Much like the “Harry Potter” series, the final installment of “The Hunger Games” departs radically from the formula of all entries that came prior. “Mockingjay – Part 2” does not actually feature the Hunger Games themselves, the main event that involves children killing children to placate the masses of a dystopian future. Without this intense action set piece to which the story can build, everything else cannot help but feel like a bit of a letdown.
“Mockingjay,” for many fans of the series, represented the least of Suzanne Collins’ books. So, in a sense, it is not terribly surprising that “The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 2” ends on a similarly underwhelming note. But even that is unlikely to put a damper on what will surely be one of the highest grossing films of the year; the four-year relationship Jennifer Lawrence built between viewers and her Katniss Everdeen is truly remarkable.
Without the games, “Mockingjay – Part 2” seems rather confused as to what kind of movie it wants to be. Some aspects of political semantic games and propaganda messaging remain from Part 1, primarily at the outset. These leftovers just further serve to reinforce the sense that a two-part finale was an unnecessary protraction of events.
As I watched the climax of “The Hunger Games” series, my mind drifted away from the action on screen thanks to the presence of a fairly blatantly digitized Philip Seymour Hoffman. The resemblance was uncanny, sure, but everything about his facial expressions and mannerisms were wrong.
These pixels, as directed by someone behind a computer, went for obvious. Hoffman never went for what was expected. He always mined the ugliest parts of the soul and dredged up compellingly raw responses.
It’s a pity that he only got one chance to step behind the camera because it really showed a more sensitive, tender side than we ever saw from him. “Jack Goes Boating,” the directorial debut of Philip Seymour Hoffman, is a film of simplicity. Yet in the absence of complication comes a rushing of heart in this wonderfully touching love story.
Hoffman stars as Jack, a socially awkward but good-natured limousine driver. He’s not necessarily looking for romance, but his co-worker Clyde (John Ortiz) tries to set him up with someone. That person is Amy Ryan’s Connie, a similarly sweet woman who stands as her own greatest obstacle. (Meanwhile, little does Clyde know that trying to facilitate one relationship will put the one with his wife under duress.)
Don’t expect fireworks or cinematic bravura from “Jack Goes Boating,” but anticipate feeling unexpectedly moved as these two battered souls make their best attempt at love. Hoffman and Ryan are wholly affecting as they struggle to overcome their own personalities to make the impression and connection they so desire. It’s a real shame we did not get to see more of this vulnerable, lovable and embraceable Philip Seymour Hoffman in his all too brief lifetime.
Unlike the “Harry Potter” finale, which ran over 800 pages in length, the last installment of “The Hunger Games” probably did not necessitate a two-part cinematic conclusion. But alas, the filmmaking team thought they could find enough action in the story, and the Lionsgate executives had confidence that they could market two films. So now, audiences are stuck with “The Hunger Games: Mockingjay, Part 1.”
Though the film runs a full 30 minutes shorter than both its predecessors, it feels significantly longer. Jennifer Lawrence, Julianne Moore, and Philip Seymour Hoffman (in his penultimate role) do bring an aura of prestige to the relatively calm proceedings, yet that is not enough to boost the low energy that plagues the first half of “Mockingjay.” While there is a thrilling final rescue scene and one quasi-action sequence in the middle, the inside baseball of Panem politics occupies the majority of the two hours.
Perhaps “Mockingjay” could inspire the next generation of political publicists, a prospect simultaneously encouraging and frightening. The film offers an introductory course to how semantics, misinformation, and outright propagandizing can be used by governments as well as social movements to recruit followers and repel criticisms. The overarching lesson of “Mockingjay” may very well be that the camera is mightier than the sword.
Director Anton Corbijn came into film through photography, a background which makes itself quite evident in “A Most Wanted Man.” There’s a certain placidity and patience in the proceedings that seem to bear the mark of a photographer’s cool distance.
Corbijn’s perspective gives this adaptation of John Le Carre (the mind who gave us “The Constant Gardener” and “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy“) a distinct flavor, one that adds rather than detracts from the mix. Though this spy film tackles counterterrorism, it lacks a definite endgame like “Zero Dark Thirty” had to push it along. Instead, the focus is on the seemingly never-ending process of apprehending terrorists, not the final product of those efforts.
The calm collectedness and careful restraint of Corbijn does a great job highlighting the grimy, laborious legwork done by a Hamburg, Germany intel unit headed up by Philip Seymour Hoffman’s Günther Bachmann. He has a knack for foresight and playing the long game, two traits that put him at odds with the more impetuous, results-driven German intelligence community (not to mention the American embassy, represented by Robin Wright’s ambassador Martha Sullivan).
Bachmann quietly enters the fray to handle the curious case of a Chechen, Issa Karpov, who washes up in Hamburg and enters the city’s network of Muslim terrorist cells. His approach is to use this refugee as a pawn to gain access to the real power players and continue working up the chain. Along the way, Bachmann must join forces some unwilling participants, including a shady banker (Willem Dafoe’s Tommy Brue) and a lawyer who provides counsel for terrorists (Rachel McAdams’ Annabel Richter).
“A Most Wanted Man” does drag on occasion, but it’s consistently interesting thanks to the way Corbijn’s direction allows us to savor the careful maneuvers of counterintelligence chess. While the film might be a little less ostensibly artistic than his last outing, 2010’s “The American,” Corbijn’s chosen aesthetic for the piece suits the highly-plotted story quite well. It also allows Philip Seymour Hoffman, in what will sadly be his last leading role, to quietly show his mastery over the craft of acting one final time. B /
Musical theatre thrives on the creative sparks of others. Not to diminish the many accomplishments of that art form, but in recent years, just about everything has been an adaptation. (Except “The Book of Mormon” – you go Trey Parker and Matt Stone!) Many have been taken from books, but recently, the trend has become to adapt films onto the stage.
One of the greatest advances has been the invention of the “jukebox musical,” where a story forms around immediately recognizable music, whether a fictional tale like “Mamma Mia!” or a biographical one such as “Jersey Boys.” (It also gave us “Rock of Ages,” but we can pretend it didn’t.)
Before you ask, no, “Pirate Radio” is not an adaptation of a Broadway or a West End musical. There’s plenty of music, but the record player does all the singing. However, I felt that while watching Richard Curtis’ film, it was practically BEGGING to be staged as piece of musical theatre. The music is phenomenal, and there’s so much capability for it to define a generation – because it does.
The story of the film isn’t all that interesting: banned from playing rock and roll on normal British airwaves, a group of rebels broadcast it in international waters. The gang is full of eclectic types, ranging from characters played by Philip Seymour Hoffman and Bill Nighy to then unknown Chris O’Dowd (the cop from “Bridesmaids“). There’s little character or story development, and when the boat finds itself in peril, I could have cared less what happened to whom. Not to mention that it feels interminable even at 20 minutes shorter runtime from its British release under the name “The Boat That Rocked.”
But with some slight tweaking of the story – a little bit less of the people on the boat, a little bit more of the people on land, the same amount of the government censors led by an uptight Kenneth Branagh – “Pirate Radio” could actually play quite well on stage given the caliber of music. Think about it … and I’d like to request royalties if it happens because of this review. C /
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!
It has been a very long time since cinema has been graced with anything quite like “The Master.” Everyone must concede that whether or not Paul Thomas Anderson’s latest film works for them on a personal level, as a piece of cinematic art, it is one of the few films of our time that deserves to be called truly iconoclastic. It answers to no man, no convention, and no expectation. It boldly sets sail into uncharted waters, and even if that ride isn’t one of unparalleled brilliance, it’s one of true unfamiliarity.
If you are looking for the film to entertain, you’re likely to find yourself disappointed. “The Master” is an extremely challenging watch, particularly on a first viewing when you expect to feel the plot building towards some sort of a decisive climax. It really doesn’t. Anderson, who writes all the films he directs, takes a very unique approach to this story by really just letting the characters marinate on screen. They have very little forward momentum and just seem to sort of let themselves be blown around by the wind.
Which means that if you want to enjoy “The Master,” or get anything out of it, you are going to have to engage with it on a much deeper level. Namely, I highly recommend that to even begin to extrapolate some meaning from it, you need to see it twice. You are going to have some snap judgements on the film that may be incorrect due to the assumptions and the expectations you carried in with you. Absorb the basic chain of events, ruminate on them for a little while, and then go back. Without worrying about the outcome of events, you’ll be able to start seeing how many levels Anderson’s script is working on.
It’s never too early to start guessing, right? With Cannes yielding little to start Oscar conversation, the pressure is on for the fall to deliver in a big way. Film festivals in Venice, Toronto, and Telluride will begin to churn out candidates and weed out pretenders in just a few weeks now. Then a number of big-name films that forewent the festival circuit will have to face the gauntlet of critics and audiences. By the time the year-end lists start rolling off the presses, the game will be predictable and boring. So let’s speculate now while it’s still fun and actually involves educated guessing!
UPDATE 8/6: I can’t let these picks become dated within hours of them being posted, so I’ve replaced my predictions that included “The Great Gatsby.”
Best Picture:
The Master
Les Miserables
Lincoln
Life of Pi
Django Unchained
Beasts of the Southern Wild
Moonrise Kingdom
Argo
The Great GatsbyZero Dark Thirty
The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel
“The Master” just seems like the movie of the year to me from this distance. Tom Cruise has seen the movie and HATES it, that’s enough for me. If the movie is really going to take on Scientology, it could really be a pop culture centerpiece for the fall.
Starring Joaquin Phoenix returning from his bizarre performance art stunt in “I’m Still Here,” Philip Seymour Hoffman fresh off two major supporting roles in Oscar-nominated films in 2011, and three-time Best Supporting Actress bridesmaid Amy Adams, it could certainly be a force to reckon with in the acting categories. It’s also a period piece that could register impressively in the technical categories.
Oh, and it’s written and directed by Paul Thomas Anderson. In the ’90s, his films “Boogie Nights” and “Magnolia” each scored him a Best Original Screenplay nomination. In 2007, “There Will Be Blood” scored him nominations for writing, directing, and producing since the film was up for Best Picture. The argument will be made – convincingly by the Weinstein Company, no less – that Anderson’s time has come.
Indeed, it has. The narrative is in place. It can easily score over 10 nominations and march towards victory. The film just needs to not suck. And according to people at the first public showing on Friday (a surprise screening after a showing of “The Shining” in Los Angeles), it doesn’t suck. It’s awesome.
Though of course, that path won’t be uncontested. However, three out of the last five Best Picture winners – “No Country for Old Men,” “Slumdog Millionaire,” and “The Artist” – asserted their dominance from the beginning of the season and never looked back. So who knows?! As the triumph of “The King’s Speech” showed us in 2010, Oscar bait isn’t dead. In fact, it’s thriving … and there is still a big portion of the Academy that succumbs to it.
In 2011, “War Horse” and “Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close” both cracked the Best Picture field despite facing a number of harsh critics and tepid response from other industry groups. Nonetheless, the Academy likes what it likes and refuses to apologize for it. So I doubt they will think twice about nominating “Les Miserables” for Best Picture. The Tony Award-winning musical has everything that could possibly ever appeal to an Academy member: drama, emotion, catharsis, noble prostitutes, solid acting, historical setting, impressive craftwork … and it’s directed by Tom Hooper, the man who made them feel so good they gave him Best Director for a movie that required very little directing.
Granted, everyone thought “Chicago” was going to usher in a new Renaissance for American film adaptations of musical theater. While the Golden Globes seem to be relishing in all the musicals, the Academy has ignored “The Phantom of the Opera,” “The Producers,” “Dreamgirls,” “Hairspray,” “Sweeney Todd,” “Mamma Mia,” and “Nine” (all of which were Best Picture nominees in the Musical/Comedy field for HFPA).
“Dreamgirls” was even being tipped to win in 2006 and was a surprise snub on nomination morning (“Nine” could also have cracked the field in 2009). So musicals are still iffy, but “Les Miserables” is in a league of its own. Those other musicals are nice, but none are based on a Victor Hugo novel. The story is made to win awards.
Also falling in the bait category is Steven Spielberg’s “Lincoln,” starring Daniel Day-Lewis as one of America’s greatest presidents. Spielberg’s films since “Schindler’s List” have practically all been presumptive frontrunners, yet “Saving Private Ryan” is his only film afterwards to win an Oscar. “Munich” and “War Horse” have both slid in on residual respect, but how far does that go? Do they still owe a man who has won Best Director twice? Helmed eight Best Picture nominees?
The same questions can be asked of Day-Lewis, who clearly has a ton of respect as shown by his two Best Actor trophies. However, the Academy felt no shame in shutting him out of the 2009 Best Actor race in favor of first-time nominee Jeremy Renner. Granted, Renner’s “The Hurt Locker” was worlds better than Day-Lewis’ “Nine,” but it’s still fair to wonder if the Academy is done with him like they are done with Clint Eastwood. Unless you are Meryl Streep or Jack Nicholson (or John Williams), two is basically the magic number.
People have been raving about Ang Lee’s “Life of Pi” since its presentation of footage at CinemaCon back in the spring, and I think the coupling of a respected, Oscar-winning director tackling 3D will be the “Hugo” of 2012. It will also probably score no acting nominations and plenty of tech nods like Scorsese’s 5-time winner from last year.
Beyond those four heavy-hitters, it’s anyone’s guess. Perhaps I guessed the overdue writer/director incorrectly, and the Academy will choose to fete Quentin Tarantino for “Django Unchained.” People counted out “Inglourious Basterds,” and it wound up with eight nominations.
“Beasts of the Southern Wild” has certainly proven to be the art-house hit of the year, winning major prizes at Sundance and Cannes, stealing critics’ hearts, and racking up enough money to where it can’t be dismissed as totally esoteric. There’s certainly precedent for a summer indie favorite to sneak into the Best Picture field – “Winter’s Bone” in 2010 and “The Tree of Life” in 2011. It will need the critics groups to come out in favor for it in a big way or the pint-sized star Quvenzhané Wallis to be a unanimous and strong first-choice in the Best Actress race.
Some people think the inclusion of “Beasts” might leave out the other summer indie sleeper hit, “Moonrise Kingdom.” To that I say, look to last year when “Midnight in Paris,” a funny crowd-pleaser, cracked the same field with “The Tree of Life.” I think the Academy could decide the time is here to honor Wes Anderson’s peculiar gifts. If they could accept “Little Miss Sunshine” and “Juno,” I see no reason why “Moonrise Kingdom” couldn’t be a Best Picture nominee.
“Argo” could also be a sleeper to watch in this race. Ben Affleck’s directorial skills are definitely improving with each movie, and his last film, “The Town,” was definitely just on the outside looking in at the 2010 Best Picture field. Could getting out of his native country of Boston put him in the race this time? We’ll know after its Toronto premiere.
Baz Luhrmannn’s singular work “Moulin Rouge” tickled the Academy’s fancy in 2001. His 2008 “Australia,” a more refined, baity piece, only netted a Best Costume Design nomination. Which will his adaptation of “The Great Gatsby” be? My gut says a hit like “Moulin Rouge” because I’m so in love with the source material, but that love could be blinding me. This will either be a big hit or a big flop.
And who knows if the Academy field will extend to ten this year, but I’ll go ahead and predict ten. Could lighting strike for the fourth time for Peter Jackson with “The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey?” Will “Hyde Park on Hudson” be more than just a feel-good biopic? Can Christopher Nolan’s “The Dark Knight Rises” finally get the franchise the recognition it deserves?
These are big “if”s, so I’m just going to choose safe (because my wild-card predictions in years past have spawned picks of “It’s Complicated” and “Never Let Me Go”) and predict Kathryn Bigelow’s “Zero Dark Thirty.” It could be bold, daring, and thrilling if it succeeds. The expectations will be high since the production has been so guarded. But if it works, it could be a major player.
And for the hell of it, why not say that the decidedly middling “The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel” becomes the low-brow film that makes the cut and makes me curse the Academy once more. Read the rest of this entry »
Actually, YES, her again. Meryl Streep won her third Oscar last week, and while many (including myself) were a little upset because we were hoping Viola Davis would pull out a historic Best Actress win, it’s reason for celebration. She’s the greatest living actress, and I think few would dispute that claim. The way she gracefully and naturally inhabits any character she chooses to play is astounding. “Doubt,” my choice for the “F.I.L.M. of the Week,” is no exception. It was Oscar nominations all around for everyone in the cast including Streep, who received her fifteenth Oscar nomination for the role back in 2008.
John Patrick Shanley’s film, adapted from his own Tony Award and Pulitzer Prize winning play, explores a host of complicated moral and theological dilemmas in the wake of a potential priest-child sex scandal. Streep’s Sister Aloysisus becomes convinced that Father Flynn, played with a fiercely tenacious resolve by Philip Seymour Hoffman, has committed a vast wrongdoing despite having no proof. Her basis for such grave accusations are the suspicions of the naive Sister James (Amy Adams), who merely makes observations and leaves Aloysisus to construe her own meaning from them.
What results is nothing less than an acting battle between some of the best players in the game. They debate race, gender, sexuality, submission, and authority with such high stakes that you can’t help but be totally drawn into the conversation. No one would accuse Streep or Hoffman as giving constrained performances in the film, but “Doubt” hardly devolves into a shouting match as it easily could have. Rather, the dialectic struggles are only enhanced by the loudness of their voices. Adams, meanwhile, plays her typecast airhead role so well yet with a remarkably enhanced bravura. She really nails the loss of innocence arc that so often devolves into senseless banality. Davis is phenomenal as well in a single scene that packs more punch than many actresses can in an entire movie.
Hopefully Adams and Davis aren’t too far off from finally winning the Oscar that has eluded them for the past few years; Streep can now sit back and enjoy the ride; Hoffman is probably due for a second trophy at some point. So while we wait for the next Oscars, we can relish in movies like “Doubt” where four great actors act with so much intensity that the frame can barely support it.
The sports movie is in a rut, I’ll just go ahead and say it. When movies like “Warrior” receives almost unanimous acclaim and “The Blind Side” can get a Best Picture nomination, the genre is in need of an influx of creativity and ingenuity. And what better movie to do that than Bennett Miller’s “Moneyball,” a movie that is actually about creativity and ingenuity?
Miller, along with screenwriters Aaron Sorkin and Steven Zaillian, pulls off a feat not unlike that accomplished by Billy Beane and the Oakland A’s: working within the framework of a failing system, they employ clever cinematic maneuvering and ingenuous thinking to create a fantastic societal and self-examination. Michael Lewis’ non-fiction tome is about putting the brains back in the business of sports; Miller’s film is about one man trying to find his heart again in sports by using math as a means to achieve his long-sought satisfaction. It may be that “Moneyball” uses sports only as a backdrop for its deeper, probing questions, something that wouldn’t be entirely uncharacteristic of Sorkin, who just last year won an Oscar for using the rise of Facebook in “The Social Network” as a setting for an exploration of modern power, greed, and friendship.
So while sports fans may be disappointed that “Moneyball” is not a sports movie but rather a movie about sports, Hollywood will no doubt continue to spit out run-of-the-mill, color-by-numbers inspirational movies for them. Everyone else, on the other hand, can marvel at a movie about athletic competition that doesn’t teach us the hackneyed values of the triumph of individual will over adversity. While glorifying impressive human achievement makes us feel good, Sorkin doesn’t indulge us in such escapism. In 2011, we must face the fact that we don’t always win, the system may overpower even the most brilliant of ideas, and satisfaction isn’t just a win or a loss away.
George Clooney’s “The Ides of March” makes plenty of references to the brokenness of the American political system, something you can observe by merely turning on the news nowadays. But perhaps the most problematic indicator of the nation’s shortcomings is how easily the film can be read as a black comedy. Clooney and co-writer Grant Heslov’s script is chock full of cruel ironies, many of which are veiled references to various political scandals. And the very liberal Clooney is all too happy to throw Bill Clinton, and to some extent, Barack Obama, under the bus.
In an era where Congressmen send lewd pictures over Twitter, governors have foreign mistresses, and presidents act improperly with interns, is it possible that we’ve become so desensitized to scandal that we have just accepted that the system will fail us? “The Ides of March,” with its grandiose plot of political intrigue, seems to imply yes by the lengths it has to go to shock us. And in 2011, when public opinion seems to have turned against the establishment, this may be the movie people watch in the future to see American disillusionment and the failure of Obama’s hope and change rhetoric.
I don’t quite know what inspired me to watch “25th Hour” recently, but I’m certainly glad that I did. Spike Lee’s 2002 film about the heavy weight of the past and the future that we carry around in the present got little attention at the time, but over time, it has gained some passionate backers, namely Roger Ebert. That inspired me to check the movie out, and while I don’t think it’s one of my favorites of the decade, it’s good enough to qualify as a “F.I.L.M. of the Week.”
David Benioff’s script captures a day of solemn importance in the life of Montgomery “Monty” Brogan, played with typical excellence by Edward Norton. We follow Monty in the last 24 hours before he must head up to prison to serve a 7 year sentence for dealing drugs. He is remorseful for his past, apprehensive for his future, and filled with anger and hatred in the moment. As he spends a day in a sort of purgatory state, we see the uneasy state of his relationships with his friends (Philip Seymour Hoffman and Barry Pepper) and girlfriend (Rosario Dawson) as they all offer a sort of false optimism.
While this story is quite limited, what makes “25th Hour” such an interesting film (and one that I suspect will be increasingly viewed as a reference for future generations) is how poetically Spike Lee juxtaposes Monty’s biography with the larger tale of society, here post-9/11 New York City. After the film’s prologue, Lee rolls the opening credits over various takes of the two bright beams of light shining to the heavens from Ground Zero. Much like Monty, the site is a reminder of the emptiness of that day, while the lights represent a brighter future that can still be rebuilt once the ashes are removed.
In perhaps the film’s most memorable scene, Lee employs a sort of Allen Ginsberg-meets-NWA rhythmic lyricism to express the pent-up rage that many New Yorkers felt in the wake of the tragedy. It’s an unsettling, no-holds-barred diatribe against the city and everyone in it, and a man like Monty about to lose everything is the perfect person to deliver it. Yet “25th Hour” is not just a movie of anger; indeed, Lee, ever the New York filmmaker, makes his movie an admiring tribute to the city’s strength and perseverance. Even as Monty heads off to the pen, there’s a smiling child on the bus in the next lane willing to smile at him.
It’s the one-year anniversary of the “F.I.L.M. of the Week” column! I thought the best way to celebrate that milestone would be by featuring one of my-all time favorites, “Almost Famous.” It’s not exactly little known given its pretty devoted following and its awards season haul, which included an Oscar for Best Original Screenplay and a Golden Globe for Best Picture. Although it was criminally snubbed by the Academy for a shot at the top prize, it is still more than worth your time.
The movie, written by director Cameron Crowe, is semi-autobiographical. As a teenager, he wrote for Rolling Stone and had the pleasure of touring with bands like Led Zeppelin, The Eagles, and Lynyrd Skynyrd. Jealous, anyone?
Young William Miller (Patrick Fugit) discovers music after his rebellious sister (Zooey Deschanel) flees the tyrannical reign of their mother, the strict fundamentalist Elaine, played with brilliant propriety by Frances McDormand. As a young boy, Elaine thought her son to be so smart that she moved him up two grades in school, thus socially crippling him. His sister leaves behind a giant record collection, and William’s obsession with music begins.
Not unlike myself, he begins writing about his passion. We differentiate, however, in the fact that William’s work gets picked up by Rolling Stone. The industry-leading magazine asks him to follow Stillwater, an up-and-coming rock band, on their tour and write an article on them. He meets an interesting crowd aside from the band, who are always skeptical of his intentions, particularly lead singer Jeff Bebe (Jason Lee).
The most intriguing figure by far and away is the so-called Penny Lane (Kate Hudson), whose name, age, and intentions are always clouded in mystery. Penny is a different kind of groupie, offering herself to help the band more as a muse to inspire artistic inspiration than to satisfy lustful desires. She and William, both in their teen years, form a very interesting relationship while on the road. Hudson, only 21 at the time of the movie’s release, gives an absolutely masterful performance, and her virtuoso turn is only made more astonishing by her age.
But the movie’s real heart and soul comes from William’s friendship with guitarist Russell Hammond (Billy Crudup). It is he who teaches the young journalist to enjoy the ride and love every minute of being able to do what you love. Indeed, we watch “Almost Famous” with the same sense of wide-eyed wonder of William on the road, and the movie is an exciting experience that inspires our own fantasies of living out a childhood dream. Even if that doesn’t involve music, Crowe’s true masterstroke will still be able to delight your latent aspirations.
I had always been interested in seeing “Boogie Nights.” And for those of you who happen to know the film’s subject matter, no, it’s not because I wanted to see certain things. Released in 1997, the movie features plenty of today’s stars long before they had the luster and prestige their names bear now. Five members of the ensemble have since been nominated for Oscars, and an actor who wasn’t even given top billing has even won an Oscar.
In an effort to see some of Julianne Moore’s finest roles, I decided it was time to watch Paul Thomas Anderson’s Academy Award-nominated second feature. The movie was her breakout, earning her notices from everyone, including the first of her four Oscar nominations. But it’s not just to feature her that “Boogie Nights” is my “F.I.L.M. of the Week;” the entire ensemble shines in a true work of artistry by Anderson.
I can’t dance around the topic any longer – this is a movie about the adult entertainment industry, in Los Angeles during the ’70s and ’80s. Director Jack Horner is looking for an actor to build an empire around, someone who can do more than just look good. He finds just that in Eddie Adams, a young nightclub employee with talents that Horner seeks. Changing his name to Dirk Diggler, Horner’s discovery becomes the star he always dreamed of.
But the bigger Diggler’s star becomes, the closer he moves towards becoming a supernova. His fame has made him violently angry and cocky. He has also spiraled into severe drug abuse and addiction. Soon enough, he finds that his greatest asset for his job doesn’t function the way he wants. Diggler slowly drops towards rock bottom, and thanks to a strong performance by Mark Wahlberg, it’s a gripping journey to watch. See, the stories of fame in the adult film industry are no different than any other entertainment industry.
As I said earlier, there is quite the ensemble at work here, including John C. Reilly, Don Cheadle, and William H. Macy as members of Diggler’s posse. It’s quite fun to see them in their younger years, just getting started in Hollywood. He was leagues away from stardom at the time, but a definite standout is Philip Seymour Hoffman as a crew member infatuated with Diggler. He plays an unsettling character, and it’s nailed with the precision we now regularly associate with Hoffman.
The women are great, too. Heather Graham, who most people don’t take seriously, is seriously brilliant as Rollergirl, an actress who does all her movies wearing rollerskates. Anderson wrote the character with great depth, exploring her insecurities and weaknesses. Graham goes there with him, truly shocking us not only by how good she is but how far she is willing to take her character. And then there’s Julianne Moore, who entered mainstream consciousness for her portrayal of Amber Waves. She acts as a mother figure to Diggler, yet at the same time, she finds herself very attracted to him. Moore can play both objectives well, but she’s at her best when they clash.
In only his second movie, Paul Thomas Anderson handles “Boogie Nights” with the precision of a Martin Scorsese or Quentin Tarantino, sharing the former’s knack for great camerawork and the latter’s ability to select great music. Now that I’ve seen this, I have to wonder why I like his later movies so much less.
It’s so hard to find a good “dramedy” nowadays. Most films that are generally considered to fall into this category are heavily imbalanced, never giving a fairly even mix. But my quest to see all of the Academy Award-nominated performances of the past decade led me to check out “The Savages,” Tamara Jenkin’s beautifully bittersweet dramedy, and it hit the sweet spot. In fact, it hit so sweetly that it became my “F.I.L.M. of the Week.”
“The Savages” opens with an elderly man (Philip Bosco) writing on a bathroom wall with his own feces. This event sparks his two estranged children to move him into an assisted living center. And then the fun begins.
The two siblings, played by Laura Linney and Philip Seymour Hoffman, have plenty on their plates as it is. Linney’s Wendy Savage is a wreck, caught in a dead-end affair with her married neighbor and trying to move out of the monotony of temping to achieve her dream of become a playwright. Hoffman’s Jon Savage teaches the works of the playwright Bertol Brecht to a nonplussed collegiate audience while never mustering up the energy to write his book. They remained isolated from each other – and practically from the world as well.
Yet in spite of themselves, they do what is required of them to take care of their ailing father. As the movie unravels, there is something harder in making the sacrifices in their own lives for Wendy and Jon. The effects of their father’s upbringing has left them both in a sorry state, and it proves near impossible for them to leave their grudges at the door. It’s Wendy, though, who finds it most difficult to cope; her antics range from questionably procuring money from FEMA to stealing painkillers from the deceased.
If I had to classify “The Savages” as either a comedy or a drama, I’d reluctantly say a dark comedy. There’s plenty to laugh at, but there’s plenty to cringe at as well. It’s a little bleak for a comedy, but Tamara Jenkins’ unsparing honesty and commitment to the emotional development of her characters is worth the pain. Linney and Hoffman are fantastic as usual, Linney showing us why she earned an Academy Award nomination for her role and Hoffman giving us reason to call his omission a snub. Be prepared to be floored not just by them, but by the movie as a whole.
As I watched the climax of “The Hunger Games” series, my mind drifted away from the action on screen thanks to the presence of a fairly blatantly digitized Philip Seymour Hoffman. The resemblance was uncanny, sure, but everything about his facial expressions and mannerisms were wrong.
Director Anton Corbijn came into film through photography, a background which makes itself quite evident in “
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.
It has been a very long time since cinema has been graced with anything quite like “
“The Master” just seems like the movie of the year to me from this distance. Tom Cruise has seen the movie and HATES it, that’s enough for me. If the movie is really going to take on Scientology, it could really be a pop culture centerpiece for the fall.
So I doubt they will think twice about nominating “Les Miserables” for Best Picture. The Tony Award-winning musical has everything that could possibly ever appeal to an Academy member: drama, emotion, catharsis, noble prostitutes, solid acting, historical setting, impressive craftwork … and it’s directed by Tom Hooper, the man who made them feel so good they gave him Best Director for a movie that required very little directing..jpg)
People have been raving about Ang Lee’s “Life of Pi” since its presentation of footage at CinemaCon back in the spring, and I think the coupling of a respected, Oscar-winning director tackling 3D will be the “
George Clooney’s “
Marshall and the Movies 
Recent Comments