Unless you are Orson Welles, whose first film “Citizen Kane” is the best of all-time to many, the first time behind the camera is rarely one that produces much beyond the promise of great things. While many directors break out with their second film, some would consider that they still have the training wheels on the bike.
By the third film, however, we generally stop cutting them slack or grading them on a curve. It’s do or die, make or break. If you haven’t quite figured out how to make a good movie, perhaps it’s time to consider a career change. Just to provide some perspective, Scorsese’s third film was “Mean Streets,” Spielberg’s was “Jaws,” Malick’s was “The Thin Red Line,” Jason Reitman’s was “Up in the Air,” and Ben Affleck’s was “Argo.”
Jeff Nichols, an emerging American filmmaker, made his first two movies with a very independent spirit. His debut, “Shotgun Stories,” had an interesting concept but was poorly executed. His second film, “Take Shelter,” was a superb ambiental drama that effectively visualized the state of economic and personal anxieties in the age of the Great Recession. But his third feature, “Mud,” is so different that it almost feels like a first film.
With “Mud,” Nichols makes what I believe to be a very conscientious leap towards the mainstream. It definitely plays more towards satisfying audience expectations with familiar storyline and aesthetics, not jarring them with the uncomfortable or the unknown. And there’s nothing wrong with that; he’s fairly adept at capturing that boyish spirit in the coming-of-age movies that Steven Spielberg among others made so well in the 1980s. But after the brilliance and originality of “Take Shelter,” I was hoping Nichols would not just fall in line.
And to reiterate, I don’t disdain “Mud” simply for daring to be similar. It’s still quality filmmaking, but it feels more like a harbinger of things to come than something substantial in and of itself. This transitional film is too populist to be indie; however, it’s also a little too indie to be truly mainstream. I don’t usually talk about forces competing for the soul of a movie, yet it feels totally relevant for “Mud” as these two entirely different spirits of filmmaking run amuck throughout the movie. Each claims a scene here or there, and the ultimate victor is unclear.
I would argue that the real winner of “Mud” are the characters, written with love and care by Nichols and brought to the screen with compassion by the cast. Matthew McConaughey, the new king of career turnaround, beguiles as the titular character Mud. He fancies himself an urban legend, an almost mythic figure of sorts. Yet it’s fascinating to watch the man slip out from underneath his tough facade and see his guilt and shame manifested.
Though the movie is named for his character, Jeff Nichols’ film isn’t really about Mud. It’s about the two boys, Ellis (Tye Sheridan from “The Tree of Life,” albeit totally changed since that film was shot so long ago) and his sidekick Neckbone (Jacob Lofland), who stumble upon Mud hiding out in a boat in the trees. While Mud drives the narrative forward, the movie’s real story and power comes from the way those events affect these two adolescents.
“Mud” mainly follows Ellis as he navigates a new world, one where nothing seems clear-cut or black and white. Mud teaches him what love and trust really are when they are together away from society, and then he reemerges to find alternative meanings of such concepts. Sheridan lends a real authenticity to the struggles of growing up and realizing hard truths in a performance that evokes Henry Thomas’ Elliott in “E.T.,” a movie that feels like quite a kindred spirit of “Mud.”
To tap into a fraction of what Spielberg achieved is quite an achievement. Now, it’s time for Nichols to relocate his old voice of originality and create a work just like “Mud,” only with that old aesthetic brilliance and creativity. B /
When you think of the films of Spike Lee, I can imagine some of the things that come to mind are didactic, pugnacious, and aggressive political commentary. In other words, you would think of a movie that looks nothing like “Inside Man,” a tight thriller about the perfect bank robbery. But precisely because it resists the trappings of a typical Spike Lee movie, it’s my pick for the “F.I.L.M. of the Week.” (And also because it’s an AWESOME movie!)
You’ve seen plenty of movies about bank robbers, but none quite like Clive Owen’s Dalton Russell. He’s got a master plan to pull off the perfect heist, one that slowly and cryptically unveils itself in Spike Lee’s film. Russell is interested in more than just getting quickly in and out with the money; he’s willing to play the long game with the police and the hostages in unconventional ways. The tension is high as you wait to see when, if ever, his master plan will unravel.
Remarkably, it manages to hold up as some curious players with some very powerful ulterior motives enter the fray. Namely, there’s the wild-card of Jodie Foster’s power broker tampering with everything she can to keep some secrets hidden inside the bank. With so many people operating in the shadows and shades of grey, it makes the the quest of the righteous Detective Keith Frazier (Denzel Washington) all the more urgent and compelling.
There’s rarely a dull moment in “Inside Man,” and Lee manages to pull it off without ever needing to pull out a boombox and blare “Fight the Power.” There’s a little bit of commentary on multiculturalism in New York, but it’s hands-off and not particularly distracting from the point of the film. Which is, of course, to entertain for two hours and then yank the rug out from underneath the audience.
Gareth Edwards, helmer the latest reincarnation of the Godzilla franchise, is about to work with monsters on a very big scale (and budget). However, if you want to see the skill and directorial poise of Edwards on a more modest, personal level, there’s no other option than to check out his debut film, “
Marshall and the Movies 
Recent Comments