10 for ’10: Performances

30 12 2010

Catch up with the idea behind this series here.

It’s impossible to celebrate a year in film without mentioning the performances that riveted us.  Without further ado or fanfare, here are the 10 actors who reminded me of the power of their craft with their work in 2010.

Women

Amy Adams as Charlene Fleming in “The Fighter

My original review:
Adams, usually the delightfully effervescent charmer, plays gritty and unapologetic in “The Fighter” and pulls it off to Oscar-worthy standards.  She’s able to pull off just about any sort of character she takes, and the tenacious Charlene is different than anything we’ve ever seen her do before.  It’s exciting to see an actress nowadays who isn’t content with finding one adjective to act and then carve themselves a niche, and Adams is quickly proving herself one of the most versatile actresses of our day.

Reflection:
Amy Adams has wowed me in a variety of different roles, from her unassuming nun in “Doubt” to the ditzy princess in “Enchanted.”  Yet as Charlene, I think she may have hit the most beautiful note in her career so far with her heartfelt conversation with Bale’s Dickie on her front porch.  As she reflects on her life and her good intentions, it’s such a wonderful moment filled with every ounce of sincerity that she has to give.

Barbara Hershey as Erica Sayers in Black Swan

My original review:
The best of the supporting bunch [in “Black Swan”] is by far and away Hershey as the pushy and demanding stage mom.  Such roles often become stock characters; however, Hershey takes the role in frightening and invigorating new directions.

Reflection:
There wasn’t a more frightening performance this year than Hershey as Natalie Portman’s mother.  There’s a whole lot of subtext that Hershey has to act, perhaps a whole hidden backstory as director Darren Aronofsky alluded to, and that’s usually a daunting task for actors to pull off.  Hershey shows no dust from her long hiatus from acting, keeping us scared and entranced at the same time.

Julianne Moore as Jules in “The Kids Are All Right

My original review:
It’s Julianne Moore who absolutely brings down the house [in “The Kids Are All Right”].  As the more flighty, free-spirited Jules, she wins our hearts from the get-go, even if her antics only illicit groans from her other half.  The character is very complex as she begins reeling from Paul’s introduction, exploring sides of herself she didn’t know even existed.  It’s glorious to watch Moore dig deeper and deeper into her character as the movie goes on.  She’s responsible for some of the movie’s funniest moments but also for its most effective emotional scene.  Academy, take note.

Reflection:
Throughout the awards season, many pundits have thrown out that Annette Bening’s role in “The Kids Are All Right” is the character the audience is meant to sympathize with and thus makes her the better candidate for Best Actress.  Without dragging politics into it, I found Julianne Moore’s Jules the more sympathetic character and, by the end, the only one I actually cared about.  Moore has delivered so many fantastic performances, but what makes this one stand head and shoulders over the rest is her total emotional engagement in the role.  We feel her torment, her frustration, and her confusion so profoundly because of how engrossed she is in the character.  And what she puts in, we get out of the performance.

Natalie Portman as Nina Sayers in “Black Swan

My original review:
The star of the show is Portman, and “Black Swan” is made all the more fascinating by how Nina’s development mirrors her performance.  Much like Nina must lose herself in the role of the Swan Princess, Portman absolutely disappears into her character.  It’s a shocking and startling transformation due to Portman’s dedication to learning the craft of ballet and her impeccable acting.  The movie stands as a testament to the fact that she is one of the best emerging actresses of her generation, and her flawless showing here deserves to be minted in history alongside the greatest of all time.  Portman gives a once-in-a-lifetime performance, and to miss it would be to deny yourself the chance to see as close to perfection as is cinematically possible.

Reflection:
Perfect.  It was perfect.

Hailee Steinfeld as Mattie Ross in “True Grit”

Reflection:
I have yet to review “True Grit,” but when I do, expect the highest of praise for newcomer Hailee Steinfeld.  There are very few actors that can spit out period dialogue at lightning speed with confidence, and there are probably even fewer that can do the same with the dialogue of the Coen Brothers.  I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone do both so well, a feat that would impress me from an Academy Award-winning actress but floors me when I consider that this is a debut performer.  At such a young age, she has a complete and total mastery of her character’s deepest desires and feelings, and such a strong presence out in front of “True Grit” makes it a movie and a performance I won’t soon forget.

Men

Christian Bale as Dickie Ecklund in The Fighter

My original review:
The knockout punch of “The Fighter” is the performance of Christian Bale, a totally authentic portrayal of a drug addict, former boxer, jealous trainer – and all simultaneously.  He doesn’t act or perform as the real life Dickie Ecklund so much as he becomes him and inhabits him.  Every twitch, every word is meticulously planned by Bale, who slimmed down from his Batman physique to play the gaunt Dickie.

Reflection:
“The Fighter” is Micky Ward’s story, but it’s Dickie Ecklund’s movie.  Bale, completely lost in the character, brings together all of his strengths to deliver what could be the quintessential performance of his career.  It shows his physical commitment, his uncompromising authenticity, and a strangely pervasive sense of heart that’s often a little rough around the edges.

Jesse Eisenberg as Mark Zuckerberg in The Social Network

My original review:
Eisenberg nails all the eccentricities of the fast-talking technological wiz, and the nuances in his portrayal of Mark Zuckerberg will captivate for endless viewings.

Reflection:
Who is Mark Zuckerberg?  After “The Social Network” was released, millions of people were left trying to answer the question.  Is he the savior of the Internet and the symbol of a new era, or is he the force that will inadvertently bring it down and destroy all the comforts of our former lives?  What makes this screen version of Zuckerberg so captivating is that Jesse Eisenberg doesn’t attempt to answer this question.  Eisenberg gets to the core of what he thinks is motivating Zuckerberg, going so deep that no bias or opinion can color his interpretation.  Then, he lays it all out on the screen and leaves it up to the viewer to decide who Mark Zuckerberg is.  With the magazine TIME naming the entrepreneur their person of the year, Eisenberg may have made Mark Zuckerberg the folk hero of the digital age.

Colin Firth as King George VI in “The King’s Speech

My original review:
It’s Firth’s show in the flashy role of King George, a character that must be inhabited, not just performed.  Firth nails it, getting inside every thought and stammer of the king.  He doesn’t just brush the surface as many actors playing historical figures do; he makes George vulnerable and sentimental.  Firth’s poignant performance reminds us that what we should be looking for in movies like this is heart.

Reflections:
The royal family of England always feels so distant on film, living a life filmmakers believe is so different that ours that they have to put them in an ivory tower.  Yet Colin Firth, armed with a fantastically written human being by the name of King George VI, tears their mythological status down brick by brick until his royal figure is so down to earth that he feels like an old friend.  The movie wouldn’t have been half as inspiring had Firth not brought such an enormously relatable pathos to the role.

James Franco as Aron Ralston in “127 Hours

My original review:
There’s never a dull or wasted moment to be found in the movie thanks to Franco’s sublime and enlightened performance.  While shooting on location, Boyle consistently had him act in character for 20 minutes straight and then relied on the editor to find 30 seconds to make it into the final cut.  This total immersion into Ralston’s desperation makes Franco all the more raw and moving.

Reflection:
The blasting score, fancy editing, and flashy cinematography of “127 Hours” can only go so far to make a static movie work.  It requires a dynamic actor, both heartbreaking and heartwarming, that we can stick with until the bitter end.  James Franco does just that and more as he makes pain and hope so tangible and so authentic that the movie never feels anything less than real.  If anyone ever had a doubt that we need actors more than ever, Franco’s flawless work is all that’s needed to silence any critic.

Andrew Garfield as Eduardo Saverin in “The Social Network

My original review:
Andrew Garfield as the upright Saverin is a force to be reckoned with, a true presence throughout the movie with his very likable charm.  For just that reason, he makes it wrenching to watch the inevitable turn when Saverin gets cheated.

Reflection:
While Zuckerberg’s prickly exterior prevents us from ever liking him too much, Andrew Garfield endows Eduardo Saverin with a sharp mind, firm beliefs, and a strong moral compass, making us fall head over heels for his character.  He’s an irresistible force on the screen, the good angel resting on Zuckerberg’s right shoulder whispering in his ear to follow common wisdom.  The movie’s emotional climax wouldn’t work if we weren’t rooting for Saverin the entire time, and when he explodes with anger, you’ll want to jump in the frame and punch the jerks who wronged him.





REVIEW: The Fighter

22 12 2010

As Mena Suvari’s teenage temptress Angela Hayes told us in “American Beauty,” there’s nothing worse than being ordinary.  In the ring of boxing movies, it’s all too easy to become ordinary.  While the latest contender to take a punch at the reigning champions, David O. Russell’s “The Fighter” is a little too lightweight to compete, it’s got some nice heart.  And as practically all movies about the sport have taught us, soul is all that really matters, right?

However, this isn’t really a boxing movie so much as a movie involving boxing.  It’s mainly a story of brotherhood, family, and pride that’s made all the more fascinating because it’s true.  As many cinematic boxers preceding him have, Micky Ward (Mark Wahlberg) works a low-paying, labor-intensive job to make a living since his boxing career won’t exactly pay the bills.  In his corner, he has his brother, former prize fighter Dickie Ecklund (Christian Bale) who became the pride of their hometown of Lowell, Massachusetts after triumphing over Sugar Ray Leonard.  Now, he’s an unreliable mess so addicted to crack that HBO is doing a documentary on him.

Micky is in many ways inexorably tied to his family with Dickie as his trainer and his tenacious mother (Melissa Leo) as his manager.  She performed the same role back when Dickie was in the ring and often still acts like his manager as opposed to Micky’s.  She puts an emphasis on family unity, which is tough for Micky to swallow as his many trashy half-sisters are often very overbearing.  Micky’s familial concerns lie with his young daughter being raised by his bitter ex-wife and her husband, neither of which want him to have any part in her life because of his lifestyle.

Read the rest of this entry »





Oscar Moment: “The Fighter”

9 11 2010

“The Fighter” was supposed to be sight unseen until after Thanksgiving, a move that lends a certain amount of prestige and mystery to an Oscar contender.  However, all assumptions are out the window after today’s announcement that it will be shown as a “secret screening” at the AFI Fest in Los Angeles tonight.  So tomorrow, official speculation begins on one of the most buzzed movies of the season.

To begin the chatter, it’s best to start with how this staked out a spot on every pundits top 10 list without anybody laying eyes on it.  “The Fighter” is a prestige December release for Paramount (the studio bringing us “True Grit” in the same month) about the boxer “Irish” Micky Ward, played by Mark Wahlberg.  Boxing is a very Academy-friendly sport: “Million Dollar Baby” and “Rocky” won Best Picture, “Raging Bull” was nominated, and acting nominations have been bestowed upon “Cinderella Man,” “Ali,” and “The Hurricane.”  Sasha Stone at Awards Daily attempted to figure out why the Academy is so in the ring for boxing and came up with a list of 10 reasons.  Here are the most pertinent:

3. During the fight, it is required that the fighter retreat momentarily to get rubbed down, stitched up, and sponged. During this time, the fighter is warned to back off because “it’s not worth it.” And if that doesn’t work, “cut me.”

5. If the hero does lose, he or she must manage to look like the winner because he or she won at the important stuff:  he or she was a good person and tried hard.  No matter what, never smash a champion belt for the jewels. It’s worth more intact and in its original condition.

7. There has to be something else at stake besides just playing the game. Palpable desperation for financial gain, for instance, personal recognition, a chance to play like the big boys do: nobody likes a rich fighter doing it just for sport.

With those in mind, “The Fighter” seems to be a straight down the Academy checklist movie.  Then again, I said the same thing about Clint Eastwood’s rugby flick “Invictus” last year, and it didn’t fare too well.  So is it really just the subject matter that gives us faith in the movie?  It’s certainly not because of David O. Russell, whose movies have hardly been a hit with the Academy in the past.  To make matters worse, Anne Thompson puts Russell in a category with Mel Gibson for despised people in Hollywood.  His quarrels with actors have been well-documented thanks to sites like YouTube, and Thompson says that the movie would have to be really good for people to get over the fact that he directed it.

I think the actors are the big selling point of the movie.  Mark Wahlberg is four years removed from a much-deserved Best Supporting Actor nomination for ‘The Departed,” and he tried to get back in the race last year for “The Lovely Bones” (which stunk and accordingly flopped).  The leading role of boxer Ward will offer up some meaty material for the actor to sink his teeth into, and as long as he does a good job, I don’t see what could keep someone like Wahlberg out of Best Actor.  He’s a likable actor who has a great success story of his own.  Besides, look at the boxing movies I listed that have found Oscar success.  With the exception of “Cinderella Man,” the movie’s main boxer has been nominated.  Swank and DeNiro won.

The movie also has three supporting performances that could each be big movers in the Oscar race this year, particularly given how volatile both fields are.  Christian Bale took off all the Batman brawn and went skinny for his role as Dickie Eklund, Micky’s older brother and trainer.  It’s really more of a co-lead from what I hear, and according to a nice chart laid out by Nathaniel Rogers of The Film Experience, one can learn that those were quite popular over the past decade.

Eklund also struggles with substance abuse, and addicts are another Academy favorite.  This category saw nominees Benicio del Toro in “21 Grams” as a reformed alcoholic, Thomas Haden Church in “Sideways” as a promiscuous wine enthusiast, Eddie Murphy in “Dreamgirls” as a recreational cocaine user, and Josh Brolin in “Milk” as the man who can’t put down the Twinkies.  Bale is playing a role that screams “OSCARS” from the rooftops; like Russell, he has a temper issue that people will have to forgive for him to go the extra mile.

Two-time nominee Amy Adams and one-time nominee Melissa Leo will both try to crack the Best Supporting Actress field, and given the year, both of them could make it provided that “The Fighter” is a big threat across the board.  This is a category especially friendly to doubly nominated movies; in six out of the last ten years, one movie has received two Best Supporting Actress nominations.  With “For Colored Girls” almost entirely out of the picture, this could be the only movie to swoop down and grab two spots.

But if there’s only one, I have a feeling it will go to Melissa Leo.  She was a surprise nominee back in 2008 for “Frozen River,” and the Academy picked her up out of obscurity and put her on the map.  That means they like her and want her to succeed.  From early buzz, she has a showier role as the mother of Wahlberg and Bale than Adams has as Wahlberg’s love interest.  Looking over the past decade of nominees, maternal figures, good or bad, show up a lot.  (Just for fun, Mo’Nique was the last bad mom to win, Jennifer Connelly was the last good mom to win.)

The movie could also score nominations in technical categories like editing, cinematography, and makeup because boxing movies require a lot of orchestration with the camera to make the fights coherent.  But the big question remains if this could be a Best Picture nominee.  It’s been assumed for months now, but it can’t stay hidden any longer.  Soon we will see the true colors.

We aren’t entirely dry on news about “The Fighter” as a whole; the movie showed at ShowEast for theater owners and won raves according to Steve Pond at The Wrap.  These aren’t Oscar prognosticators, but Pond said the consensus was that it would be a “likely Best Picture nominee, with a pair of performances that will definitely figure into the Supporting Actor and Actress races.”  We will know a lot more tomorrow, but until then, we sit back and predict.  And wait.

BEST BETS FOR NOMINATIONS: Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Supporting Actor, Best Supporting Actress (Leo), Best Film Editing

OTHER POTENTIAL NOMINATIONS: Best Director, Best Supporting Actress (Adams), Best Original Screenplay, Best Cinematography, Best Makeup





REVIEW: Leap Year

28 08 2010

Why does anyone still bother to see romantic comedies? Look at the poster for “Leap Year” and guess how it ends; the genre has become so formulaic that my previous statement can’t even be branded a spoiler. So why is it that they are still made, and why is it that anyone still wants to see them?

Simply put, it’s because actresses like Amy Adams take roles in romantic comedies that the audiences come in droves.  So you really need me to go into the plot?  Or the production values?  If you truly want to see this movie, it’s almost a guarantee what you really want to see is Amy Adams.

So do you want me to waste both my time and yours by reviewing “Leap Year?”  In a sentence, it’s a stale rehash of all the romantic comedy cliches we’ve come to love and hate.  But the movie isn’t a total waste of time because of all the charm Amy Adams breathes into it.  As Anna, the girl so desperate to get married that she’s willing to travel in dismal conditions to propose to her boyfriend, she manages to turn someone with traits we would generally despise into a character we can actually like.  That’s no small feat.

She doesn’t really get to be funny or sexy, two things you can be very little of in a movie that’s rated PG.  But that girl-next-door sensibility and smile as wide as a mountain range are present, and they somehow make the corny plot more digestible.

If you decide to watch “Leap Year,” you won’t get anything you can’t get from any other romantic comedy.  You’ll wind up feeling about as warm as you do looking at the poster, watching the trailer, or reading a plot synopsis.  But you will get a big portion of jubilant Amy Adams, and that’s enough to make 100 minutes of banalities feel a little less dusty.  B- /





My “Virginia Woolf” Cast WON!

16 06 2010

Back in May, I alerted you to a contest I was participating in, “LAMB Casting,” over at the Large Association of Movie Blogs (LAMB).  The premise was to recast a classic movie with modern actors.  The last contest asked bloggers to take their best crack at creating a new cast for Mike Nichols’ censorship-defying “Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf?”

Andrew from “Encore Entertainment” was in charge of the event, and he created some great graphics as well as great write-ups on each of the casts submitted.  Go over to the LAMB and check out his hard work, or better yet, go look at his site itself.

Andrew’s comments on my cast were as follows:

Marshall’s cast is the most Hollywood, and that is a compliment. I can see this one being made and the casting of Ms. Bening is largely responsible for that. From Carolyn Burnham to Julia Lambert to Deidre Burroughs how could I not think she can handle this? I’ll admit George Clooney does nothing for me, and though I’m somewhat sceptic of his ability to succeed Richard Burton he would probably surpise me. It would be interesting see good-boy Jake playing Nick, but it is the sort of role he could make work and his pairing would Amy Adams would be believable (who gets chosen once again).

My Favourite: Annette Bening

Sure enough, in a close race, I (or really, my Hollywood cast) won by two votes.  So, for my victory lap, I’ll explain my casting choices.

As soon as I heard that “LAMB Casting” was covering “Woolf,” I knew two things.  The first was that the cast needed to be all highly respected and established actors, preferably Oscar nominees since the entire cast received nominations back in 1966.  The second, and probably most key to my victory, was that Annette Bening had to be Martha.  She’s the best actress at suppressing rage underneath a fairly calm exterior and still making it terrifying when it inevitably explodes out of her.  Carolyn Burnham, her character from “American Beauty,” was incredibly influential in my decision.  Her constant frustration with her husband and the mediocre life they live clearly takes its toll on her to the point that she completely alters her lifestyle to keep from boiling over.

The other quick decision was casting Amy Adams, an Oscar nominee for “Junebug” in 2005, as the more innocent yet feisty Honey.  Few others can play that level slightly above ditzy, and none to more acclaim than Adams.  As for being sweet and lovable, look no further than “Enchanted.”  She hasn’t really taken on a role that shows us her wild side (the closest she got would probably be “Talladega Nights”), but the movie would definitely prove a chance for her to wow us with something new.

As for her husband, Nick, I was looking for someone with a good amount of charm and someone fairly “good looking” by Hollywood standards.  Thinking of Oscar nominees, Jake Gyllenhaal kept coming to mind.  His first big role was the modest and humble Homer Hickam in “October Sky,” which is enough to convince me that he can handle the at first polite Nick.  But as the movie progresses, he’ll have to become more serious and stand head-to-head with Bening.  He could clearly match her in intensity, as roles in movies like “Brokeback Mountain” and “Brothers” have shown.

My last role to cast, George, was kind of a toss-up.  I couldn’t really think of anyone with the same qualities as Richard Burton, who was very grave and serious basically throughout – a counterpoint to his wife who’s drowning in alcohol.  Ultimately, it came down to finding someone who could have some compelling arguments with Bening and wouldn’t be totally overshadowed by her either.  I settled on Clooney because “Up in the Air” showed us that he can share the spotlight with women, and I think his generally friendly personality might lend a little bit of lightness to George that wasn’t there with Burton.  And after that final scene in “Michael Clayton,” I know he can make one heck of a great argument (start the “Michael Clayton” video at 3:30 to see Clooney in action).

CAUTION: SPOILERS IN VIDEO BELOW

So, in closing, let me give a big “Marshall and the Movies” THANK YOU to everyone who voted for my cast.  As a result, I now get to pick the next “LAMB Casting.”  Any suggestions?  My initial thought was to keep the Mike Nichols theme going and recast “The Graduate,” but that has such a small cast.  I’ll field any ideas, no matter how crazy, in the comments below.





Random Factoid #200

13 02 2010

It’s hard to believe that I’ve been sharing this experience with you all for 200 days, yet here we are.  Random Factoid #200.

“Marshall and the Movies” is not, however, the first movie blog I have written.  Back in December 2007, I attempted to start an Oscars blog called “Bold Oscar Predictions.”  The site would be largely modeled after AwardsDaily and InContention, the two sites I frequent the most.  My main goal was to write columns that used the history of the Academy’s choices to predict the nominees and winners.

I set up the site the day after I finished my finals in ninth grade, although I can’t seem to pinpoint my motivation.  My first post was to be called “Why Amy Adams Won’t Be Nominated for an Oscar.”  I was almost finished when I had to go out the door, never to return again.

I set the site up on a random server, and I made the stupid mistake of not writing down what I called it or where I set it up.  For over two years, I have been searching for this blog.  It was all in vain until a few weeks ago when I was cleaning out the spam from my Gmail account.  I got a notice from “blog.com,” which I was about to delete before I remembered “Bold Oscar Predictions.”  After a lengthy reset password process, I finally found the blog.  Completely barren, of course, but it was still nice to have finally found it.

(Oh, and Amy Adams, if you ever read this, it’s ABSOLUTELY nothing personal on the post.  Your role as Julie Powell is what inspired this blog!)





What To Look Forward To in … January 2010

2 12 2009

January is always an interesting month at the movies.  It is usually filled with trash, so it is usually best spent making sure you see everything that came out in December.  With this post, I hope to steer you away from what I perceive to be the month’s garbage and towards what could be a surprise hit.

January 8

Is it just me or does the trailer do all the explanation and then some for “Leap Year?”  Amy Adams will be welcome face in barren January, and if there is a breakout hit in this month, my bet is on this.

Wait – Michael Cera and teen angst?  Never seen this before!  So excited for “Youth in Revolt” that I can barely see straight!

And just in case the latest vampire movie has left your local theater by January, Hollywood has “Daybreakers” for you. This seems to have a lot less shirtlessness and a lot more blood and gore, so that might limit its appeal a tad.

January 15

“The Book of Eli” will provide the answer to a question that has me curious: how much apocalypse can moviegoers take?  2009 saw “2012,” “Knowing,” and “Zombieland,” just to name a few.  This looks like a more mainstream, BA-version of “The Road.”  Denzel Washington is a star that all respect, but “The Taking of Pelham 123” in June 2009 showed that he can’t always draw in a large audience.  Will this be the movie to get him back on track?

The Lovely Bones” plans to open wide this weekend.  Oh, and don’t get me started on how awful “The Spy Next Door” looks.

Read the rest of this entry »





REVIEW: Julie & Julia

29 07 2009

Yum.

According to Julie Powell, that word shouldn’t be used while eating.  But as America begins to devour “Julie & Julia,” I can’t help but think that audiences will use that word.  The movie is a delectable treat, serving a luxurious two-course meal: the story of Julia Child (Meryl Streep) before she became the published and televised chef that we know, and Julie Powell (Amy Adams) as she battles the boring world of bureaucracy by baking all 524 recipes in Child’s cookbook.

I do have to give the movie (and Julie Powell, more specifically) a great deal of credit – her blog, “The Julie and Julia Project,” is the inspiration for this blog.  At the beginning, Julie is struggling to find some purpose holed up inside her cubicle, forced to drone on and on about the company’s policies.  She envies her rich “friends,” who are writing cover stories for top New York newspapers and blogs because they seem to have found merit in their lives.  Much like movies are a constant source of comfort to me, Julie found solace in cooking.  And one day, she proclaims to her husband, “I can write a blog.  I have thoughts.”  As I have quickly discovered, it really only takes that little spark of inspiration to start something great (at least in Julie’s case … the verdict is still out on me).

It is really Julie’s story that captivated me the most.  As she works her way through 524 recipes in 365 days (some simple, others quite daunting), anyone who has ever stepped into the kitchen for therapeutic reasons can instantly relate to her struggles and successes.  Adams really is the heart and soul of the movie; she brings a pleasant charm to the role, but she also shows a more raw and emotional side than we are used to seeing from her. Read the rest of this entry »