Sam Mendes made a great Bond film with writers John Logan, Neal Purvis, and Robert Wade in “Skyfall” because they embraced a tricky opposition between the past and the future. Could the unabashedly old-fashioned spy James Bond survive in a more gritty, grey world without sacrificing his core identity? They found that the answer was yes by striking a balance between these two forces vying for the soul of 007.
The band gets back together for “Spectre” (plus an additional writer in Jez Butterworth, architect of many a frustratingscript in the past two years) and finds themselves preoccupied by the same kind of debate. This time, instead of the fear of age leading to obsolescence, the anxiety stems from post-Snowden malaise.
When a government has the ability to do its dirty work with drones and collect information on all its citizens through their devices, who needs human intelligence likes James Bond? This question is being seriously debated outside the world of the movie, and kudos to “Spectre” for not ignoring the elephant in the room. But the way Mendes and the writers choose to resolve the tension feels rather disappointing.
They use this threat as an excuse to retreat to some of the most outdated aspects of the character. Womanizing abounds as Bond pity romances a grieving widow to extract a key plot point. And Bond’s reward for neutralizing a key opponent? The “Bond girl,” Lea Seydoux’s Madeleine Swann, immediately feels the need to let him take her to bed. Simply put, there is a way to let James Bond be the ultimate man that does not require denying women agency. “Spectre” does not care to find that way as “Casino Royale” did, justifying lazy misogyny because of a rather facile challenge to Bond’s relevancy.
I read Sara Gruen’s acclaimed best-selling novel “Water for Elephants” at the zenith of its popularity and found myself rather underwhelmed. (What self-respecting novel gives only the most cursory explanation of its title?) Francis Lawrence’s cinematic adaptation did little to change my opinion. His “Water for Elephants” is pleasant and watchable, which is about all it has to offer.
In the film, Robert Pattinson stars as Jacob Jankowski, a veterinary student whose life takes a screeching detour when his parents both die during his last exam. Saddled not only with his own grief but also with their debts, he opts for a somewhat cliched escape route by joining the circus. He stows away and quickly moves up from shoveling horse droppings to taking care of the show’s star animals.
He quickly discovers that his humane veterinary practices have little use in the profit-hungry Banzini Brothers circus, run by the shrewd but cruel August (Christoph Waltz). As if that is not enough to make him worry about both occupational and personal security, Jacob finds himself smitten for the boss’s wife, star performer Marlena (Reese Witherspoon). Romantic rivalry quickly runs cold as Jacob’s arrival quickly accelerates the dismembering of Marlena and August’s already fragile relationship.
Lawrence prefers to leave the tensions at a standstill rather than letting them progress towards their boiling point. As a result, “Water for Elephants” often feels flat and unexciting. At the very least, when the sparks fail to fly at the clashing of the three leads, the environment is always believable and interesting. The film does a nice job romanticizing the elegant, balletic movement of the circus performance as well as the extravagant moveable architecture of the spectacle.
In a sense, it adds to the story a visual element that has to remain imaginary when experienced on the page. Too bad Witherspoon, Waltz, and Pattinson could not add more flavor with their characters. C+ /
Director Tim Burton (“Alice in Wonderland,” “Dark Shadows“) is accustomed to working on canvases larger than life. But in his latest directorial outing “Big Eyes,” he has a hard time creating an environment that feels true to life. The film is the rare Burton picture not set in any realm of fantasy or imagination, and he feels uncomfortable in the domain of average human beings.
His response to every question that arose in production, it seems, was to opt for exaggeration. “Big Eyes” has the tense spousal dynamic of “The Color Purple” where the exploitation in the marriage is artistic rather than sexual. Walter Keane (Christoph Waltz) aspires to be a renowned and revered artist yet cannot achieve such status with his own paintings. Thus, he claims the resonantly kitschy big-eyed paintings of his wife Margaret (Amy Adams) for his own and forces her into a glorified form of indentured servitude.
Burton uses a narrator to constantly remind the audience that this all happened “back then” as if the whole thing were some kind of fairy tale. Yet “Big Eyes,” sadly, derives its strength from the nagging sensation that this could just as easily be happening in 2014. The kind of cultural diminution and symbolic rape committed in the film is still endemic in today’s society, but Burton seems content with hermetically sealing it in some kind of dolled-up past.
Terry Gilliam’s “The Zero Theorem” is the kind of film that raises so many important and intriguing questions that it’s entirely possible to forget some of them along the journey. This oblique tale, bordering at times on the absurd, stuns with the sheer density of the thematic issues that Pat Rushin’s screenplay can pack into 100 minutes.
The film grapples with conundrums as timeless as the meaning of life, the nature of happiness, and the imminence of death and nothingness. At the same time, “The Zero Theorem” also has its finger on the pulse of many modern malaises, such as screen addiction, the fading appeal of observable reality in relation to virtual reality, and the electronic mediation of human connection.
We explore these through the work of a computer programmer known as Q, played by Christoph Waltz, as he attempts to solve humanity’s conundrums. In a change of pace from the two silver-tongued Tarantino characters that won him a pair of Oscars, Waltz sits back and delivers a largely reactive performance. As he attempts to unlock the zero theorem and get to the core of human existence, Q doesn’t instigate events so much as he lets them happen. Because we’re less focused on a conventional narrative, “The Zero Theorem” can easily delve into the realm of the existential and philosophical.
10:00 P.M. For those of you keeping track at home, “Les Misérables” ruled the Golden Globes tonight with 3 wins! “Django Unchained” and “Argo” also won two trophies. “Amour,” “Brave,” “Life of Pi,” “Lincoln,” “Silver Linings Playbook,” “Skyfall,” and “Zero Dark Thirty” each won a single award.
10:00 P.M. HFPA awkwardly and unintentionally flips the bird to AMPAS tonight…
9:52 P.M. Unexpectedly humorous speech from Day-Lewis. Although I laughed much harder at how most of the back of the room gave him a standing ovation … and NO ONE up front did. Awkward…
9:50 P.M. BEST ACTOR – DRAMA: DANIEL DAY-LEWIS, “LINCOLN“
9:50 P.M. What a beautiful speech, Chastain looked truly humbled and honored. To the Oscars we go, hopefully! (Hey HFPA, didn’t appreciate your shot of the audience where we could see you all flashing “WRAP UP.”)
9:48 P.M. BEST ACTRESS – DRAMA: JESSICA CHASTAIN, “ZERO DARK THIRTY“
9:41 P.M. Adorable Anne Hathaway stealing the microphone quickly to do a few more thanks and then tightly hugging Amanda Seyfried.
9:40 P.M. BEST PICTURE – MUSICAL/COMEDY: “LES MISERABLES“
9:39 P.M. Jeremy Renner bleeped…
9:34 P.M. What a charming acceptance speech, and so much love for his wife! Maybe he can beat Daniel Day-Lewis?!
9:32 P.M.BEST ACTOR – MUSICAL/COMEDY: HUGH JACKMAN, “LES MISERABLES“
9:22 P.M. They talked about actors, and then the category was Best TV Series – Musical/Comedy? At least it was “Girls!”
9:18 P.M. Take that, Academy! Standing ovation for snubbed Ben Affleck!
9:11 P.M. What on earth did Jodie Foster just say? Seriously, my TV audio went out in what I assume was a bleep.
9:04 P.M. OK, people, time for you to go watch “The Beaver.” It has Mel Gibson, sure, but it also has Jennifer Lawrence!
8:59 P.M. “Taylor Swift, stay away from Michael J. Fox’s son!” – Tina Fey, who needs to be on this telecast far more
8:53 P.M. Lena Dunham may have won the Golden Globe, but Tina Fey got to wait with J.Lo and Amy Poehler got awfully close to George Clooney. It’s debatable who the overall winner really was tonight.
8:51 P.M. Hooray for Lena – NOT Lisa, Aziz – Dunham! Go watch “Tiny Furniture!”
8:50 P.M. Aziz Ansari being carried by Jason Bateman … fantastic.
8:25 P.M. Really, Golden Globes? Tarantino for screenplay? Not OK with that. “Inglourious Basterds” blows “Django Unchained” out of the water. And the speech was a total MESS. Someone was overserved…
8:23 P.M. BEST SCREENPLAY: QUENTIN TARANTINO, “DJANGO UNCHAINED“
8:18 P.M. Give us more time with Anne Hathaway’s acceptance speech – we love her!
8:15 P.M. BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS: ANNE HATHAWAY, “LES MISERABLES“
8:07 P.M. Yes, JLaw, to answer the question you were so desperately trying to ask during that speech, OF COURSE we can be best friends!
8:07 P.M. “Does this say ‘I beat Meryl?'” – Jennifer Lawrence
8:04 P.M. The sad thing is, Will Ferrell and Kristen Wiig are saying what a lot of Americans are to their television sets right now. Wondering what this “Silver Linings Playbook” thing is and cursing them for not nominating “The Avengers.”
8:02 P.M. Nice abs, Kristen Wiig.
7:59 P.M. Clinton introducing “Lincoln.” Oscar for Best Picture is now in the bag, in case it wasn’t already.
7:58 P.M. Really, Bill Clinton?! What?!
7:55 P.M. Tina Fey and Amy Poehler going and impersonating the absent celebrities is PRICELESS.
7:49 P.M. Looks like we need more Grammy-winners to come freshen up film awards.
7:45 P.M. BEST ORIGINAL SCORE: MYCHAEL DANNA, “LIFE OF PI“
7:42 P.M. Woah, real Tony Mendez!
7:36 P.M. Awkward teleprompter flub with Salma Hayek and Paul Rudd … hooray for “Homeland!” Don’t understand why they present Best TV Series – Drama before Best Actress in a TV Drama?!
7:33 P.M. Wow, now “Homeland” is set to dominate the Golden Globes too after Emmys domination. Weird not to hear Damian Lewis speak in his gruff American accent!
7:32 P.M.Didn’t get to see much from the red carpet, but from what I can tell … Jessica Chastain wins. Just as she did at the Oscars last year. Ehh, didn’t really get to look closely enough. She’s gorgeous, sure, but the dress wasn’t that great.
7:30 P.M. “Call Me Maybe” needs to be left in 2012, HFPA lady.
7:23 P.M. Don’t sing again, Catherine Zeta-Jones, unless it’s “Chicago.” Thanks. That line of “Do You Hear The People Sing?” was awful.
7:21 P.M. If “Game Change” had been released in theaters, Julianne Moore would be in contention for Best Actress. Think about it…
7:18 P.M. Hooray for “Game Change!” One of the better movies I saw this year in any format!
7:12 P.M. C’mon, Professor McGonagall. It’s one thing not to do press for yourself – but not showing up to receive the inevitable award?!
7:10 P.M. Please, Academy, you’ve already awarded Christoph Waltz for literally the same performance. And oh, here goes Waltz again with the poetic metaphors in his speeches.
7:10 P.M. BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR: CHRISTOPH WALTZ, “DJANGO UNCHAINED“
7:08 P.M. “This 70th anniversary celebration.” OK. Glad Tina and Amy mentioned that!
7:03 P.M. “When it comes to torture, I trust the lady who spent 3 years married to James Cameron.” – Amy Poehler, much to the amusement of Jessica Chastain (who was DYING laughing)
7:02 P.M. Already loving the Tina and amy combo. Same humor, just with less bite!
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!
Quentin Tarantino’s name is now a brand, one with hallmarks of dialogue and style widely recognized by all cinephiles. It’s an accomplishment achieved not only by Tarantino’s incredible virtuosity but also by the scores of cheap rip-offs who have solidified his status as a major figure in film history. Yet with “Django Unchained,” Tarantino proves that the greatest of all these impersonators is Tarantino himself.
The experience is not unlike that of watching “Jackie Brown,” the only other film of the Tarantino canon that “Django Unchained” manages to stand next to in quality. Both films followed major artistic breakthroughs for him that scored with audiences and critics alike, “Pulp Fiction” and “Inglourious Basterds.”
But rather 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. There are plenty of laughs to be had, sure, but it just feels like far too much of the same stylized dialogue and aestheticized violence; popping in the DVD of “Reservoir Dogs” would probably yield more satisfaction.
Every medium has its distinct storytelling capabilities. The written word can inundate us with rich details and vivid characterization. The stage can engage our hearts and our eyes with proximity and unflinching reality. Film can wow us through fast manipulation of image and story that words or actors alone cannot illuminate. Some, but not many tales can bounce between the different media. Those that make the jump require strenuous retooling to fit the expressive purposes of their newfound home.
The fatal flaw of Roman Polanski’s “Carnage” is that it is merely a carbon copy of its source play, Yasmina Reza’s Tony Award-winning play “The God of Carnage.” The two masters of their respective crafts, collaborators on the script, ultimately fail to realize what is cinematic about the story. As a result, it just feels like a performance of the play itself (which I have read and deeply admire!) merely caught on film.
Now don’t get me wrong, I’m certainly happy that more people will be exposed to Reza’s keen insights into our primal natures. Not everyone can afford to see it on Broadway, nor are touring or repertory companies going to be performing this in every town. But it does the work a disservice to merely slap it onto a screen when it belongs on a stage.
“The Green Hornet” is half-heartedly “Iron Man,” half-heartedly “Kick-Ass,” but wholeheartedly a moronic waste. It’s already begun to fade into the white noise that is the superhero movie genre, which seems to churn out a new entry with every passing minute, thanks to its reliance on the recently popularized “not-so-super” hero. With a director fully capable of creating something of great artistic merit, writers fully capable of spinning familiar formula into fresh comedy, and stars fully capable of entertaining, the movie is a letdown simply for settling.
The typical stoner/slacker combo that is Seth Rogen remains unflinchingly true to form as Britt Reid, the heir of a media empire thanks to being the son of an incredibly successful newspaper man (Tom Wilkinson). When his father’s death leaves him a twenty-something orphan, he’s more than a little confused as to how he can reconcile the party and the business. Britt discovers the incredible hidden talents of Kato (Jay Chou), who can do quite a bit more than make coffee.
Together, they become a crime-fighting team with Britt known as the Green Hornet but Kato doing all the actual fighting. They masquerade as villains but act as heroes, and their clueless escapades only get attention because Britt uses the newspaper to overhype them. Otherwise, they would be about as legitimate as the movie’s script, which in its eagerness to take the classic heroes to a new level winds up as a cheap imitation of them.
Christoph Waltz, so frightening as the treacherous Hans Landa in “Inglourious Basterds,” abandons what won him the Oscar for a Snidley Whiplash, cartoonish approach to villainy. His Chudnofsky fits in well with the ridiculous background of the movie, but it sure leaves one heck of a stain on his filmography. And while most people would not say this is the first strike against Rogen, it’s the first time that I’ve found his routine getting old. The same old schtick might be refreshing in a superhero movie had it not been so overdone in his raunchy comedies first or if “The Green Hornet” were released a few years earlier before real actors transformed stock characters into complex ones.
The movie is also a waste of Michel Gondry, who brings his auteurist vision and impressionistic flair to the table. He does craft some really cool scenes that popcorn-munching multiplexers aren’t accustomed to seeing. The movie’s visual panache is striking, yet it needed to be overwhelming to atone for all the movie’s jokes that fell flat. Without a decent script to back up Gondry’s artistic sensibilities, “The Green Hornet” becomes about as worthwhile to watch as a Stanley Kubrick directed episode of “Jersey Shore.” C /
With [the switch from film to digital], the era of the reel projector is over. Currently, theaters are 35% digital, with the number growing just as quickly as manufacturing will allow for. Instead of a complex process of setting up film reels on platters and watching the cigarette burns for change over times while reading comic books, a “projectionist” will hit a button, make sure a little LED light is on, and sit back to read comic books while the movie they downloaded from a server plays flawlessly.
Technology races forward with a lot of positive effects, but here’s one human cost that we can get a little sentimental about. They aren’t gone completely, but sooner rather than later, we’re going to find ourselves holding a true memorial service for a completely obsolete profession.”
I think it’s kind of sad that a part of film history that has been needed since “The Great Train Robbery” will soon be obsolete. Personally, I think there’s something kind of charming about watching a movie on film with all the scratches on the screen and pops in the sound. It’s a part of going to the movies, and if audiences were really that concerned about picture/sound quality, they would have given up on the theater as soon as the LaserDisc came about.
So from where I’m sitting, I’m not ready to bid goodbye to the projectionist … even though I barely notice them or give them thanks. (That’s what we have Christoph Waltz for.)
“A stage actor acts on a stage, but a screen actor doesn’t act on the screen. The stage actor just walks on by himself, but the screen actor is put on there by a projectionist.”
– Christoph Waltz, accepting his SAG award in January 2010
We weren’t meant to have the power of pause, rewind, and fast-forward if you really think about it. When Thomas Edison invented the movies, he wasn’t foreseeing the invention of the BetaMax, the LaserDisc, the VCR, the DVD, the Blu-Ray Player, the free watching on Hulu, the iTunes rental, or the Netflix instant streaming. As far as I am concerned, the movie was never meant to leave the hands of the projectionist.
Which is why I feel compelled, sometimes, to put the remote down and enjoy a movie start to finish without pausing – like it was meant to be enjoyed. It’s like a trip back to the good old days. Sure, we still do it in the theaters, but to go through a whole movie without pauses at home is bringing the theater one step closer to our home.
I regret to say that I often multitask during movies largely out of necessity, because I can’t afford to totally lose as much time as I spend watching movies. But for some movies, I put down everything and just watch. These are the movies that I like to call “the experience movies.” They require you to put away all gadgetry and distractedness so that you can be fully engrossed.
Some movies I would say belong to this list are “The Lord of the Rings” trilogy and “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.” Do you have a similar list? If so, what’s on yours?
My celebration of this year’s Academy Award-nominated performances continues with a look at the Best Supporting Actor category.
It’s an interesting mix, but I’ll try not to treat them as numbers or as candidates. They are actors, and they give performances. The Oscars become a political race, but I think it’s time to relax and remember 2009 simply as it was: a great year at the theater.
Matt Damon in “Invictus”
IN MY OWN WORDS: “The urgency with which [Damon] sets out to transform rugby into something more than just a game for his team is played with an ardent and admirable intensity.”
He’s here because … he had a great year, playing two completely different characters, and he is a well-liked and popular actor.
Woody Harrelson in “The Messenger”
He’s here because … he is a character actor who has gone too long unnoticed and under appreciated, and it is time for his moment in the sun.
Christopher Plummer in “The Last Station”
He’s here because … he is a fantastic aging actor who had never been nominated before this year, and it was time to correct the crime.
Stanley Tucci in “The Lovely Bones”
He’s here because … he’s a well-liked actor who showed his versatility this year, and he has sympathy after the sad loss of his wife to cancer earlier this year.
Christoph Waltz in “Inglourious Basterds”
IN MY OWN WORDS: “[Waltz] makes Landa very eerie, nearing the level of Javier Bardem in ‘No Country for Old Men,’ but he is also quite likeable and somewhat charming despite the atrocious deeds he commits.”
He’s here because … he is absolutely spellbinding and commanded the screen every time he graced it.
Marshall’s “Oscars”
It’s a little tough for me to gauge how well the Academy did with this category because at this moment, I have only seen two of the five nominated performances. However, the two that I did see (Waltz and Damon) both made my list.
As for the other three, it’s a bit of an eccentric collection. First, I would like to honor the snubbed Alfred Molina for his role as Jenny’s father in “An Education.” Last year, I spoke on my strong support for his performance:
“Among the ensemble, the real standout is Alfred Molina as Jenny’s father. Despite being a stern authoritarian when it comes to educational matters, Molina brings an all-encompassing charm that lets us know that he cares for her greatly (but with the values of a fading generation). His presence lends a warm feel to the movie that blends well with all the other pleasant sentiments the movie radiates.”
Another actor who made my list is not a conventional Academy pick (and thus he finds a home here): Alec Baldwin for “It’s Complicated.” Other than perhaps “The Hangover” guys, I can’t think of any one actor who made me bust a gut so hard in 2009. In my review, I raved of Baldwin:
“The real comedic spirit of the film comes from Alec Baldwin, who plays the overbearing fun-lover with such energy that he steals the screen every time he appears on it. Motivated by little other than carnal desires, [his character’s] every move is fairly anticipated, but Baldwin’s zeal and verve prevent them ensure that they are always hysterical.”
For my final nominee, I debated including Paul Schneider for his role as poet John Keats’ friend in “Bright Star” as well as Stephen Lang for his muscling role as tough-as-nails marine in “Avatar.” But after some thought, I decided that the spot deservingly goes to Nicholas Hoult for playing an overly interested student in “A Single Man.” At first, I found myself quite annoyed by the character. But as soon as I got over that, I discovered that a great performance lay underneath:
“The real acting standout is the young Nicholas Hoult as George’s overly inquisitive pupil, Kenny. The script only feeds him obsequiously sexually inviting lines, and it’s hard to overcome that. But Hoult understands the nature of his character and allows him to progress from somewhat creepy to somewhat of a guardian angel for George (look no further than his giant white sweater).”
So, at Marshall’s Oscars, the nominees would have been…
Alec Baldwin, “It’s Complicated”
Matt Damon, “Invictus”
Nicholas Hoult, “A Single Man”
Alfred Molina, “An Education”
Christoph Waltz, “Inglourious Basterds”
Predictions:
Should win: Christoph Waltz, “Inglourious Basterds” Could win: Christopher Plummer, “The Last Station” Will win: Christoph Waltz, “Inglourious Basterds”
The only way Waltz loses here is if the voters feel like they need to give Plummer a “career achievement” Oscar. But even that doesn’t seem likely after Waltz’s steamrolling through this season.
At the Screen Actors Guild Awards, they call it “Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role.” At the Golden Globe Awards, they call it “Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture.” But at the Academy Awards, the most celebrated show of them all, they call it simply “Best Actor.”
This distinction is important because at the Oscars, it is not just the performance that is rewarded. It is the actor themselves. The Academy elects four actors each year to become the face of quality of their industry to the world. These actors can forever affix the title “Academy Award Winner” to their name on any poster or trailer they so desire. Thus, they vote not only for a great body of work but also for a face and a personality that represents them well.
The performance gets a select group of actors some attention. Their name and reputation gets them to the next step: consideration. Then, a few big groups take a leap and select one of them. At this point, the part of the voter is done. It is up to the actors to let us know where they stand. With their acceptance speech, it is their job to convince us why they deserve the highest honor that their craft has to give. It is their job to show voters what a vote for them really means.
Let’s take a look at the five actors who have won top prizes from the Golden Globes and the Screen Actors Guild.
Oscar nomination ballots have now been sent out to the Academy! Thus, I felt it was time to issue a new set of Oscar Predictions. Since I last went on record, we have heard from a multitude of critics groups, the National Board of Review, and have received nominations from the Golden Globes and the Screen Actors Guild. What conclusion can we draw from them? I draw mine here.
Big changes this week, though nothing changes at the top. I still think “Up in the Air” is going to win – and not just because I love it so much. It is slowly picking up steam at the box office, and it is a movie that pretty much everybody really likes. It is powerful storytelling with commanding performances, the recipe for usual Oscar success.
But its two biggest threats have changed since the last set of predictions. “The Hurt Locker” has clearly established itself as the critical favorite, the movie that scores the most with the various critics groups from New York to Oklahoma. This can be good and bad, but the good critical favorites are usually the ones that are mixed with audience support. With only $12 million in the bank, it is clear that “The Hurt Locker” does not have this. If people a more populist pick for Best Picture with the expansion of the field, this would most likely send a message of adherence to pretentiousness.
The opposite message would be sent with the selection of “Avatar.” I resisted for as long as I could, but now it is virtually undeniable. With critics clearly behind it and box office standing at a formidable $213 million, this has a lot going for it. Yet it has a gender prejudice going against it. Only rarely do action movies fly with the Academy; just look at how they snubbed “The Dark Knight” last year for “The Reader.” I think many will see it as little more than a visual spectacle and technological innovator.
“Inglourious Basterds” has really jumped on the scene, getting top nominations from the Golden Globes and the SAG. I didn’t think this was possible in August, but I guess I was wrong.
“An Education” didn’t really fall; everything else just went up. Same goes for “Invictus,” but I think we are looking at this year’s “Frost/Nixon” or “Good Night, and Good Luck” here. By that, I mean the movie that gets a bunch of nominations with no real chance at winning any of them.
“Nine” actually dropped, though. Audiences didn’t receive it well as shown by the lackluster $5.4 million it posted Christmas weekend. Critics aren’t digging it, and its Rotten Tomatoes score is now sitting at a dreadful 37% fresh. On the other hand, we can’t forget that it did get a SAG Best Ensemble nomination over high-flying “Up in the Air,” among others. This is a movie that the actors seem to like, and they make up a large portion of the voting body. I wouldn’t be surprised to see it slip off the charts completely, but don’t count it out just yet. (“Precious” dropped too, but I offer some explanation on that in the Best Director section.)
The tenth slot continues to puzzle me. Now, I have it going to the Coen’s “A Serious Man,” but this is another big question mark. It failed to get a nomination for Best Picture at the Golden Globes (where “It’s Complicated” did, so “ha!” to all my detractors on that one), which is pretty big considering that “Burn After Reading” made it last year despite being met with a slightly chillier reception. And it pains me to pick this while so many of my favorite movies sit in the cellar.
Best Director
Kathryn Bigelow, “The Hurt Locker”
Jason Reitman, “Up in the Air”
James Cameron, “Avatar”
Quentin Tarantino, “Inglourious Basterds”
Clint Eastwood, “Invictus”
Bigelow has gained a lot of strength with most of the critics groups on her side, and I can now see a Best Picture-Director split between “Up in the Air” and her. The momentum for her to become the first female director to win the Oscar may just be too big to deny. Not to mention the fact that if “Up in the Air” takes screenplay and picture, Reitman will walk away with two statues.
James Cameron is the real star of “Avatar,” and the Academy will no doubt want to honor his work. This is a project that he has had in his head for over 15 years, and his patience while the technology caught up with the idea should be rewarded.
Tarantino takes over the fifth spot from Rob Marshall because of the lack of love for “Nine” (which is mostly because of him). The “Inglourious Basterds” love the critics, Golden Globes, and SAG have displayed is enough to get its director a nomination. After all, it really is his movie.
Lee Daniels drops off the chart because of his Golden Globes snub when “Precious” was clearly well received by the group. “Precious” has lost a ton of momentum from its release in November, mainly due to bumbling Lionsgate who refused to capitalize on the limited release success by taking it nationwide then.
People see the Academy as Clint’s cronies, which isn’t necessarily true. Maybe they just set out to make a statement last year with their “Gran Torino” shutout, but I think that the financial success came too late to make an impact. “Invictus” hasn’t exactly lit the box office on fire; however, I just get the sinking feeling that he is still going to get nominated here. Call me crazy.
The only change here is Bridges falling to number 4. He has only won awards from critics whose awards truly mean something like the Los Angeles Film Critics Circle; Clooney and Firth have been taking all the others. I’m getting a vibe that this a performance that is being honored for honor, not because people really love it. I am getting the latter vibe from Clooney, who has been taking the prizes from a lot of the smaller, less renowned critics circles.
This is the standard top 5 now among almost everyone. I can’t help but feel like there has to be some kind of shake-up here, some surprise nominee. But who? Maybe Daniel Day-Lewis will find his way in like always, or perhaps Matt Damon will surprise for his turn in “The Informant!” He had a heck of a year, and the Academy could see fit to honor that with two nominations. Just spitballing here.
I’m sorry, but I cannot pick Sandra Bullock here. I keep seeing all these raves for her and wonder if I saw the same movie and performance as they did.
I moved Sidibe back a spot because the critics awards seem to be hinting that this race will be a duel between Streep and Mulligan, the veteran and the fresh face. However, I could see a possible vote split propelling the novice to victory.
With Abbie Cornish showing up nowhere and “Bright Star” seemingly forgotten, she falls off the list. I replaced her with Marion Cotillard because the Academy loved her enough to give her an Oscar when no one knew who she was. Even though the buzz on “Nine” is down, I have a feeling there will be plenty of love for the ladies. Cotillard does have two emotionally wrenching numbers in the movie going for her.
And I’ll use this post to congratulate Meryl Streep on receiving her 25th Golden Globe nomination.
This is the category with the big shake-up this week.
Christoph Waltz is winning almost everything, so I can still place him in the number one slot.
Stanley Tucci jumps from off the list all the way to number 2. I think its a mix of career achievement and a very good year (despite the apparent “The Lovely Bones” flop). Christopher Plummer shares the former of these; Matt Damon, the latter. I think the fact that Plummer is 80 years old, well-respected, and has no nominations is enough to get him into the field.
Woody Harrelson, Alfred Molina, and Matt Damon were the three men vying for my last three slots. Despite Globes and SAG snubs for Molina, I still feel confident that he can make it. Damon and Harrelson got the two nominations that Molina missed, so logic would probably say that they would be the two to fill the spots. But I just get the feeling that Damon will get in because of the one-two punch of “Invictus” and “The Informant!”
Best Supporting Actress
Mo’Nique, “Precious”
Anna Kendrick, “Up in the Air”
Julianne Moore, “A Single Man”
Vera Farmiga, “Up in the Air”
Penelope Cruz, “Nine”
No large change here. Mo’Nique is becoming quite the juggernaut, and unless she goes full Eddie Murphy, there’s no chance she loses it.
If she does go full Eddie, Anna Kendrick takes it. Her “Up in the Air” co-star, Vera Farmiga, takes over the fourth slot from Penelope Cruz. “Nine” love isn’t very strong, but she is the scene stealer. And she gets her picture here because she was too stunning not to feature.
Tarantino’s dialogue has won over the Academy once before, and I think he may do it again this year. He could be the new Woody Allen (for the Oscar voters) – just don’t tell him that I said that.
“A Serious Man” moves into the the nominees mainly because I can’t ponder hearing “Winner of One Oscar Nomination – BEST PICTURE.” I know it will happen eventually, but I don’t think it can the first year.
If “(500) Days of Summer” doesn’t get nominated here, I will hit something. It is too creative and brilliant to be ignored.
“Up in the Air” is still king here. Even if it doesn’t take Best Picture, I have a hard time seeing it losing this category.
“An Education” moves up despite missing out at the Golden Globes. There is a sizable British faction of the Academy, and they will see to it that he gets his just reward for this great screenplay. “Precious” moves down not only because of the Globes screenplay snub, but also because of a general loss of momentum.
“Invictus” gets a bump up mainly because “District 9” moves into the field as a wild-card contender. “Avatar” has probably dashed its hopes in the Best Picture field, so the Academy could reward it here. This was a well-scripted movie that scored with audiences and critics alike, and it deserves more than technical nominations that it is bound to lose to “Avatar.”
So, what are your thoughts? Am I crazy to still think “Up in the Air” will win Best Picture? Or that Jeff Bridges won’t win Best Actor? I’m dying to know what you think, so don’t hesitate to tell me!
I’ve held off as long as I could on issuing my predictions, but now I simply cannot wait. It is December and Oscar season is about to kick into high gear.
Don’t fret if you haven’t heard of some of these movies. You will soon. The National Board of Review, the first precursor that deserves to be taken seriously, issues its list this week. Critics circles from all over the country will begin to put forth their lists, and then we get the Golden Globe nominations on December 17th.
So, without further ado, here’s my first stab at predictions.
London Film Festival, 2013
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.
Are projectionists on the chopping block? 
We weren’t meant to have the power of pause, rewind, and fast-forward if you really think about it. When Thomas Edison invented the movies, he wasn’t foreseeing the invention of the BetaMax, the LaserDisc, the VCR, the DVD, the Blu-Ray Player, the free watching on Hulu, the iTunes rental, or the Netflix instant streaming. As far as I am concerned, the movie was never meant to leave the hands of the projectionist.
It’s a little tough for me to gauge how well the Academy did with this category because at this moment, I have only seen two of the five nominated performances. However, the two that I did see (Waltz and Damon) both made my list.
At the Screen Actors Guild Awards, they call it “Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role.” At the Golden Globe Awards, they call it “Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture.” But at the Academy Awards, the most celebrated show of them all, they call it simply “Best Actor.”
Best Picture
Best Director
Best Actor
Best Actress
Best Supporting Actor
Best Supporting Actress
Best Original Screenplay
Best Adapted Screenplay
I’ve held off as long as I could on issuing my predictions, but now I simply cannot wait. It is December and Oscar season is about to kick into high gear.
Marshall and the Movies 
Recent Comments