Historically in monster movies, the imminent threat stands in for a more existential fear. From foreign invaders to nuclear weapons and screen addiction, we’ve seen any number of external forces terrorize the cinema. But starting in the 1960s (as compellingly chronicled by Jason Zinoman in his book “Shock Value“), some of these monsters came to represent parts of ourselves. They were manifestations of some internal demons, not some societal hazard.
Nacho Vigalondo’s “Colossal” is the latest film in this tradition as Anne Hathaway’s trainwreck of a character, Gloria, manifests as a godzilla-like beast in Seoul when she gets blackout drunk in a certain radius. The premise sounds a little risible, admittedly, but Hathaway and Vigalondo sell its spirit with gusto. This is not the kind of movie devoted to detailed scientific explanation. You accept the oddly specific rules under which it operates and then delve into its rich metaphorical terrain.
A mid-movie turn in the plot should go unspoiled in a review, but I’ll hint at it by saying it opens “Colossal” up to be more than just a metaphor for alcoholism. The monster is all of us and whatever baggage we carry that makes us act impulsively. It takes a physical manifestation of these forces to make Gloria realize that her actions can cause collateral damage harming people around her. Vigalondo adds plenty of contemporary touches – in particular how the Internet can find a way to turn tragedy into memes instantaneously – but this classical dilemma lies at the very heart of the film. The satisfying resolution shows why Hathaway is uniquely equipped to play the part. It requires creativity, determination and a brushing aside of the haters. B+ /
If I could live within the universe of a single filmmaker, I would probably choose Nancy Meyers. For the two hours or so when I watch one of her movies, the noise of the world goes silent and her soothing presence reassures me that good people and common decency will ultimately prevail. Her latest cinematic creation, “The Intern,” continues her grand tradition of optimistic wisdom worth embracing with wide arms and an open heart.
In a cynical age, dismissing such a hopeful vision as naive or simplistic would be all too easy, but Meyers’ film never feels facile. If “The Intern” seems like sunshine and rainbows, it’s merely a retraining of the eye to see the sunshine through the clouds and rainbows through the rainstorm. Her characters know pain and must draw the strength from within to come out on top.
Meyers’ protagonist of choice is Ben Whittaker, played by Robert DeNiro as the polar opposite of Travis Bickle or Jake LaMotta. A 70-year-old widower, Ben tires of retirement and looks for a way to become needed once more. He finds that at About the Fit, an e-retail start-up with an internship program for senior citizens. After an inspiring video lands him the position, the old company man quickly charms the entire company. Ben even manages to command a trio of younger workers, including Adam DeVine’s chummy Jason, into a posse that Meyers often photographs like the boys in an “Entourage” episode.
The only person unenthused by Ben’s presence is the site’s embattled founder and CEO Jules Ostin, who is played by Anne Hathaway. She had the right idea at the right time yet struggles to inspire confidence among investors. They think a more seasoned executive can help sustain the company’s growth, and try as she might, they do not buy that Jules has the business acumen of a Mark Zuckerberg.
Still, she is an enormously capable businesswoman just trying to find a more sustainable balance between the demands of work and home life. Ben sees right through her smoke screens, and it absolutely terrifies Jules.
There is really not too much to say about a film like Kate Barker-Froyland’s “Song One,” which seems to be the very definition of a film as trifle. The story follows Anne Hathaway’s Franny as she tracks down a musician that her estranged brother intended to see, had he not fallen into a coma. A forced romance with singer/songwriter on the brink, James Forester (Johnny Flynn), ensues, along with all the usual notes any film about grief and troubled families is supposed to hit.
“Song One” contains no notable screeches or strains, although it never makes a sweet sound either. Barker-Froyland seems afraid to take a bold step and assert something unique about her film. As a result, the movie becomes forgettable even as it is being consumed.
At this level of safe mediocrity, an actress like Anne Hathaway should be able to step in and effortlessly elevate the material. Yet even her presence, a far cry from the raw torment she wore on her sleeves in “Rachel Getting Married,” cannot give this dull, dour ditty any character. Like the rest of the movie, Hathaway is not actively bad, but the passively pedestrian “Song One” disappoints nonetheless. C /
“We were meant to be explorers, pioneers – not caretakers,” utters Matthew McConaughey’s Cooper towards the start of “Interstellar.” This declaration is true not only for the world of the film but also of its filmmaker, the inimitable Christopher Nolan. As if exploring the deepest corners of the mind with “Inception” or redefining an entire cinematic genre with “The Dark Knight” was not enough, he has now flung his vision and ambition into the farthest reaches of space and time.
His “Interstellar” is not limited by dimensions nor encumbered by gravity. It defies time and space entirely. It is at once poetic and narrative. It is a calculated work of science that also operates from a profound emotional level, wedding Kubrickian formalism to Spielbergian sentimentalism. And most importantly, it inspires wonder and awe.
This is why, at least in Christopher Nolan’s lifetime, the movie theater experience will not perish. His cinema is bold, immersive, and ultimately transcendent. He goes beyond capturing an image or a feeling for what it is, showing the majesty it can embody and convey. When at his calibrated best, Nolan can invoke not only a visceral reaction but also a spiritual one.
He is the undeniable myth maker of our time. If that does not prompt loyal adherence, it should, at the bare minimum, command admiration and respect. No one else working with this massive a budget is coming anywhere close to approximating Nolan’s scope or verve. “Interstellar” is the latest shining star in his cinematic universe, and it shines brightly as a paradigm of balancing artistry and authorship along with accessibility and avant-gardism.
With the 2012 Oscar race now immobile until nominations are announced Thursday morning, January 10, now it’s time to take one last look at the contenders and the pretenders before the dust settles. Today, I’ll be looking at Best Supporting Actor and Best Supporting Actress, two categories replete with former winners and nominees all vying for Oscar glory.
The race is Anne Hathaway’s to lose, and I’d be amazed if she did. Even though so many critics are against “Les Misérables,” few can deny the power of her performance. Some of the snootier groups have snubbed her, but take a look at this impressive domination of the category!
Safe to say, wins from the Critics’ Choice Awards, Golden Globes, and SAG Awards should lead her charge to take the stage at the Kodak Theatre. Or they will hear the people scream.
Although, in the event of a “Lincoln” sweep (and me sticking my head in an oven), Sally Field could go 3-for-3 and win here for “Lincoln.” She’s certainly had her fair share of recognition along the precursor circuit, including a high-profile win from the New York Critics’ Circle.
But in a year that could crown Daniel Day-Lewis (and maybe Robert DeNiro) a three-time champion, people will be aware that they would be ranking Field in an elite pantheon with Meryl Streep and Jack Nicholson, I bet they think twice and vote Hathaway.
Or maybe they vote Hunt, who’s all but assured a nomination for her work in “The Sessions.” It’s the kind of role the Oscars eat up (good-hearted woman who likes to let loose), and the Best Actress of 1997 for “As Good As It Gets” has picked up the Big 3 nominations (Critics’ Choice, Golden Globe, SAG) along the way. I think lukewarm support for the movie hurts her chances to win. So does the fact that she’s competing against Anne Freaking Hathaway.
Beyond Hathaway, Field, and Hunt, the other two nominations are pretty much up for grabs. The way I see it, there are 3 women vying for those two spots are Amy Adams for “The Master,” Maggie Smith for “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel,” and Nicole Kidman for “The Paperboy.” Each has missed a key stop on the circuit: Adams crucially at SAG, Smith with the Globes and Critics’ Choice, and Kidman only with Critics’ Choice.
On paper, the smart money would be on Nicole Kidman to snag a nomination. SAG is always the best indicator of actors’ sentiment, and she also has a key Globe nod.
But the Golden Globes are notorious for sucking up to stars so they have to show up to the ceremony. They are also notable for having many favorite actresses who seem to get nominated for just about anything they do, and this goes well beyond your obvious Meryl Streep. Nicole Kidman has been nominated for a whopping 10 Golden Globes and has won 3. So I take their nomination with a grain of salt.
SAG also usually throws a major out-of-left-field nominee into the fray, which at first sight could be considered Kidman. (Then again, since Maggie Smith has shown up nowhere else, maybe that would be her.) Last year, it was Armie Hammer for “J. Edgar,” although most thought it was Demian Bichir for “A Better Life” … until he got an Oscar nomination. In 2010, it was Hilary Swank for “Conviction.” 2009 gave us Diane Kruger for “Inglourious Basterds.”
But “The Paperboy” is, well, quite frankly a bad movie. And a part of me thinks the Academy will recoil at just how trashy and terrible it is. There’s certainly precedent for an actor being nominated for a bad movie: Cate Blanchett got a Best Actress nomination for “Elizabeth: The Golden Age,” which had a 35% on Rotten Tomatoes, and Sean Penn was nominated for the 34% fresh “I Am Sam.” “The Paperboy” currently sits at 39%.
I predicted the snob factor would keep out Melissa McCarthy of “Bridesmaids” last year because she was crass and defecated in a sink. I was wrong. McCarthy didn’t even have the Globe nod that Kidman earned. So, with that in mind, I will predict Nicole Kidman to get a bizarre Best Supporting Actress nomination for a role that involves her urinating on Zac Efron’s face.
The other spot, I believe, will go to Amy Adams for “The Master.” Yes, the SAG snub hurt. But she’s a new Academy darling, garnering three Best Supporting Actress nominations in six years. And I’ll continue to assert that the Academy, though perhaps not quite ready to anoint her with a statue quite yet, wants to increase the inevitability of her win. At four nominations, the cries of “why hasn’t she won yet?” will grow louder and louder.
Although don’t get me wrong, maybe they will not go with a perennial Oscar bridesmaid but rather a crowned Oscar queen.
Two-time winner Maggie Smith’s SAG nod makes her a formidable foe, though the fact that the Globes didn’t nominate her is troubling. They were big fans of “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel,” nominating it for Best Picture (musical/comedy) and Judi Dench for Best Actress. If they loved it so much, where was Maggie Smith? I suspect SAG got sentimental for a more senior member, like they did in 2010 for Robert Duvall in “Get Low.”
Another possibility I wouldn’t count out is Judi Dench for “Skyfall.” It’s a sentimental swan song for Dench in the M role, and it will be one of her final roles since she’s going blind. She won in 1998 for “Shakespeare in Love,” which she was in for all of six minutes. In this meaty, tragic role, could the Academy be won over? The BFCA was and gave her a Critics’ Choice Award nomination, although that was in a field of six. I don’t think Dench is out of the question, but I would still be shocked if she cracked this field.
The BFCA also nominated Ann Dowd of “Compliance,” a character actor who has paid her dues … and now is paying for her own campaign. She won Best Supporting Actress from the National Board of Review, although that group has faded in relevancy since they are no longer first out of the gate. Perhaps a surprise nomination is in store for a hard-working non-star, in the Demian Bichir/Richard Jenkins mold? A more relevant precedent, however, might be Jacki Weaver in “Animal Kingdom.” However, she had the awards machine of Sony Pictures Classics working for her all fall.
But I’m sticking with Adams and Kidman. I don’t have strong enough of a gut feeling to predict Dench or Dowd, and I don’t think Smith has enough heat to make it in the field.
There are four set nominees in the field: DeNiro, Jones, Arkin, and Hoffman. The latter three all scored the trifecta of nods from the BFCA, SAG, and HFPA, which essentially assures them nominations. Last year saw two such actors, Leonardo DiCaprio and Tilda Swinton, get snubbed by the Academy. I can’t pinpoint precisely why they got knocked out other than a strong field for DiCaprio in Best Actor and a strong competitor for Tilda Swinton in Rooney Mara.
The person I would assume is in the worst position is Philip Seymour Hoffman for “The Master” since it isn’t a slam-dunk Best Picture nominee like DeNiro, Jones, and Arkin’s movies are. But Hoffman, the movie’s only SAG nominee, appears to be the one performance everyone can line up behind for the film. And he’s been nominated for movies that did not play well with the Academy at large, as demonstrated by his nod for 2007’s “Charlie Wilson’s War.”
Argue as you might about the former being a sure thing because he missed out on a Golden Globe nomination, but watch his acceptance of their highest honor, the CecilB. DeMille. Now tell me if you think the voting body of less than 100 would want to nominate someone after he essentially slapped them in the face a la Ricky Gervais?
If he’s nominated, I think DeNiro could win. Though he has won twice, he hasn’t been nominated in two decades. There’s a comeback narrative for one of the greatest actors of our time, and it may be too soon for Arkin and Hoffman to win again. In the event of a “Lincoln” sweep, a rising tide could lift all ships including that of Tommy Lee Jones.
But who gets the fifth slot to compete against these four prior winners? I had hoped it would be Eddie Redmayne or Russell Crowe for “Les Misérables,” but those are highly unlikely now. If they were to pop up, put all your money on “Les Misérables” to win Best Picture.
Could it be Critics’ Choice nominee Matthew McConaughey for “Magic Mike?” He’s had quite the career turnaround in 2012, and a nomination would be a nice pat on the back. A nomination would be in the pattern of Robert Downey, Jr. in 2008 for “Tropic Thunder,” another unconventional comedic role from a resurgent actor.
McConaughey is unlikely, however, because the SAG Awards and Golden Globes overlooked him, two groups key to making people take Downey, Jr. seriously. Though he won prestigious prizes from the New York Film Critics’ Circle and the National Society of Film Critics, McConaughey might have to wait until next year for his shot at Oscar glory. Something tells me his massive weight loss for “The Dallas Buyer’s Club” is screaming Oscars 2013.
SAG didn’t leave off Javier Bardem for “Skyfall,” on the other hand. Bardem, himself a prior winner in the category, would fit right in with the rest of the nominees. His Silva from the movie would be the first Bond villain ever to be nominated for an Oscar, and though I was averse to his creepiness, others don’t seem to share my reservations.
Villains have been dominating the Best Supporting Actor category since Bardem’s win for “No Country for Old Men” in 2007. There was Heath Ledger’s posthumous win for “The Dark Knight” and Christoph Waltz’s victory for “Inglourious Basterds.” We’ve also seen nominations for Josh Brolin’s murderous monster in “Milk,” Stanley Tucci’s creepy rapist in “The Lovely Bones,” and Jeremy Renner’s tough-as-nails Jem from “The Town.” Being bad has never been so good.
But the same argument could be made for Leonardo DiCaprio’s vile slave owner Calvin Candie in “Django Unchained.” Tarantino wrote the despicable Hans Landa, the character that won Christoph Waltz an Oscar. Could he earn DiCaprio his fourth Oscar nomination – or perhaps his first win? I’d love to see it, but I’m worried about vote-splitting between DiCaprio and Christoph Waltz, back in the race for a character in “Django Unchained” not all that different than his Oscar-winning Hans Landa.
Both DiCaprio and Waltz received nominations from the Golden Globes, but neither showed up on the Critics’ Choice list nor the SAG. The latter can be explained by a lack of screeners being sent to the nominating committee, but the former is troubling. I considered “Django Unchained” to be a non-factor in the season until it found some very vocal critical supporters and a large audience. So I have to think at least one actor from the movie will show up, but I don’t think there’s a consensus on who that should be.
Waltz has won from a number of critics’ groups across the country, but none of them are particularly worth noting. DiCaprio won from the National Board of Review, which is a far more significant accolade than anything Waltz has received. If it was just Waltz from “Django Unchained” that DiCaprio had to contend with, I would predict him to receive his first Oscar nod since 2006’s “Blood Diamond.” But there’s also Samuel L. Jackson from the movie, and many people are also a big fan of his performance.
Had “Django Unchained” unfurled earlier in the season, perhaps there would have been time for consensus to form around one actor. DiCaprio could have helped himself by doing some press for the movie, yet he’s been remarkably silent. The moment just doesn’t feel right for him either; I suspect 2013 will be more fortuitous for him with a juicy role in ‘The Great Gatsby” and another re-teaming with Martin Scorsese in “The Wolf of Wall Street.”
So, in the absence of consensus, I think vote splitting will knock out all Tarantino’s performers, paving the way for Javier Bardem’s fourth Oscar nomination.
Check back tomorrow, January 7, for my final predictions in the leading acting categories!
New Year’s Day always marks a very interesting balancing act, reflecting on the old while also ringing in the new. So while people are still thinking about 2012, let me offer up the first annual Superlatives post for the films of 2012. I’ve already weighed in with the best and worst 10 of 2012, but what about the other 80 movies of the year? What about the performances? What about all sorts of other things? This is the post where I get all sorts of stuff floating in my mind out there.
For the sake of review, I’ll go ahead and re-list my 10 best and worst of 2012.
10 More 2012 Releases I Still Need to See: “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey,” “The Impossible,” “Promised Land,” “The Intouchables,” “Seven Psychopaths,” “Hyde Park on Hudson,” “Not Fade Away,” “Smashed,” “The House I Live In,” “Searching for Sugar Man”
“Music expresses that which cannot be put into words and cannot remain silent,” wrote Victor Hugo in his novel “Les Misérables.” Though his work has found expression in a number of different mediums since its publication in 1862, none has captured the public’s imagination quite like Claude-Michel Schönberg’s musical. It took the spirit of Hugo’s classic novel and put it on stage to powerful effect with an operatic score and poetic lyrics.
The endearing place “Les Misérables” holds in contemporary musical theatre is due to the supremacy of the music, featuring showstopper after showstopper that tug on the heartstrings and open the floodgates of the tear ducts. I’ll go ahead and declare my lack of objectivity since I was fortunate enough to be a member of a production of “Les Misérables” in high school. Watching the show from the audience is an ethereal experience, but living with that show for several weeks and being a part of conveying that show’s magic to an audience made it a truly spiritual experience for me.
However, theater does have its limitations. Using terminology from cinematic camera proxemics, the audience is locked in perpetual longshot, forced to view the action from a distance. Though the immediacy of the performer is felt, we see only broad strokes of emotion. So for “Les Misérables” on stage, the potency must come across through the notes of the music, putting the emphasis on execution of the orchestra and the voices of the performers.
Yet these complex and well-written roles are a goldmine for actors, offering them chances to explore rich internal worlds and manifest them through beautiful song. On stage, we are overcome by spectacle and score, so much so that we can lose the depth of the characters that build the colossus that is Hugo’s novel. If the stage actor chooses to build in nuances in facial and body movement into their performance, it would be mainly for them alone as most in the auditorium would only be able to discern larger, grander motions.
I don’t force every domestic drama I see to stand up to “American Beauty.” Nor do I weigh every romantic comedy against “Annie Hall.” So in a sense, why should I make a superhero movie stand up to “The Dark Knight?” I consider it every bit as paradigmatic as the two previously mentioned Best Picture winners, so an apples-to-apples comparison is hardly even possible. It’s more like apples-to-Garden of Eden fruit.
Indeed, a number of directors have tried to make their genre films a little more in the mold of Christopher Nolan’s iconic tale of the Caped Crusader, such as Jon Favreau’s “Iron Man 2” and Matthew Vaughn’s “X-Men: First Class,” to little success. Yet even “The Dark Knight Rises,” the sequel to the revolutionary film itself, can’t recreate its magic nor cast a comparable spell. Perhaps its time to declare those heights unattainable to avoid further disappointments. If Christopher Nolan himself can’t reach them, surely it is time for Hollywood to find its next golden goose.
“The Dark Knight Rises” also has the added disadvantage of being scrutinized as a Nolan film, not merely a post-“Dark Knight” facsimile. Coming off an incredible decade of filmmaking (five supremely acclaimed films: “Memento,” “Batman Begins,” “The Prestige,” “The Dark Knight,” and “Inception“), it is hardly premature to call him the Millenial equivalent of Steven Spielberg. His movies are so good that they have merited many a repeat viewing, allowing dedicated fans to really analyze what makes his work so exceptional. Now, it’s immediately recognizable when his films are not up to the sky-high standard he has set for himself. For instance, in the opening scene of “The Dark Knight Rises.”
2011 will likely go down in the comedy record books as a year where raunch ruled the roost. Yet it is possible that “Rio,” a G-rated animated comedy from BlueSky, packed the most laughs of them all (save perhaps “Bridesmaids“). Without ever uttering a curse word or resorting to the profane, the animals take the day in a wholly unexpected and delightful way.
While it may not be able to boast the complex emotions or deep storyline of a Pixar film, “Rio” is just like a beach ball, meant for fun and little else. And I’m totally fine with that. Its clean, innocent humor charms anyone willing to resume the persona of a child.
The movie boasts some hilarious characters thanks to very clever voice casting. Neurotic Jesse Eisenberg plays opposite the sassy Anne Hathaway as a macaw returning to the Brazilian wild after years living in a Minnesota bookstore. It’s a journey done many times before, but when you take it alongside Tracy Morgan as a drooling bulldog, it can still be fun. Add in a few toe-tapping musical numbers that are not necessarily well incorporated (but still enjoyable nonetheless) and a setting against the backdrop of the Brazilian Carnaval, and you just might want to book your ticket to Rio for 2016. Or maybe just watch it repeatedly on TV. A- /
Romance movies aren’t always my thing, being a guy and a Woody Allen fan. “One Day,” however, is a pleasant surprise. It takes a novel concept – from an acclaimed, best-selling novel – and makes a will-they-or-won’t-they friends or lovers story fun and engaging. While it’s a step down for director Lone Scherfig, whose film debut “An Education” was nothing short of masterful, it’s not a terribly precipitous decline.
In addition, it’s the kind of movie that played perfectly well in the early weekend afternoon matinee setting in which I saw it. “One Day” is like a very long stroll with two very interesting and complex characters. Anne Hathway’s Emma is a strong-willed, slightly prudish peace activist totally lacking in self-confidence. Jim Sturgess’ Dexter is a laid-back, entitled mess of a man who never seems to be lacking in excuses to doff his clothing. After a few bottles on the evening of their graduation, they spend a night together and begin a friendship that continues throughout the years.
The movie is then driven by their change over the next twenty years as we see them on July 15 from 1988 all the way to the present. This nifty device prevents the movie (and I guess, prevented the novel as well) from slipping into predictable melodrama as their metamorphosing and evolving is what keeps us interested. One year, Dexter is a drug-addicted hack television host and Emma is in a happy relationship; soon after, he’s cleaned up and in love while she’s found herself in a dead end.
Anne Hathaway can do so much better than the romantic rut she’s leading herself into. The actress seems to have an incredibly fiery, passionate base of detractors, something that I really don’t understand. Clearly they haven’t seen “Rachel Getting Married,” Jonathan Demme’s 2008 film that is my pick for the “F.I.L.M. of the Week.”
Hathaway, in a stunning performance that deserved the Oscar nomination it received, plays not the title character but rather her sister, Kym, who is on furloughs for the weekend from rehab. She’s unlikable with a prickly exterior, something portrayed with gusto by the normally charming actress. Yet underneath her thick-skin lies a vulnerable and hurting person, still reeling from tragedy earlier in her life. Caught at a crossroads between moving on and accepting responsibility, she stands uncertainly and without confidence to face a world colored by the consequences of her actions.
Hathaway brings such a vibrant and visible contrast of these two sides of Kym to the screen, fully realizing her from her flaws to her fears to her love to her guilt. It’s one of those miraculous performances by an actress that carries such tremendous emotional nuance that it continues to reward those who dare to take the gut-wrenching roller-coaster ride with the movie again.
What makes “Rachel Getting Married” even better is that every aspect of the film is on par with Hathaway’s towering performance. Jonathan Demme’s direction is impeccable, capturing the intensity of every moment with a fly-on-the-wall sensibility. The tension and the mood is right in every moment, although I will give my one caveat in this glowing review: fast forward through the wedding reception dancing. It’s a bloated sequence that offers a lot of excess with a few cutaway shots to Kym. Surely it couldn’t have been that way in the brilliant script by Jenny Lumet, director Sydney’s daughter, which paints a portrait of a family torn asunder by a disaster yet forced to put aside the past and come together for a wedding.
The bride, Rachel, is burdened on what should be the happiest weekend of her life by her sister Kym’s re-entry into society, something that comes with many bumps. With the skilled Rosemarie DeWitt behind the wheel, Rachel weathers these events with increasing emotional fervor until she reaches a breaking point. It’s a tour de force to rival Hathaway’s work, snubbed of a deserving Oscar nomination – and maybe even a win. She’s pitch perfect throughout as she tries to maintain her happiness and sanity in the presence of the self-proclaimed “God of Death.”
The sisters are also estranged from their mother Abby, played by Debra Winger, whose performance epitomizes art imitating life as the actress herself has been practically estranged from serious cinema for over a decade. Her emotional distance echoes her reaction to the divisive family tragedy as she has tried to totally move on and forget the whole thing. Winger’s quiet character is very mysterious and, like Hathaway’s Kym, holds much to be discovered in her work the second time around. While Abby may not be easily embraceable, neither is the movie. But the difference between the two is that “Rachel Getting Married” as a whole is truly endearing, a powerful portrait of the power of love and family through countless issues.
So, Anne Hathaway as Catwoman. Time for her to get her sexy on (since she won’t be able to rely on just straight up being naked like in “Love & Other Drugs“). Guess we just have to trust Christopher Nolan’s casting instinct.
It’s hard being a fan to remind myself that I actually have no say in how movies are made. I don’t get to write, cast, or direct Hollywood products (yet). I don’t have control, and we have to remember that a studio wouldn’t give millions of dollars to a director if they didn’t know what they were doing. And after “Inception,” I dare you to tell Christopher Nolan that he doesn’t know what he’s doing.
A lot of people, particularly us vocal bloggers, have a hard time reminding themselves of these things. We scream as if there’s actually some way we can change things. But we really can’t, and it’s only worth writing about if you can joke about acting like you have a say.
What about YOU? Do you struggle with remembering you don’t run Hollywood?
If these two without clothes on can’t sell, do you need any more proof that the Internet has oversaturated the market?
Jake Gyllenhaal and Anne Hathaway, two young and attractive starlets, couldn’t power “Love & Other Drugs” to box office success. The movie will cap off its run in a week or so here with a little over $31 million in the bank. It cost $30 million to make. Phew. Fox can breathe. (They had “Avatar” to save them last year.)
But the real number to talk about is 49%, its approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes. The number was even lower from the top critics, who only deemed it fresh 34% of the time. Obviously, for a movie to get nominated for Best Picture even in this era, that’s really not going to cut it. Heck, it didn’t even cut it for the HFPA, who gave Golden Globe nominations to “The Tourist” (10% approval from top critics) and “Burlesque” (27% approval from top critics). But clearly quality wasn’t very important to them this year.
Gyllenhaal and Hathaway were both nominated for Globes for their performances, and I’d say it wouldn’t be too far-fetched for Gyllenhaal to win. As for Hathaway, there’s some nobody named Annette Bening who she’s up against that I heard might win.
Back in my Oscar Moment when it was still an outside chance for Best Picture, I asked if “Love & Other Drugs” would go beyond the Golden Globes. The only voter said no, and kudos to them for having obvious foresight. But hey, it’s always worth a shot for me with the Oscar Moment column. God forbid I were to miss a Best Picture nominee in my first full year of forecasting…
There’s an interesting commentary on the pharmaceutical industry at the heart of “Love & Other Drugs,” a prevalent enough part of the story to make it into the title. But it’s the love part of the name that takes control of the movie and ultimately devalues the larger and more relevant message. Like a pimple, the romance grows and grows until it virtually envelops the face.
Granted, this is an incredibly attractive pimple. The film’s historical background in dealing with Viagra gives it free reign to go crazy on the sexuality, and director Edward Zwick runs with the opportunity. It’s practically soft-core porn starring two young, attractive stars in Anne Hathaway and Jake Gyllenhaal. But the movie is more than just two constantly and completely naked stars on a bed; it develops the emotional out of the physical.
The nudity isn’t meant to titillate so much as it is to be honest. It removes the sheets of pretense from the bedfellows, Jamie the womanizing Viagra salesman (Gyllenhaal) and his latest squeeze Maggie, a passionate but insecure lover affected by stage 1 Parkinson’s (Hathaway), and leaves their character naked. The two nudities complement each other beautifully, and these are two fascinating portraits of people trying to figure out where their lives are heading.
Every movie blog I read has been offering thoughts, thoughts, and more thoughts on the AMPAS’ announcement of the hosts for the 83rd Academy Awards. But in case my blog is the closest you get to movie news, let me fill you in on a little secret: James Franco and Anne Hathaway were tapped to host.
In my opinion, this is something to celebrate. Both are dramatic actors with incredibly potent comedic talent (as evidenced by their “Saturday Night Live” appearances), and they have an exuberant youthful charm that makes them incredible winning figures. I think they will light up the Oscar stage, and if anyone has any doubts, see Anne Hathaway’s song-and-dance number with Hugh Jackman from two years ago.
It’s a curious choice indeed with the hosts having performances in play for big awards, but I think if we leave the politics out of it (which many Oscar analysts won’t), it will be an inspired show. The pairing of Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin worked last year, and the 2010 variation on the buddy host scheme is meant to appeal to a younger crowd. This generation (hem, my generation) has not traditionally shown an interest in the show, and Franco and Hathaway will certainly be a draw.
All I can say is: I’m still waiting for someone to top Whoopi Goldberg’s “African Queen” moment from 1999, which is one of the main reason why I’m obsessed with the Oscars. (Read more about it in Random Factoid #221.)
Historically in monster movies, the imminent threat stands in for a more existential fear. From foreign invaders to nuclear weapons and screen addiction, we’ve seen any number of external forces terrorize the cinema. But starting in the 1960s (as compellingly chronicled by Jason Zinoman in his book “Shock Value“), some of these monsters came to represent parts of ourselves. They were manifestations of some internal demons, not some societal hazard.
There is really not too much to say about a film like Kate Barker-Froyland’s “
Although, in the event of a “Lincoln” sweep (and me sticking my head in an oven), Sally Field could go 3-for-3 and win here for “Lincoln.” She’s certainly had her fair share of recognition along the precursor circuit, including a high-profile win from the New York Critics’ Circle.
On paper, the smart money would be on Nicole Kidman to snag a nomination. SAG is always the best indicator of actors’ sentiment, and she also has a key Globe nod.
Although don’t get me wrong, maybe they will not go with a perennial Oscar bridesmaid but rather a crowned Oscar queen.
Could it be Critics’ Choice nominee Matthew McConaughey for “Magic Mike?” He’s had quite the career turnaround in 2012, and a nomination would be a nice pat on the back. A nomination would be in the pattern of Robert Downey, Jr. in 2008 for “Tropic Thunder,” another unconventional comedic role from a resurgent actor.
Both DiCaprio and Waltz received nominations from the Golden Globes, but neither showed up on the Critics’ Choice list nor the SAG. The latter can be explained by a lack of screeners being sent to the nominating committee, but the former is troubling. I considered “Django Unchained” to be a non-factor in the season until it found some very vocal critical supporters and a large audience. So I have to think at least one actor from the movie will show up, but I don’t think there’s a consensus on who that should be.
“Music expresses that which cannot be put into words and cannot remain silent,” wrote Victor Hugo in his novel “Les Misérables.” Though his work has found expression in a number of different mediums since its publication in 1862, none has captured the public’s imagination quite like Claude-Michel Schönberg’s musical. It took the spirit of Hugo’s classic novel and put it on stage to powerful effect with an operatic score and poetic lyrics.
I don’t force every domestic drama I see to stand up to “American Beauty.” Nor do I weigh every romantic comedy against “Annie Hall.” So in a sense, why should I make a superhero movie stand up to “
Romance movies aren’t always my thing, being a guy and a Woody Allen fan. “
Anne Hathaway can do so much better than the romantic rut she’s leading herself into. The actress seems to have an incredibly fiery, passionate base of detractors, something that I really don’t understand. Clearly they haven’t seen “Rachel Getting Married,” Jonathan Demme’s 2008 film that is my pick for the “F.I.L.M. of the Week.”
So, Anne Hathaway as Catwoman. Time for her to get her sexy on (since she won’t be able to rely on just straight up being naked like in “
If these two without clothes on can’t sell, do you need any more proof that the Internet has oversaturated the market?
Marshall and the Movies 
Recent Comments