Peter Berg has a knack for directing blue collar dialogue in a convincing manner. For films like his 2013 survival drama “Lone Survivor,” such exchanges lent the film an authenticity and humanity before its Navy Seals face life-threatening trials. In Berg’s latest directorial outing, “Deepwater Horizon,” the commonplace banter feels more like a counterweight to some of the complex oil industry jargon taking place on a Gulf Coast rig.
For much of the film’s first 40 minutes, the screenplay from Matthew Sand and Matthew Michael Carnahan overloads with technical terms explaining the operations on the Deepwater Horizon. And even with blatant expository scenes, they still have to dole out some more details in subtitles. It’s wasted air space in the film, which foreshadows the well-known explosion with obvious harbingers of doom. Be it an exploding Coke at the home of protagonist Mike Williams (Mark Wahlberg) or a BP big wig wearing a tie in the color of their worst level alarm, there’s no denying what’s coming.
Berg sets up “Deepwater Horizon” as an disaster flick, yet he fouls up some key ratios in establishing tension and connection. His energy goes disproportionately to setting up the crisis (roughly 50 minutes), which in turn makes the escape (roughly 35-40 minutes) feels like getting short changed. There’s some decent tension as wounded crew members navigate their way through a literal enactment of the burning platform metaphor, but Berg undermines it with weak characterization and pointless cutaways to Kate Hudson as Mike’s grieving wife back at home.
The film takes an interesting turn in the coda where surviving workers from the Deepwater Horizon rig are greeted in their grief by robotic crisis management professionals. Rather than seeking to ease their pain and embrace the souls who survive, BP adds a thin coat of dehumanization on top of a devastating loss of human life by locking them away from the world in anonymous hotel rooms. These scenes of the battered, tattered employees struggling to cope with the events that just occurred frustratingly dangle the potential “Deepwater Horizon” had in front of us. Were the critique of corporate malfeasance not so toothless, or were the rising action of the film built around developed characters, this lack of resolution might really sting. Instead, it just replicates the numbness of the setting. C+ / 
Zach Braff’s “
Before I begin, let me give credit to Lisa Schwarzbaum at Entertainment Weekly for inspiring this post after 
Can December just get here already so I can see “Nine?”
This edition of “Oscar Moment” concerns one of the favorites since last year’s Oscars finished. People have huge expectations for “Nine,” and if it fails to live up to them, the repercussions could be disastrous. It has every reason to succeed, though, based on a pedigree so impressive that it could be never be matched again. It has been a favorite in the Oscar race ever since it was announced; however, at the time of this posting, it remains a wild card in the race because no one has seen the full film yet.
So if Cotillard goes lead, who will be the nominee(s) for Best Supporting Actress? Despite all the talent, history tells us that “Nine” will probably be limited to two nominees in the category. Only “Tom Jones” in 1963 managed to sneak in three women; that movie won 4 Oscars including Best Picture. More notable though is that it did not collect the statue for Best Supporting Actress. The loss is due to a familiar phenomenon: vote splitting. It is how “Dreamgirls” and “Enchanted” managed to lose Best Original Song. Voters want to reward the movie, but they can’t rally behind a single nominee and someone else wins. But luckily for “Nine,” Harvey Weinstein has played this game many times. My guess is that he will start campaigning all the actresses evenly, but as more reviews come in and people see the movie, he will push the clear favorite.
At this time, the favorite is unknown. But based on the Broadway productions of the musical, an educated guess can be formed. In the original Broadway production, the Tony Award winner for Best Featured Actress was Liliane Montevecchi for her portrayal of Lilliane, Guido’s producer. In the movie, Liliane will be played by Judi Dench, who won this category back in 1998 for playing Queen Elizabeth for all of six minutes in “Shakespeare in Love.” Dench also has 5 other nominations, only one of which came from the supporting category. However, the research I have done seems to suggest that Lilliane is not a very flashy role. She does not have a solo song, and even if she is an integral part of other numbers, that seems to suggests that she is more of a subtle presence than a central part of the plot. (This is my interpretation from three years of musical theater experience.)
The remaining prospects left to touch on are Sophia Loren, who plays Guido’s mother, and Nicole Kidman, who plays Claudia, the star of Guido’s new movie. Guido’s mother barely appears in the plot summary anywhere, so I can only see a nomination plausible for Loren if the Academy falls head over heels for “Nine” and nominates Loren for nostalgic purposes. Although I will say, Guido’s mother sings the titular track “Nine,” and it is the sweet thing that melts voters. Claudia, on the other hand, has several beautiful numbers with Guido. Nicole Kidman has shown her capability with handling musicals – in fact, it’s how she got her first Academy Award nomination. But as for being an audience or critical favorite, Claudia has seem to have fallen short on Broadway. The role was only nominated for one major award, the slightly less prestigious Drama Desk, during its two runs on the Great White Way. I am most excited to see how this story plays out; that is, if audiences treasure Kidman especially or if she plays second fiddle to the other actresses like on stage.
Marshall and the Movies 
Recent Comments