Brian's Film Review Blog

Golden Globes Winners and Nominees

2012-01-16T11:14:00.000-05:00

January 16, 2012

Sure, what I'm about to do is a little strange. I'm about to post the winners of the Golden Globes on my blog before watching them. Also, as I write this sentence, I do not know who the winners are. I have the winners page ready to be looked at, but I haven't looked at it yet. Here's the thing. I told someone that I'd definitely post the winners this morning, which is totally fine with me. I'm sick this weekend, and trying to recover, so unfortunately, I had to sleep through the Golden Globes. I DVR'd it, so I will watch it sometime today. Therefore, I know nothing about any speeches made or any antics which occurred. That will be the surprise I look forward to when watching the awards. As for the winners, I'll already know...but that's okay. I really want to know them right away anyway. Awards shows are just pageantry. It's the awards themselves that matter for me.

By the way, even if the planet Melancholia was about to kill me, I would watch the Oscars live. I don't care how sick I am. The Golden Globes are...well...The Golden Globes. Comparing the Oscars and the Golden Globes are like comparing apples and the Kardashians regarding importance.

What I will do is give my initial reaction to the winners right now, since I haven't watched the show or seen any feedback from anyone.

Here are the nominees and winners:

Best Motion Picture- Drama
Winner- The Descendants
Other nominees:
The Help
Hugo
The Ides of March
Moneyball
War Horse

My take: I've seen The Descendants, The Help, The Ides of March and Moneyball. Out of those four, my favorite is The Ides of March and my least favorite is The Help. Moneyball is second and The Descendants is third. I really didn't like The Descendants. I found Payne's insistence on sarcastic humor off-putting regarding the fact that he also wants to imbue true moments of insight and profundity. I also didn't believe in the specific journey within the film. I'm pretty alone in my dislike for the film, but as long as The Help didn't win, I'm feeling okay. I also think Clooney was excellent in it! Speaking of which, I think The Ides of March is very good, but I don't think it deserves a Best Picture win (or even a Best Picture Oscar nomination for that matter). Therefore, I'm really looking forward to seeing Hugo and War Horse to see if there's a film that clearly deserved to win. If not, then I'm pretty nonplussed by the victor in this category.

Best Motion Picture- Musical or Comedy
Winner- The Artist
Other nominees:
Bridesmaids
50/50
Midnight in Paris
My Week with Marilyn

My take: I've seen all of these films except My Week with Marilyn. I really loved both The Artist and Midnight in Paris almost equally, so I'm totally pleased (and not at all surprised) that The Artist won. I really enjoyed Bridesmaids, but it's a step or two below the other two. 50/50 did work for me, but it's perhaps a step or two below Bridesmaids. Overall, nice job HFPA (Hollywood Foreign Press Association)!

Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture- Drama
Winner- George Clooney- The Descendants
Other nominees:
Leonardo DiCaprio- J. Edgar
Michael Fassbender- Shame
Ryan Gosling- The Ides of March
Brad Pitt- Moneyball

My take: I've seen Clooney, Gosling and Pitt. I think Pitt maybe deserved it a little more, just because I really don't like Pitt, but he was fantastic in Moneyball. Clooney, whom I like more than Pitt as an actor, was also fantastic in The Descendants, so I'm really fine with his win. Gosling was one of the weaker aspects of Ides of March so I'm happy he didn't win. I'm looking forward to seeing DiCaprio and especially Fassbender. I hear Fassbender's excellent!

Best Performance by an Actress in a Motion Picture- Drama
Winner- Meryl Streep- The Iron Lady
Other nominees:
Glenn Close- Albert Nobbs
Viola Davis- The Help
Rooney Mara- The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
Tilda Swinton- We Need to Talk About Kevin

My take: I've only seen Davis in The Help. Davis was spectacular in that film, but I'm kind of okay she didn't win because any (no pun intended) help for that film is another step to that atrocious film winning the Best Picture Oscar. I want to make it clear, though, Davis is just amazing in The Help, and if she wins the Oscar, I'll be very happy. I can't wait to see the other four performances. I've been saying for a while that it will take something pretty extraordinary for Streep to win another Oscar. She'll be nominated until she's dead, but it'll be hard for her to win since she's almost always deserving of winning every year. Therefore, her talent is her own worst enemy. I don't think she'll win the Oscar at this point, but it's definitely a real possibility now. Therefore, I really can't wait to see The Iron Lady.

Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture- Musical or Comedy
Winner- Jean Dujardin- The Artist
Other nominees:
Brendan Gleeson- The Guard
Joseph Gordon-Levitt- 50/50
Ryan Gosling- Crazy, Stupid, Love
Owen Wilson- Midnight in Paris

My take: Haven't seen Gleeson or Gosling yet, and Levitt was good at times in 50/50, though, in general, I think he's still growing as an actor. He hasn't won me over in general quite yet, but I think he'll get there. I thought Owen Wilson was tremendous in Midnight in Paris. He absolutely deserves an Oscar nomination, and he should be one of the front runners. His performance is the most underrated of the year. That being said, Dujardin will be nominated for an Oscar and will be one of the front runners, AND HE ABSOLUTELY DESERVES IT! I hate to abandon my campaign for a Wilson Oscar nomination for a second, but I will. Dujardin gives the male leading performance of the year out of those I've seen. He deserves to win this award. There are a few more performances I need to see before I actually call his performance the best leading male performance of the year, but he's close to perfect in The Artist.

Best Performance by an Actress in a Motion Picture- Musical or Comedy
Winner: Michelle Williams- My Week with Marilyn
Other nominees:
Jodie Foster- Carnage
Charlize Theron- Young Adult
Kristen Wiig- Bridesmaids
Kate Winslet- Carnage

My take: I've only seen Wiig, and I loved her performance. I'd love to see her get an Oscar nomination, though I don't see that happening at this point. Can't say I'm the biggest Theron fan, but I hear she's great in Young Adult. Otherwise, I ADORE Williams, Foster and Winslet. I can't wait to see all three films in this category which I haven't yet checked out.

Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role in a Motion Picture
Winner: Christopher Plummer- Beginners
Other nominees:
Kenneth Branagh- My Week with Marilyn
Albert Brooks- Drive
Jonah Hill- Moneyball
Viggo Mortensen- A Dangerous Method

My take: I've only seen Hill, and I wasn't impressed. Good for Christopher Plummer! If he wins the Oscar, which I think he very well might, that'll be great to see. I've heard him referred to as the most talented living actor who has never won an Oscar. Can't wait to see Beginners (and the other three films nominated as well, especially Drive).

Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role- Musical or Comedy
Winner- Octavia Spencer- The Help
Other nominees:
Berenice Bejo- The Artist
Jessica Chastain- The Help
Janet McTeer- Albert Nobbs
Shailene Woodley- The Descendants

My take: NO NO NO NO NO!!!! I really can't stand The Help, and I thought Spencer's performance was totally over the top and added to my dislike of the film. Chastain didn't register to me much either way, so I'm glad she didn't win, and Woodley's performance was one I didn't really like in a film I really didn't like. Haven't seen McTeer, but I have seen Bejo, and that's who deserved to win! Bejo was radiant on screen! NO NO NO NOOOO!!!!

Best Director- Motion Picture
Martin Scorsese- Hugo
Other nominees:
Woody Allen- Midnight in Paris
George Clooney- The Ides of March
Michel Hazanavicius- The Artist
Alexander Payne- The Descendants

My take: The only film I haven't seen is the one that won. I'm not kidding when I say that Hugo is the film I am most excited to see. If I weren't sick right now, I'd go out and see it right now. Therefore, I believe it could be the best directed film of the year, but I don't know. Also, am I not mistaken, but isn't Scorsese's win a bit of a surprise? I wouldn't have thought of him as a favorite in this category. I would have thought Payne was the favorite with Hazanavicius as the other favorite. I think The Artist is gorgeous, but, since I found it a bit derivative, I'm actually not in favor of Hazanavicius winning. Also, though I really love The Artist, it's not among the five (or maybe even ten) of what I'm assuming will be the best films of the year when I eventually see the ones I plan to. Out of the 30 films I've seen from 2011, The Artist is only the fourth or fifth best film I've seen. There are some that are gushing over The Artist--not me. It's a wonderful movie, though.

Best Screenplay- Motion Picture
Winner: Woody Allen- Midnight in Paris
Other nominees:
The Artist
The Descendants
The Ides of March
Moneyball

My take: Wow! Unexpected! Out of those five, Woody Allen would have been my choice, but I would have thought I had no chance. Excellent job HFPA! By the way, this is the first category for which I've seen all five films.

Best Original Song- Motion Picture
Winner: Masterpiece- W.E.
Other nominees:
Lay Your Head Down- Albert Nobbs
Hello Hello- Gnomeo & Juliet
The Living Proof- The Help
The Keeper- Machine Gun Preacher

My take: I could care less about this category, though it is fun to say "The Keeper from Machine Gun Preacher" out loud.

Best Original Score- Motion Picture
Winner: The Artist
Other nominees:
The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
Hugo
War Horse
W.E.

My take: Ummm... what's W.E.? I'm going to have to do a little research and maybe add that film to my list. I've never heard of it. Only seen The Artist out of these five. No surprise here, and I'm happy, though I know there's been some people saying that The Artist's use of some music from the film Vertigo was really corny and flawed. Not sure what that's all about, but still, there's gorgeous music in The Artist, which is to be expected in a silent film.

Best Animated Film
Winner: The Adventures of Tintin
Other nominees:
Arthur Christmas
Cars 2
Puss in Boots
Rango

My take: (Yawn) I bet most thought Rango was the favorite. I've only seen Rango and Tintin, and Rango was better, but I wasn't a huge fan. I'm not surprised Tintin won since it's such an iconic character overseas in comparison to America. I also hear it's doing well overseas. I do hear Puss in Boots is very good. It's on my list to see. Oh well... (yawn)

Best Foreign Language Film
Winner: A Separation (Iran)
Other nominees:
The Flowers of War (China)
In the Land of Blood and Honey (USA)
The Kid with a Bike (Belgium)
The Skin I Live In (Spain)

My take: Some of these films might be 2012 releases in the US. I haven't seen any of them, though A Separation and The Skin I Live In are both on my list to see, and more than one critic (including Ebert) have called A Separation the best film of the year. It is playing near me, so I will check it out once I feel better.

The remaining categories are television categories, which I won't get into, but I do want to mention the Television Film or Miniseries winners. I'm also going to shorten the obnoxiously long category titles for television films.

TV Movie Actor- Idris Elba- Luther
TV Movie Actress- Kate Winslet- Mildred Pierce
Best Miniseries or TV Movie- Downtown Abbey

All the Top Ten 2011 Movie Lists I'd Like You to Know

2012-01-08T10:35:00.003-05:00

January 8, 2012

As I listen to Filmspotting's year end episode where four brilliant and witty film critics list their respective choices for the ten best films of the year, I can't help but post their lists (and many others as well) on my blog. One very small part of me is hoping that you may see at least one film from among the many movies mentioned in this post, but the more genuinely selfish part of me wants a point of reference to make sure I eventually see all of the 2011 releases that a film lover needs to see.

By the way, I don't plan on seeing all 40 of Ebert's suggestions, especially since there are some that I have heard no one else even mention at all this year.

Michael Phillips- Chicago Tribune
10. Weekend
9. Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
8. The Tree of Life
7. A Separation
6. Guy and Madeline on a Park Bench
5. The Interrupters
4. The Descendants
3. Certified Copy
2. Moneyball
1. Poetry

Scott Tobias- Onion AV Club
10. The Arbor
9. Margaret
8. Weekend
7. Drive
6. Martha Marcy May Marlene
5. Uncle Boonmee Who Can Recall His Past Lives
4. The Tree of Life
3. A Separation
2. Certified Copy
1. Meek's Cutoff

Josh Larsen- Larsen on Film
10. Martha Marcy May Marlene
9. Drive
8. Rise of the Planet of the Apes
7. The Interrupters
6. Certified Copy
5. Take Shelter
4. The Muppets
3. Meek's Cutoff
2. Cedar Rapids
1. The Tree of Life

Adam Kempenaar- Filmspotting
10. Super 8
9. The Artist
8. A Separation
7. Hugo
6. The Arbor
5. Meek's Cutoff
4. Certified Copy
3. Drive
2. Take Shelter
1. The Tree of Life

Sean Patrick Kernan
10. My Week with Marilyn
9. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
8. We Bought a Zoo
7. The Big Year
6. Drive
5. The Tree of Life
4. Moneyball
3. Young Adult
2. Rango
1. Midnight in Paris

Mike McGranahan
10. Rango
9. Shame
8. Martha Marcy May Marlene
7. 50/50
6. The Tree of Life
5. Win Win
4. The Descendents
3. Drive
2. The Artist
1. Hugo

And, because he's Roger Ebert, here's his top 20 of 2011.
20. Another Earth
19. The Mill and the Cross
18. Life, Above All
17. Trust
16. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2
15. Martha Marcy May Marlene
14. Margaret
13. The Descendants
12. Terri
11. Melancholia
10. The Artist
9. Le Havre
8. Midnight in Paris
7. Drive
6. Kinyarwanda
5. Take Shelter
4. Hugo
3. The Tree of Life
2. Shame
1. A Separation

And, once again, because he's Roger Ebert, here's his list of the 20 best documentaries of 2011.
20. Being Elmo
19. Make Believe
18. Phunny Business
17. Waste Land
16. Project Nim
15. Strongman
14. Conan O'Brien Can't Stop
13. Buck
12. One Lucky Elephant
11. Page One: Inside the New York Times
10. Louder than a Bomb
9. The Last Mountain
8. Garbo the Spy
7. Pina
6. Cave of Forgotten Dreams
5. Resurrect Dead
4. Tabloid
3. Into the Abyss
2. Bill Cunningham New York
1. The Interrupters

Owen Gleiberman- Entertainment Weekly
10.Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol
9. The Trip
8. Crazy, Stupid, Love
7. Rampart
6. Beginners
5. The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
4. A Separation
3. Bridesmaids
2. The Descendants
1. The Tree of Life

Lisa Schwarzbaum- Entertainment Weekly
10. Beginners
9. The Interrupters
8. Moneyball
7. Pina
6. The Descendants
5. A Separation
4. Hugo
3. The Artist
2. Bridesmaids
1. Melancholia

The Adventures of Tintin

2012-01-04T19:12:00.004-05:00

January 4, 2012

The Adventures of Tintin (2011) **1/2
Directed by Steven Spielberg

My tweet:

The Adventures of Tintin (2011)- Convoluted for sure. Adequate at best. Adequate at worst. **1/2 out of 5

Other thoughts:

Apparently, Tintin is a much beloved literary comic character dating back to the 1920's. His stories and illustrations were done by someone named Herge. Tintin has many fans which span many generations. To all of you excited to see a big screen version of this young reporter and his trusted pup Snowy, my hat is off to you. I am thrilled beyond words that your dreams have come true.

Because of my good-nature, I will hold myself above blaming all of you Tintin fans for the barrage of mediocrity for which I just experienced. Mr. Spielberg, on the other hand, won't get off so easy. The Adventures of Tintin, which I saw in 2D since I only have vision in one eye and can't see 3D films, employs a hybrid form of real life cinematography and animation. Sure, we're leaps and bounds beyond the ick of The Polar Express, but, sadly, we've finally delved into the uncanny valley where animation looks a lot like real life except maybe with a layer of wax or two on top.

The sense of fantasy and wonder which can be felt in films like Spirited Away or Finding Nemo ends up stifled because of the sheer fact that the world of the film feels pretty damn real. On the other hand, when there are action sequences which are meant to take audience member's breaths away in a film like Mission Impossible, they fail to excite in Tintin simply because it's a lot easier to blow things up in animation, and there's no sense that any living, organic being is in any danger whatsoever. The Adventures of Tintin simultaneously bludgeons both fantasy and hyper-reality, until all that's left is a painfully convoluted story about pieces of paper, replicas of ships and a drunk pirate.

To its credit, the story moves at a nice pace. The ending credits thankfully started rolling well before I began shifting in my seat. There are a handful (at most) of whimsical cinematographic trickery and Spielberg's direction certainly has its moments. Further, Andy Serkis is loads of fun as the non-teetotaler Haddock. Unfortunately, the film's title is misleading. The said adventure is convoluted beyond any effort I was willing to exert to piece together, and the character of Tintin himself is about as milquetoast a hero as I've seen in quite a while. His yawn inducing presence is not helped by an uninspired performance by Jamie Bell. I'm left to wonder who thought it would be a good idea to cast Bell, an actor known for his physicality in films like Billy Elliot and Nicholas Nickelby, to act in a role which relies solely on his voice.

All you proud Tintin geeks out there, enjoy seeing this film over and over again. In the meantime, I think I'm going to take a nap.

It Came From Kuchar

2011-07-23T00:51:00.006-04:00

July 23, 2011

It Came From Kuchar (2010) ***1/2
Directed by Jennifer Kroot

My tweet:

It Came From Kuchar (2010)- Inclusion of Mike is an unfortunate necessity. George's influence & talent is unique & undeniable. ***1/2 of 5

Other thoughts:

Yes, there are two Kuchar Brothers, and yes, they collaborated on some movies; however, despite being twins, they are not alike in either their talents or their influence on the underground cinema scene of the 1960s and 1970s. Mike Kuchar, the more introverted of the two, has spent most of his career making indulgent experimental films and tawdry adult movies. George, on the other hand, has cemented his place somewhere between the margins and the main pages of film history as perhaps the greatest underground auteur of unapologetic garish excess. First time documentarian Jennifer Kroot appropriately does not give equal screen time to both brothers. The fact, though, that Mike needed to have been included at all is quite unfortunate. This is (and absolutely should be) George's story all the way.

George Kuchar grew up Catholic in the Bronx with a macho father and what seems to be a loving mother. He and his brother Mike were both talented artists who had to choose between the paths of commercial art and fine art. They collaborated together on no budget, highly-stylized homemade movies with a 16 mm camera. After a few pictures, Mike and George went their separate directorial ways, and George really took off in the avant-garde underground cinema scene of the 1960s. His "more is more" approach to experimental filmmaking was a welcomed relief from the overly serious, enigmatic works similar to Empire by Andy Warhol. It's clear from the beginning that George is a true eccentric, and, more than once, he is described as borderline crazy. Yet, he's extremely engaging, and there's a real lover of the visual medium of film within him. Influenced by 1950s Hollywood melodramas like Butterfield 8 and Written in the Wind, George Kuchar combined the glamorous with the grotesque, often exorcising his inner demons on screen. The results might appropriately be described as a whimsical nightmare.

The makeup is caked on; the dialogue is intentionally campy; the cinematography is over-stylized. Yet, from the many clips we see of George's films, there's a true sense of artistry at hand. I'm not sure I'd want to watch a marathon of George Kuchar's films, but, in small doses as they're presented here, they're unique, fascinating and really quite entertaining. George Kuchar is clearly not trying to be anything other than himself.

There are a dozen or so talking heads that really don't add much at all to the audience's understanding of George Kuchar. For someone with absolutely no knowledge of Kuchar or the experimental cinema world he flourished in, I'm left to wonder whether he is simply a cult figure that Kroot, John Waters, Buck Henry and Atom Egoyan find titillating, or whether he really is a universally respected trailblazer. In other words, is this the portrait of a legend or of an overlooked oddity? Buck Henry introduces George Kuchar at the Telluride Film Festival where he hosts a Q and A session. The two men later ride a ski lift and wax poetic about UFOs and aliens making pancakes. All the while, I kept wondering what Buck Henry has to do with Kuchar. Is Henry an admirer? Was he influenced by him? Are they long-time friends? Kroot easily could have brought some of these loose ends together, providing us with a clearer understanding of an individual who perhaps can't really ever be understood completely.

It Came From Kuchar opens with George Kuchar as a professor shooting a film with his students, teaching them the craft of filmmaking by making a campy, Z-level horror flick complete with an inflatable spider attacking an older woman whose wardrobe is less than ladylike. Everything comes full circle as we end at the screening of the students' film which is met with warm applause followed by George Kuchar signing DVDs as he says goodbye to the students who worked with him throughout the semester. I guarantee you that none of them will ever forget the experience of making a George Kuchar movie. It Came From Kuchar, though incomplete and muddled with the unnecessary inclusion of Mike Kuchar, presents a satisfying glimpse not only into the life and work of an underground filmmaker, but also into the mind of an extreme eccentric who found the perfect platform to cope with a world that would otherwise be way too bland and self-serious for George Kuchar to find fulfillment.

Three Colors: Blue

2011-06-24T05:12:00.004-04:00

June 24, 2011

Three Colors: Blue (1993) ****
Directed by Krzysztof Kieslowski

My tweet:

Three Colors: Blue (1993)- A visual and directorial triumph even though its narrative suffers from overreaching ambition. **** out of 5

Other thoughts:

Blue, the first film of Polish director Kryzysztof Kieslowski's much lauded Three Colors Trilogy, takes a color that, as a cliche, signifies sadness and tells a story about just that. One the one hand, this movie is too literal while, on the other hand, it's quite poetic and visually mesmerizing. The strength of Blue lies mostly in its cinematography, editing and soundtrack and not in its plot, which alternates between the familiar and the gimmicky.

The opening sequence involves a car crash which results in the deaths of the husband and young daughter of Julie, played in a wisely understated performance by the excellent Juliette Binoche. Julie survives the crash and very quickly loses the will to go on living the same life she lived before. For a while, we're led to believe that Julie is planning to kill herself, beginning with a failed attempt to swallow a bunch of pills at the hospital. Instead, she decides to leave her lavish home in order to reclaim her maiden name and live in a humble apartment in order to leave her previous life in the past. Julie resists connecting with anyone around her, but circumstances occur outside of her control which force Julie to become involved with others, including people from her past.

Julie does not let herself grieve; instead, she tries to run from her situation, but of course, she can't escape from herself. At times, the screen goes completely black in the middle of some of Julie's most difficult moments, but, when it does, beautiful orchestral music plays on the soundtrack. Julie's husband was one of the best composers in the world, and, before his death, he was working on a piece of music to celebrate the formation of the European Union. Thus, this beautiful music Julie hears whenever she tries to disengage completely does not allow her to escape her tragic reality. In spite of herself, Julie continues to cultivate new memories and even learns some difficult truths about her deceased husband. These truths have the potential to cause Julie more pain, but that might be exactly what she needs since then she will begin to feel something instead of nothing at all.

The themes of loss and grief take center stage in the plot of Blue, but few interesting questions are raised, and there's not much of substance that the audience can take away regarding these themes. Further, there are too many instances of heavy-handed symbolism which are clearly attempting cleverness but instead prove redundant and pedestrian (a bum clutching a flute while he sleeps says that it's important to hold onto at least one thing in life). Yet, Blue is a formally excellent film. Kieslowski consistently offers beautiful camera shots that enhance the mood and texture of Julie's reality. Of course, the color blue is understandably prominent, but it's incorporated quite organically through a lamp of blue crystals and a swimming pool among other instances. Blue is transcendent cinema even though its narrative never matches the artistry which exists behind the camera.

Camera Buff

2011-04-26T03:14:00.001-04:00

April 26, 2011

Camera Buff (1979) ****1/2
Directed by Krzysztof Kieslowski

My tweet:

Camera Buff (1979)- Wholly personal and devastatingly sad exploration of the responsibilities and sacrifices of an artist. ****1/2 out of 5

Other thoughts:

Communism does not lend itself well to the artist who first desires freedom and second desires success. At the same time, art and family don't co-mingle without a great deal of effort on the part of everyone involved. Camera Buff, a deeply personal early film from the great Polish auteur Kryzystof Kieslowski, shows all too clearly that hope and success require sacrifice, especially in a country at a time when tranquility alone is all most people can hope for.

Jerzy Stuhr plays Filip Mosz, a local government employee in a small Polish town near Krakow who saves two months of his salary in order to buy a handheld camera to film the life of his newborn baby daughter. At first, the camera brings joy to everyone in Filip's life, considering that it's a harmless novelty. Things begin to change, however, when Filip is asked to document a government sponsored event that the town is hosting.

Filip starts to go off script by filming subjects that fascinate him like workers being paid, pigeons eating on windowsills and sidewalks being paved in order to make the town's facade impressive to the visitors. Filip's keen eye for observation and talent behind the camera captures the attention of a film promoter who enters the film in a local festival. After Filip receives third place and a substantial monetary prize, he's encouraged to make more films. His next project centers around a midget who has been a loyal worker for the government for twenty-five years, never once missing a single day. When he shares his idea, he's accused of intending to mock the handicapped man. Eventually, the film is made, and it's so tastefully done that the man at the center of the film becomes overwhelmed with emotion at the beauty of Filip's labors.

The short movie is shown on Polish television, and Filip is even offered a job with the station to make more films. His third movie focuses on how the government only superficially improved the facade of his town, but under closer examination, it's clear that nothing really changed, which is exemplified by a dilapidated brick yard that stands behind a freshly painted building. Clearly, this has the potential to embarrass and hurt some people that Filip considers close friends. Beyond that, he learns that the situation isn't as black and white as it seems.

Camera Buff is not only a story about a filmmaker. It's also the story of a husband and father who finds his passion in life the same day his daughter is born, and his passion is not his daughter. Malgorzata Zabkowska plays Filip's wife Irka, who quickly sees that her husband's skill behind the camera is ultimately going to consume him. She wants nothing more than for Filip to stay the poor, loving man that she married, especially now that they have a daughter. In Communist Poland, the idea of fulfillment and advancement through the arts is about as foreign an idea as is possible. Sure, Irka could have been more supportive of her husband's new career, but Filip definitely picked a bad time in his marriage to push his wife and his daughter aside to voluntarily embrace completely different responsibilities.

Looking at Kieslowski's Internet Movie Database page on imdb.com, it's obvious that Camera Buff is autobiographical. Kieslowski started by making short documentaries for Polish television before hitting it big with this very film. He clearly knows the allure and exhilaration that goes along with doing something he was clearly born to do. Kieslowski shows a great deal of sympathy for Filip, though he doesn't let Filip off the hook at the end. The pathos that runs throughout Camera Buff gives the film a palpable sense of sad sincerity which can't be denied.

Most of the film is shot in 16 millimeter, similar to the camera that the station purchases for Filip. There's a verite style that at the time could only have come from someone with a documentary background. Yet, with so many neo-realistic films shot today, Camera Buff doesn't always stay true to its own identity. The first half has a bit of an improvised feel, while the second half is almost meticulously choreographed. There are too many stagy, scripted moments that clutter the tone of the film as it progresses. Of course, this could have been deliberate if Kieslowski was intending to show more polished filmmaking as Filip started coming into his own behind the camera. Still, the tonal shift does diminish the film's overall success slightly.

Camera Buff is one of the most heartbreaking and unapologetic explorations on the struggles of the artist at once trying to exist in this world while simultaneously desiring to transcend it. The artist must be honest with himself and those around him if he's going to be able to maintain any form of balance in his life. Either relationships are going to suffer or the art is going to suffer. Most people would claim that relationships are easily most important. When someone has the artistic gifts that Filip has, the answer isn't as easy as it seems.

Of Gods and Men

2011-04-21T03:24:00.001-04:00

April 21, 2011

Of Gods and Men (2011) ****1/2
Directed by Xavier Beauvois

My tweet:

Of Gods and Men (2011)- Beautiful, sad and sobering true story of devotion to religion at its best and worst. ****1/2 out of 5

Other thoughts:

There's a narration at the end of Of Gods and Men that betrays everything that works in almost every scene that precedes it. It discusses the beauty of Islam and how the terrorism that affected these real life monks who lived in Algeria in the early 1990s was a distortion of everything beautiful about one of the great religions of our world. We're left with an overreaching political statement about tolerance which sounds all-too-familiar and completely inorganic. Of Gods and Men is fundamentally about humble and good Catholic men who relied on their faith to deliver them through unimaginable trials, turning them into martyrs, not for the glory of this world but for the glory of the next world. Therefore, a simplistic blanket proclamation about Islam is not the way this story should have ended.

From the very beginning, it's clear that we're about to spend a great deal of time with men of intense prayer. The pacing is noticeably deliberate, allowing the viewer to become immersed in the asceticism guiding the daily schedule of the community. They pray, read in silence, eat in silence while listening to holy writings read out loud, work around the house, have community meetings and sleep. An older asthmatic monk named Brother Luc (Michael Lonsdale) tends the medical needs of the poor Muslims of the Algerian village. Brother Christophe (Olivier Rabourdin) cultivates the garden, while the superior of the community, Brother Christian (Lambert Wilson), works on his often overly academic sermons and spiritual reflections for his community. Brother Celestin (Philippe Laudenbach) drives the car and plans the music. He also takes a journey to Paris to seek council of the head of their order when the violence surrounding the area escalates.

Algeria is involved in a brutal civil war, and the monks must choose whether they are willing to risk almost certain death by staying put rather than fleeing. The monastery has been a sign of stability and hope for the villagers, so the brothers leaving would bring unqualified despair to the surrounding community to which the men have dedicated most of their lives. At first, disagreement over leaving divides the men, but as they spend their days reflecting on their decisions to give their lives completely to God's will, they grow together in a firm resolve to stay even as their eventual fate becomes almost certain.

The audience is asked to share in the dread and witness the violence along with the monks. Whenever we travel outside the seemingly safe walls of the peaceful monastery, we feel uneasy, yearning to turn our backs on the turmoil and desiring to return to scenes of meditative prayer and quiet contemplation. At one point, the president of Algeria calls Brother Christian to meet with him imploring that the brothers save themselves. He points out that the villagers want nothing more than to leave behind all of the violence and fear, but they can't because they have no money and nowhere to go. The monks, on the other hand, have a way out. The president seems to think that remaining equals voluntary suicide, a thought that entered my mind as a viewer, and it's clear that it weighs heavily on the minds of the men themselves.

Director Beauvois often keeps his camera still to add to the simplicity of the lives on screen. Very often, we're asked to interpret the often uneasy and conflicted thoughts of the monks simply by looking at their weather-worn faces in closeup. The actors in the film, especially Lambert Wilson as the head of the monks, know the rule of acting for when the camera is zoomed in on one's face--don't act at all. Their eyes, body language and facial expressions give audiences all they need without any reliance on superfluous histrionics.

As someone that has spent some time around Catholic clergymen and religious orders (though admittedly not with a missionary order in Africa during a war), the way in which this unique, often misunderstood, lifestyle is portrayed always feels very genuine. There is a push and pull between naive idealism and secular cynicism at play, but for these men to have given as much of their lives as they already have to doing God's often difficult work, they need to be fundamentally secure in their faith and content with a life of work and prayer. Beauvois and the actors could easy have painted with broad strokes based on presumptions of Catholic monastic living, but instead, they perhaps offer up the most authentic portrait of religious life in film history.

Of Gods and Men is a great movie, and it could have been an unqualified masterpiece had it not become melodramatic towards the end. Right before the devastatingly sad climax, the monks sit around a dinner table and play the music of Swan Lake while they all unsuccessfully hold back tears as the camera zooms in on the face of each man. I'm not kidding when I say that I was reminded of the operatic ambitions of a film like Black Swan during this sequence, and I think it's an understatement to say that Of Gods and Men and Black Swan really shouldn't have scenes so closely paralleling each other. Ending a film satisfactorily is not easy, especially with an unconventional true story like this one. Beauvois and company sadly didn't rise to the challenge.

Overall, however, Of Gods and Men is refreshingly spiritual in a film world that's almost giddy in its secularism and anti-Catholicism. Most films that specifically attempt to cater to Christian audiences are embarrassingly bad. This movie, which showcases religion so strongly, has no religious agenda whatsoever. Yet, it respects it deeply. I think of Of Gods and Men as a much needed alternative to a myopic film like Ingmar Bergman's Winter's Light, which betrays the existential crises of its priest character by presenting an interpretation of Catholic ritual unlike any that has ever been performed. Of Gods and Men not only perfectly captures the individual struggles of sacrifices stemming from a life built on a foundation of faith, but it respects its characters and its audience enough to give credence to the power and importance of ritual and prayer in these men's lives. This movie believes in these men as much as these men believed in their vocation, and viewers are all the better because of it.

Sidney Lumet (1924-2011)

2011-04-09T11:57:00.001-04:00

April 9, 2011

The news is making its way around social networking sites that powerhouse director Sidney Lumet has passed away at the age of 86.

Born in Philadelphia, Lumet was the son of an actor and a dancer who got his start on the stage at the age of 4. He spent his teens and his twenties as a stage actor, though in the early 1950s, he found his true calling as a director, starting with television shows and then moving to the stage before solidifying himself as a film director destined to be considered alongside the all-time greats.

The first film he directed was 12 Angry Men in 1957, often hailed as one of the best films of all time and arguably the crowning achievement of Lumet's career. That being said, he certainly had other massive critical successes which have become lauded classics including A View from the Bridge (1962), Long Day's Journey Into Night (1962), The Pawnbroker (1964), Serpico (1973), Murder on the Orient Express (1974), Dog Day Afternoon (1975), Prince of the City (1981), The Verdict (1982), Q & A (1990) and Before the Devil Knows You're Dead (2007). Those who don't think 12 Angry Men was Lumet's most important film would probably argue that 1976's Network might take the title.

I sadly haven't seen enough of his movies, and I plan to remedy that soon. Like his admittedly uneven career, my collective opinion of his films I've seen is that they are quite inconsistent. I really like 12 Angry Men, but I don't think it's as good as its reputation. I found The Verdict to be pedestrian and predictable. The Wiz, Lumet's disasterous adaptation of The Wizard of Oz starring Diana Ross and Michael Jackson, is truly one of the worst films I've ever seen.

That being said, I really love Network, and think that it's as much a condemnation of our present entertainment culture as it was of the culture that existed upon its release. Before the Devil Knows You're Dead, which Lumet made when he was 82 years old, is an underrated thriller. What's amazing is that Lumet wanted to do such a ruthlessly violent film about such unpleasant people at such a late stage in his career. He was always up to the task of imbuing his material with as much grit as necessary...at least that's what I hear about some of his films that I'm embarrassed to say that I haven't yet seen like Serpico and Dog Day Afternoon.

Lumet's book "Making Movies" is said to be a must-read for anyone serious about studying film. I just happened to buy it at a used book shop a few months ago. I look forward to delving into it and into more classic films by one of the most respected directors in Hollywood history. Rest in peace.

Made in Dagenham

2011-04-05T22:00:00.005-04:00

April 5, 2011

Made in Dagenham (2010) **1/2
Directed by Nigel Cole

My tweet:

Made in Dagenham (2010)- Hawkins is solid & tale is inspiring, but it's predictable, on the nose and riddled with cliches. **1/2 out of 5

Other thoughts:

It's never fun to come down on the other side of a movie about such a monumental moment for women's rights, especially considering that I'm a man, but Made in Dagenham works overtime (no pun intended) to craft itself as completely predictable and unabashedly shallow. Without an excellent lead performance from Sally Hawkins, easily one of my favorite actresses, this paint by numbers workers' rights genre template could have been completely unbearable. Hawkins breaths some life into a character written as a caricature alongside countless other caricatures inhabiting the world of 1960s England with its sexist injustices in the way pay was structured in the workplace.

Bob Hoskins, though quite good, is wasted as the manager of 187 women in the Ford Factory in Dagenham who immediate believes in the cause of equal pay because, as he puts it, he and his brothers were raised by a woman who worked hard without getting her fair share. Hawkins plays Rita O'Grady, a mild-mannered worker who finds herself up to the task of spearheading the strike. She needs to rise to the challenge due to the difficult home life of the elected shop steward Connie, played by Geraldine James. While Rita must struggle with fighting for her cause while shirking perceived duties as mother of two children and wife of daft but sweet Eddie, played by Daniel Mays, Connie's husband really does need her considering that he's losing his sanity after dealing with debilitating injuries that stem back from his service in the war.

Meanwhile, as the ladies' cause gains notoriety and momentum, a Ford executive, played by Richard Schiff, an actor I love, works to undermine the movement first by manipulating the head of the workers' union and later by threatening Secretary of State Barbara Castle, played by Miranda Richardson, that Ford will pull out of England thereby costing the jobs of 40,000 workers. Rita and company must deal with a myriad of men who not only see their grievances as a headache, but also underestimate their sheer will power.

As I said before, every character is a caricature. The women are lumped together as sassy spitfires who like to sexually harass men and curse like sailors. Schiff's villain is so evil that you could picture him twirling his mustache, that is if Schiff didn't choose to shave off his usual facial hair. Worst of all, though, is the painfully hammy performance by Miranda Richardson, who obnoxiously mistakes volume for gravitas. Richardson chooses to scream at the top of her lungs repeatedly towards two young men that help her run her office. While the intended effect is to show a strong, independent woman in a leadership role, what actually happens is that we begin to feel sorry for the men who have to work with such a ridiculously irritating and overcompensating pill of a human being.

Everything is played at the most earnest level, and with a script that provides no nuance or realism whatsoever, there needed to be enough characters with whom audiences could connect. Instead, Hawkins, giving the best performance, exists mostly as a saintly anchor for all of the loons that surround her. Though it's fun to watch Hawkins deliver her lines, there's nothing to her character's motivations and struggles burrowing underneath the surface, and literally no one else besides Rita registers in any interesting way whatsoever. Sadly, it's at the surface where Made in Dagenham plays out, all the way to an all-too-familiar, inevitable conclusion. The women of the Dagenham Ford factory deserve better than this.

Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?/ Peeping Tom

2011-04-05T19:45:00.001-04:00

April 5, 2011

Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? (1962) ***
Directed by Robert Aldrich

My tweet:

Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? (1962)- Two lead performances make this B-level trash fest worth seeing. Sunset Blvd-lite. *** out of 5

Peeping Tom (1960) ****1/2
Directed by Michael Powell

My tweet:

Peeping Tom (1960)- Macabre and unsettling look at the logical extremes of voyeurism. There's a lot of today in this film. ****1/2 of 5

Other thoughts:

The 1950s was a unique decade in the history of film. As the moguls who created Hollywood started dying, the studio system began to crumble for two reasons. First of all, television was proving to be a formidable opponent to both radio and film, and second, the world was vastly different than it was in the 1940s, and, without adapting to the times, the studios were simply not going to remain viable. Power shifted from the studios to the stars and the directors themselves as they were no longer contractually bound only to making films for one company. Arguably, this provided more freedom to visionary filmmakers who weren't as tethered to bureaucratic demands.

Of course, there was a downside to all of this. Without the security of a studio contract, actors and directors were more and more bound to success at the box office in order to either be cast in a film or to receive financing. Three of the most influential people in film experienced quite a bit of professional hardships as the fifties were bleeding into the early 1960s, a decade that would become among the greatest for the artistic evolution of the motion picture. Notorious actresses Bette Davis and Joan Crawford and British director Michael Powell would have to fight against box office scorn during this advanced point in their careers, with a single film respectively changing the directions of each. Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? reignited the fizzling stardom of famed enemies Davis and Crawford, while Peeping Tom pretty much ended the great career of Powell, one of the most talented directors that's ever made a movie.

Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? is an over-the-top campy horror flick, telling the tale of one sister's jealousy of the other's past stardom. The jealousy manifests itself through torturous actions on the part of Baby Jane Hudson (Davis) towards her wheelchair bound sister Blanche (Crawford). Baby Jane reached her success as a child star on the stage, while Blanche became quite the starlet as a young adult. Baby Jane has taken to drinking, while Blanche relies on her sister completely for all of her basic needs. Things become truly disturbing when Baby Jane starts to lose her mind completely as she imagines her return to fame, which we witness in a truly uncomfortable scene of Davis singing a song exactly the way she did when she was a little girl. As Blanche tries to find a way out of her personal hell and is caught by Baby Jane, we witness a woman on the verge of a total breakdown go completely over the edge into complete insanity.

Peeping Tom is a vicious look at a sadistic photographer who becomes obsessed with killing women and photographing their terror. He begins by seeking out prostitutes, but eventually the women in his life also become victims. His voyeuristic and psychopathic tendencies stem back to his childhood when his father, a psychoanalyst, would repeatedly terrify him in order to document his son's reactions.

Whatever Happened to Baby Jane? becomes a carnival sideshow which the audience can watch in fascination from an emotional distance. Peeping Tom, on the other hand, forces us to deal with the sins of voyeurism that continues to pervade our culture, especially with today's social media. It's a timeless condemnation which is arguably more relevant today than it was back in 1960. Critics at the time derided Powell for making a movie so brutish in its subject matter. Over time, though, as the plots of horror films delved deeper into the depths of the evils of the human condition, the disdain over Peeping Tom has been replaced with a great deal of respect. It's an effectively chilling glimpse into the slippery slope of obsession over the private lives of others.

Davis, Crawford and Powell all deserve to be applauded for their bravery and the risks each took in deciding to be part of projects that were so extreme at a time when the entire landscape of cinema was far from stable. Sometimes risks pay off as was the case with Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?, and sometimes risks can end great careers as was the case with Peeping Tom. Yet, over time, the true masterpiece has been recognized as such. If only all films could be judged outside of the circumstances surrounding their release.

Paranormal Activity 2

2011-03-26T20:26:00.012-04:00

March 26, 2011

Paranormal Activity 2 (2010) **1/2

Directed by Tod Williams

My tweet:

Paranormal Activity 2 (2010)- Devoid of any fresh ideas. A whole lot of nothing leads up to an effective conclusion. **1/2 out of 5

Other thoughts:

There are ways in which one could say that Paranormal Activity is the most financially successful film of all time. With a budget of only $15,000, the movie unexpectedly went on to gross over 100 million dollars, thereby making more than a staggering 650,000% profit. It all started as an internet phenomenon with petitions to have the film shown in local theaters. With huge sellouts and long lines, this low budget horror originally on no one's radar screen started expanding, ultimately becoming a midnight movie triumph.

Those first viewers of Paranormal Activity experienced the film as it was meant to be experienced. The whole thing played out like it was found footage of a young couple terrorized by unhappy spirits inhabiting their house. There were no opening or closing credits, giving the film a vicious coldness, as if the viewers of this unknown movie stumbled upon something they shouldn't have. After it became the phenomenon it did, the intended effect wore off. People were going to a cultural event when seeing Paranormal Activity after its success solidified. No longer did it thrive as pseudo-snuff.

Therefore, Paranormal Activity 2 was bound to be less unsettling from the outset. Everyone knows it's fake. As such, it needed to have been the responsibility of the filmmakers to work tirelessly to achieve a sense of real life as much as possible. Otherwise, this sequel runs the risk of complete corniness. Despite a really vicious conclusion which is much more effective than the original, Paranormal Activity 2 is completely unnecessary, and yes, it is often laughably corny.

This tale of terror serves as a prequel of sorts to the horrors seen in the original. Micah Sloat and Katie Featherston do return, which is allowed because the movie takes place months before at least one of them dies. Katie's sister Kristi has a new baby named Hunter with Daniel, Kristi's older husband who has a teenage daughter named Ali from a previous marriage. Daniel is played by Brian Boland, and Ali is played by Molly Ephraim. Both are adequate enough, especially when judged next to the performance of Sprague Grayden who plays Kristi.

I'm not exaggerating when I say that I've never seen such a bad attempt at delivering lines like a real person than Grayden as Kristi. The footage is shot using a camcorder as well as webcams installed throughout the house after a supposed break-in, so the actors are meant to sound like they're authentic human beings and not characters written for a fictional movie. Grayden's line delivery is so distractingly artificial that I couldn't help but want to see her character meet an unpleasant fate. I won't say whether that's what ultimately happens, but let's just say that there were moments while watching that proved quite satisfying for me. I enjoyed the first Paranormal Activity as a fairly mindless yet totally entertaining slice of horror. However, I'm not sure I gave Micah Sloat and Katie Featherston enough credit for their performances. In comparison to the cast of Paranormal Activity 2 in general and Grayden in particular, Sloat and Featherston are quite charming and exponentially more engaging in the original.

The first hour and ten minutes is completely devoid of scares. There are a few startling moments involving bangs and noises, but there's no real sense of terror precisely because there's no sense of reality whatsoever. Any feelings of dread are much more manipulative considering that this time around we're dealing with a dog and a baby in peril. Ali answers a lot of the questions that stem back to the first film by reading websites about demons who need first born infant males for sacrifice or something like that. Paranormal Activity had the guts to trust its audience to buy into the film even though we never learned why the hauntings were taking place. The sequel spends time spelling everything out, thereby leaving us with nothing whatsoever to figure out for ourselves. Also, when people take websites about demon possession seriously, it's understandable to sort of wish they'd actually be terrorized by demons if for no other reason than we would have less gullible people in the world.

Too many scares are recycled verbatim. The film's narrative structure and tone completely mirror the original, once again saying to the audience that the only motivation is to make money off the success of another movie without much effort on the part of the filmmakers. Thankfully, Paranormal Activity 2 does almost redeem itself with a really unnerving final twenty minutes. There's not a lot of intelligent ideas in the conclusion, but the palpable scares are there. Without giving anything away, the last two minutes reach a level of viciousness that the Paranormal Activity series merits. There's a tameness to the scares within the first Paranormal Activity, presumably due to its limited budget. There's no reason at all to hold back. In fact, I argue that Paranormal Activity 2 could have been even more sadistic. The premise is mean, and only the final few minutes really deliver upon its potential for brutality.

Sadly, even during its few effective moments, Paranormal Activity 2 is too mindless and manufactured to merit even existing at all. With some effort, the sequel to such a phenomenon could have been a real achievement in itself. There are so many moments where we're just looking at a room through a camera waiting for something to happen. During each of these sequences, something does happen, and yet, I wonder why there couldn't have been more somethings happening. They could have subtlety textured these creepy scenes, thereby welcoming repeated viewing so the viewer could try and catch details that he or she missed the first time around. Instead, each surveillance sequence ends with only one or two obvious payoffs. Sadly, this is just another example of the cynicism and condescension behind this vapid excuse to cash in on the success of a superior sleeper sensation.

Short Takes on Seventeen Films

2011-02-20T10:58:00.002-05:00

February 20, 2011

Dogtooth (2010) ***1/2
Directed by Giorgos Lanthimos

My tweet:

Dogtooth (2010)- Unapologetic showcasing of taboos as metaphor is respectable if not slightly pedestrian. ***1/2 out of 5

Other thoughts:

A surprise nominee for Best Foreign Language film at the Oscars this year, Dogtooth is not the sort of film that one would expect would get recognition from the Academy. Why? Because it's completely deranged and easily offensive. It's provoking the kinds of reactions that might result in walkouts and backlashes. Without giving too much away, Dogtooth tells the story of a father manipulating his entire family and sheltering them from the outside world. Consisting of his wife and three adult children, he doesn't let anyone inside from the walled off world with the exception of a weekly visit from a female co-worker in order to keep his son's desires under control. Even the slightest exposure to the outside world lessens the effectiveness of the father's power over every aspect of their lives. Dogtooth comments on what it sees as an artificial societal definition of family and how this and other institutions of freedom-limiting authority impact all of our lives. This biting critique flows from, among other things, taboos shown unabashedly on screen. In itself, the shocking subject matter isn't as profound as the movie wants it to be, but without a doubt, Dogtooth has a lot of interesting things to show and somewhat interesting things to say. Ultimately, though, here is a movie so extreme that I can't imagine it will win something as traditional as an Academy Award.

Animal Kingdom (2010) ***1/2
Directed by David Michod

My tweet:

Animal Kingdom (2010)- Atmospheric and tense. Jacki Weaver is quite good. Familiar tale of innocence shattered by crime family. ***1/2 of 5

Other thoughts:

Animal Kingdom tells the story of an 18 year old boy/man who must move in with his aunt and cousins after his mother dies of a heroin overdose. His new house is far from traditional. His extended family are power players in the local crime world. As the young man resists coming into his own, he finds himself pulled in two different directions. His cousins desire that he become one of them, though they rightly find it difficult to trust him completely. On the other hand, the police see him as their way to finally bust dangerous, elusive targets. Animal Kingdom is well-made and atmospheric, even if it explores one of the oldest and most tired themes in all film. There's glamor, excitement and a seeming sense of security in a world of vice, while living an honest life ends up increasingly impractical the more one explores the dark side. Like Goodfellas, the main character plays it straight while crazy people surround him giving the film its flavor. That being said, Animal Kingdom is no Goodfellas, and Ben Mendelsohn come across boring while Ray Liotta had a palpable sense of gravitas necessary to anchor Goodfellas. Jacki Weaver received an Oscar nomination in a great creepy performance as the matriarch of this crime family. Overall, Animal Kingdom is a solid, entertaining, familiar crime drama.

Blue Valentine (2010) ****1/2
Directed by Derek Cianfrance

My tweet:

Blue Valentine (2010)- Gosling & Williams are amazing! Devastatingly sad tale of what often happens after the honeymoon phase. ****1/2 of 5

Other thoughts:

Blue Valentine is about two people perfect for each other when they first meet and then absolutely wrong for each other a few years later. Yet, this marriage never comes across as a fabrication or a representation. It could easily be argued that many marriages which end in divorce were once perfect marriages. People who get divorced aren't stupid for getting married in the first place. Relationships can't be judged outside of time. Circumstances affect relationships, even ones where promises of lifelong fidelity have been made. Ryan Gosling and Michelle Williams are absolutely amazing in a tale of two working class Pennsylvanians who fall madly in love in the most charming ways. They're both so happy-go-lucky and full of energy that it seems as if no couple could possibly be more perfect. Yet, we're introduced to the beginning of their relationship after we see what has happened five or six years later. They're raising a daughter. He's lost his good looks from heavy drinking and smoking, and she's given opportunities at work for a better life if she's willing to move to a different city. They can't stand to be near each other for long. The contrast of the prior joyous years with present frustrations perhaps signaling the end of their marriage comes across in a very striking way, helped in large part by Williams and Gosling, two of the best actors out there. It's painful to watch the present couple spend a disastrous Valentine's Day together needing to get unbelievably intoxicated in order to go through the motions of martial relations when we get the sense that all hope was lost long before. Blue Valentine is an exceptionally powerful look at marriage at its most unbearable.

The Company Men (2011) ***
Directed by John Wells

My tweet:

The Company Men (2011)- Wealthier victims of the economy make for a somewhat compelling watch. At times way too earnest. *** out of 5

Other thoughts:

John Wells, who took over writing many of the episodes of The West Wing after Aaron Sorkin left, somewhat successfully shows a different sort of victim of the economic troubles of our times. Ben Affleck plays the regional director of sales of a successful company who takes home a great paycheck, lives in a nice house and has a loving wife and family. Much to his surprise, he gets laid off and finds how difficult it is to land a job in his field even with all of his abilities and experiences. He's required to move in with his parents until things get back on track. He scoffs at his brother in law's offer to let him work construction with him during the busy season, thinking that there's a well-paying job out there somewhere that's owed to him. At the same time, Chris Cooper, a great friend and former colleague of Affleck also loses his job, but he finds it impossible to find hope in such a toxic environment due to his advanced age. Tommy Lee Jones, meanwhile, an executive in the company, can't control the layoffs of people he cares deeply about. Wells' script and directing end up way too heavy-handed for the subject matter, making him once again look like nothing more than a Sorkin wannabe. Yet, with a great deal of help from the talent on screen, The Company Men is an entertaining and interesting watch which does work as an admittedly simplistic yet effective comment on our times.

I Wake Up Screaming (1941) ****
Directed by H. Bruce Humberstone

My tweet:

I Wake Up Screaming (1941)- Thoroughly satisfying noir. Beautifully lit & extremely atmospheric. B-level gem. **** out of 5

Other thoughts:

Over the summer, while having dinner at an authentic New Jersey Italian restaurant, a tradition I look forward to whenever I visit, my father and I spent most of the dinner talking about films he thought I would like. I told him that, when it comes to classic Hollywood, I tend to enjoy dark, gritty films like Double Indemnity, Sunset Blvd and pretty much any Hitchcock movie. My father is a walking encyclopedia of films from the 40s and 50s, so he named more movies than I could ever hope to include in a marathon. Eventually, I ended up writing down something like twenty choices of films based on his recommendation, and from there, only fifteen are available on Netflix on DVD. I Wake Up Screaming is the first film from My Dad Marathon, and if it's any indication, my father understood my taste perfectly. This is a pretty standard film noir, but it's a total treat. Betty Grable, who I only really knew from an episode of I Love Lucy and from her reputation of supposedly having the best legs in Hollywood, stars as femme fatale Jill Lynn, the sister of a murdered model/actress who falls for the primary suspect, a promoter named Frankie Christopher, played by Victor Mature. For many reasons, the police can't be trusted, especially a sadistic detective named Ed Cornell, played by a menacing Laird Cregar, and so Vicky and Frankie help track down Vicky's sister's killer while also running from the law. I Wake Up Screaming is classic dark popcorn entertainment at its most pure. The lighting and use of shadows by director Humberstone effectively provide an atmosphere that's palpably dangerous and sleazy. Though nowhere near the greatest example of the genre, I Wake Up Screaming is a fully satisfying standard noir that I recommend to others just as much as my father recommended it to me.

The Elephant Man (1980) *****
Directed by David Lynch

My tweet:

The Elephant Man (1980)- A gorgeous achievement. Sentimentality is more than earned. Tragic and life affirming. ***** out of 5

Other thoughts:

The Elephant Man is one of the most beautiful movies I've ever seen. Lynch combines a sentimental tale of a severely physically deformed man who has been abused his whole life with the kind of otherworldly dreamlike strangeness that many ascribe as Lynch's style. The story of the gentlest of souls misunderstood by the ignorance of humanity had been told before in films like King Kong and Cocteau's Beauty and the Beast but never quite in this way (though Cocteau had a similar attraction to the ethereal in his film making, so maybe a strong comparison is justified with Beauty and the Beast). Using breathtaking black and white cinematography, which helps lessen the repulsion of the movie's audience to the deformities of the young man, Lynch jerks the tears by not shying away from either the cruelness or the kindness people show towards John Merrick, the real name of the title character. Granted, Lynch paints in broad strokes much like a Biblical parable--Merrick is the kindest man in the history of humankind while his tormentors are the most evil people ever--but when it's seen as a morality tale, the hyper-realism helps provide a gravitas which universalizes this tale in effective ways. The Elephant Man is gorgeous, heartbreaking and life affirming at once. It's spectacular.

I Know Where I'm Going! (1943) ****1/2
Directed by Michael Powell & Emeric Pressburger

My tweet:

I Know Where I'm Going! (1943)- Lovely little romance imbued with The Archers' signature cinematic style and charm. ****1/2 out of 5

Other thoughts:

Recently, Time Out came out with their list of the 100 Greatest British Films, and Powell/Pressburger had many films on that list including A Matter of Life and Death at number 6 and The Red Shoes at number 5. My favorite film of theirs, The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp was painfully underrated at number 14. Black Narcissus came in at number 16, and the film I plan to check out soon, A Canterbury Tale, took the 17th spot. I Know Where I'm Going! came in way down at number 26. After going through all of these directors' films that were ranked higher, it might be easy to consider I Know Where I'm Going as a lesser Powell/Pressburger classic, but think of the ranking this way. Time Out calls I Know Where I'm Going! the 26th greatest British film ever made! It's above films like 2001: A Space Odyssey and The Bridge on the River Kwai. That's quite a high honor, and it's quite deserved considering that it's among the most charming romances I've ever seen. We're treated to the tale of a determined banker's daughter who will stop at nothing to reach an off the path Scottish island in order to marry a rich sophisticated gentleman to live the life she's always dreamed. Her naive idealism is often peppered with the Archers' signature whimsy and visual flourishes as she looks excitedly at her itinerary, with every moment of her trip scheduled down to the minute. As tends to be the case with life, things don't go according to plan as she's forced to stay on the foggy mainland with a naval officer, played by Colonel Blimp himself, the great Roger Livesey. They don't immediately click, but when they start falling for each other, she must choose between following her plans and following her heart. Once again, a standard love story with solid performances from Livesey and Wendy Hiller in the lead roles becomes transcendent by two of the most cinematic directors ever. Powell and Pressburger know that the movies are essentially a visual medium, transforming a simple romance into a rich textured tapestry. I Know Where I'm Going! is humble in story, yet a glorious achievement.

Mary and Max (2010) **
Directed by Adam Elliot

My tweet:

Mary and Max (2010)- Mean-spirited & ugly. Asks us to laugh at, pity and then care about its main characters. ** out of 5

Other thoughts:

I will throw out there the fact that it looks like I'm one of the only people in the world who did not like this movie, and after attempting to rethink my reaction, I stand by my disgust at what I deem to be a mean spirited, phony exercise in joy at the suffering of others. First of all, the movie looks pretty ugly, using an inky, muted palate as part of its stop-motion model animation. Even worse, though, are the characters of Mary and Max and the fact that they're cartoons and not fully-fleshed human beings. Mary is an Australian little girl with an alcoholic mother and a father lost in his own world. She has no friends so she decides to write to a random name picked out of a Manhattan phone book. The name she chooses is Max, an overweight autistic who can't hold a job and is prone to violent anxiety attacks. The movie begins in the 1970s, well before autism is understood by the psychological community. Both Mary and Max lead difficult lives, and the movie seems to revel in this by constantly asking us to laugh at their expense. As they correspond back and forth, Mary grows older, has plastic surgery, gets married and takes to drinking so much that her life is on the verge of ruin. Max, meanwhile, continues to eat chocolate bars, growing in obesity as he farts in elevators and kills pet fish. I'm okay with comedy stemming from a disease, but Mary and Max wants to have its chocolate bars and eat them too. We're taught about autism while seeing a man so pathetically dealing with the disease that, in a way, we really learn nothing at all from him other than the fact that autistic people have difficult lives. Max goes from job to job, which makes me ask how he's able to afford his apartment. Having some experience working with autism, this portrayal never felt true to me in the way that Temple Grandin did. I'd even give the gimmicky Rain Man credit over this sadistic caricature of autism. The ending offers a cheap sentimentality that's supposed to make us feel like both characters have found some kind of fulfillment in their connection with each other, when really, this isn't a movie about connections. If anything, it showcases disconnections and asks its audience to laugh at them. Mary and Max disgusted me, and it looks like I might be pretty alone in this regard. As such, please excuse me as I go to eat some chocolates, kill my pet, fart in an elevator and wait for a letter from an eight year old to give my pathetic existence some meaning.

Best in Show (2000) ***1/2 & For Your Consideration (2006) **1/2
Directed by Christopher Guest

My tweets:

Best in Show (2000)- Hit or miss comedy with more than enough hits to carry the film. ***1/2 out of 5

For Your Consideration (2006)- O'Hara shines, but others are Inconsistent due to performances at different levels of absurdity. **1/2 of 5

Other thoughts:

I didn't watch either Best in Show nor For Your Consideration because they're on any list or marathon, which is the usual reason why I watch most of the films I do. I chose to watch both simply to relax, having enjoyed Christopher Guests films in the past. A Christopher Guest film is guaranteed to illicit at least some belly laughs mostly due to the fearlessness and total commitment to the troupe of regular actors on screen including Catherine O'Hara, Fred Willard, Parker Posey, Jane Lynch, Jennifer Coolidge, Bob Balaban. Eugene Levy and Guest himself among others. Guest pretty much invented the mock docu-comedy when he made This Is Spinal Tap, a film I like, though I think Waiting for Guffman is Guest's masterpiece. This genre has become a staple on television with shows such as The Office, Parks and Recreation and Modern Family. This mix of the real with the absurd is a tricky one, especially when the performers are allowed to improvise as much as they do. As a film, a mock docu-comedy must stay true to life in order for audiences to take its narrative and its characters seriously, but of course, it ought to take realistic characters in realistic situations and exploit them to the extreme in order to milk the comedy. It's when Guest and company abandon the real world completely that the jokes fall flat because they're cheap and lazy. Waiting for Guffman always kept things real, never once taking me out of the world of this small town community theater. Best in Show also works quite well because it found the right world to lambaste in the ultra-popular, ultra-serious, ultra-ridiculous world of professional dog shows. For Your Consideration is not done in the documentary style except when the characters are being interviewed by Access Hollywood type shows. As such, the actors often have to say and do crazy things in the context of the movie they are making within the movie. The film, called "Home for Purim," is so over the top stupid that I never felt like I was watching real people. Instead, the whole thing felt like an indulgence. Eventually, Home for Purim starts to gain Oscar buzz. Wouldn't it have been better for these actors to actually make a movie good enough for awards consideration and focus the comedy on backstage issues and awards show vanity? Instead, the scenes of them making the movie are simply dumb, thus disconnecting the viewer from the plot and only offering occasional laugh out loud moments. I will say that Catherine O'Hara hits the right tone, giving maybe the best performance I've seen by anyone in a Guest film. That being said, everyone else is in their own world. Best in Show is much more cohesive and, as a result, much funnier. I look forward to the next Christopher Guest movie. I hope he and co-writer Eugene Levy have learned from the disappointments of For Your Consideration and return to the form they had in Best in Show.

Catfish (2010) ****
Directed by Henry Joost & Ariel Shulman

My tweet:

Catfish (2010)- Painful outcome is inevitable. Fascinating expose on the victims of the anonymity of the internet. Unforgettable. ****/5

Other thoughts:

I don't need a film to spell out whether it is factual or not. I didn't lose sleep not knowing the authenticity of the story behind Exit Through the Gift Shop. I simply need a documentary to offer truths, and Catfish does just that, even if it's hard to believe that there are no fabrications whatsoever. Without giving anything away, Catfish tells the story of a young photographer who meets a family over the internet and falls for the grown daughter. Certain threads are pulled, leading Nev Schulman and filmmakers Ariel, Nev's brother, and Henry Joost on one of the most uncomfortable road trips perhaps in the history of all mankind. A perfect companion piece to The Social Network, another film that blurs the lines between real events and cinematic liberties, Catfish holds a cracked and filthy mirror up to how much we live as personas instead of as persons. The argument that anonymity doesn't negate responsibility is rarely this cringe-worthy and effective.

The Lady Vanishes (1938) ***1/2
Directed by Alfred Hitchcock

My tweet:

The Lady Vanishes (1938)- Completely preposterous and yet a whole lot of fun. ***1/2 out of 5

Other thoughts:

Admitting that I feel like I need to revisit Vertigo since first of all I haven't seen it in a number of years and second that I didn't feel like I totally "got" the film upon that last viewing, I tend to prefer Hitchcock films with clear, straightforward plots, like Rear Window and Psycho. The more convoluted a Hitchcock movie, the more I tend to disengage slightly, despite his unmatched ability to evoke suspense and style. That being said, North by Northwest is my favorite Hitchcock film, and it has one of the wackiest plots in all film. Yet, the sheer entertainment value of that film, culminating in the great scene on Mount Rushmore, kept me completely engrossed and singularly satisfied. The Lady Vanishes is even more ridiculous than North by Northwest, and unfortunately, it's nowhere near the spectacle of that masterpiece. This movie could have used someone with even a fraction of Cary Grant's charisma. That being said, this tale of a kindly old woman who disappears inside a moving train is a great deal of fun. Sure, I rolled my eyes at the craziest of plot machinations, but I always did so with a smile on my face. In lesser hands, The Lady Vanishes could have been simply dumb. Hitchcock is too smart a filmmaker to allow tepid material to bring him down.

The Headless Woman (2009) ****
Directed by Lucrecia Martel

My tweet:

The Headless Woman (2009)- A frustrating and compelling look at illusions of superiority as shown through a bourgeois coverup. **** of 5

Other thoughts:

Here is a fascinating and troubling tale that feels all too real. An Argentinian woman of comfortable means thinks she hit and killed someone with her car right before a brutal rainstorm. At first, she's emotionally paralyzed, presumably due to shock. The viewer assumes that she feels both guilt and fear, but as she realizes more and more that she probably won't get caught, her guilt begins to dissipate. After all, there was a rainstorm and the boy who died was poor. The woman is far from evil, but she and those around her definitely don't see all human life as equal in dignity. Martel's direction matched with a brilliantly subdued lead performance by Maria Onetto makes The Headless Woman come alive as a humble and devastating portrait of tangible attitudes of superiority.

Winchester '73 (1950) ****1/2
Directed by Anthony Mann

My tweet:

Winchester '73 (1950)- James Stewart, Shelley Winters, Indians & an amazing final gunfight. That's how I like my westerns. ****1/2 of 5

Other thoughts:

An invaluable rifle sets the stage for a charming western which began one of the great movie collaborations between director Anthony Mann and star James Stewart. Seen as the everyman much like Tom Hanks is today, Stewart had to convince audiences that he was tough enough to bring a palpable presence to the screen. There's a great scene where Stewart shocking and brutally chokes a bad guy. The anger in Stewart's eyes alone are enough to make one think that Mr. Smith has gone completely off the rails. After winning the title gun in a marksmanship contest only to have it stolen, Stewart's Lin McAdam pursues the thief Dutch Henry Brown with whom Lin shares a past. Eventually, he must battle Indians as well as a sadistic henchman of Dutch's named Waco Johnny Dean, played chillingly well by Dan Duryea. Along the way, Lin befriends a young woman named Lola Manners who, though tough, needs Lin when she's placed in harm's way. As far as satisfying classic popcorn westerns go, Winchester '73 proves exemplary. Of course, great performances by Stewart and the electric Shelley Winters increase its overall entertainment value significantly.

The Parking Lot Movie (2010) ***1/2
Directed by Meghan Eckman

My tweet:

The Parking Lot Movie (2010)- Stays true to the spirit of the lot and its attendants, though pathos makes for a long 70 mins. ***1/2 of 5

Other thoughts:

The Parking Lot is truth, man. I mean, it's the real thing--the beginning and the end. It's the vessel through which everything exists as a microcosm of the simulacrum of all existence and beauty. If you find those three sentences amusing, then you'll probably enjoy The Parking Lot Movie, a tongue-in-cheek documentary about what is the worst/coolest job in the world. It showcases a lot in Charlottesville, VA near the University of Virginia campus, so most of their clientele includes drunk rich frat boys and sorority girls. The makeshift attendant's booth is literally as small as humanly possible, and the job often requires that employees simply sit around and pass the time for hours on end. Of course, this is the perfect time to philosophize on life, liberty and parking lots. Director Meghan Eckman perfectly captures a type of person that we all have encountered time and time again--the profoundly awkward, profoundly smart and profoundly angry young man who wishes that he could live in a different world than this one, presumably one that's occupied only by dungeons, dragons, video games and rock music. The movie is hilarious when it wants to be, but it's also exhausting when we see how much crap these guys have to put up with in their job and how it seriously breaks them down. I had a great time with about half of the film, but it's one that I'll probably never want to revisit again, in the same way that I'd NEVER want to work in this job, even if the parking lot is transcendent nirvana or whatever.

The Other Guys (2010) **1/2
Directed by Adam McKay

My tweet:

The Other Guys (2010)- Occasional laughs aren't enough to make up for the dumb action and the many jokes that fall flat. **1/2 out of 5

Other thoughts:

Will Ferrell and Mark Wahlberg star as two caricatures of cops or as vessels through which occasionally funny lines are delivered. They're not, however, real characters. Herein lies my problem with these sorts of comedies. They feel like they're constructed by committee, with jokes emerging by means of a brainstorming session. Story takes a backseat to stream of consciousness guffaws. Even worse, when they run out of ideas, they include over-the-top action chase scenes with explosions. Yes, The Other Guys will make you laugh, but it doesn't respect you enough to actually construct a coherent movie. As a fan of a show like 30 Rock, I know that it's possible to be hilarious, cohesive and intelligent at the same time. I'll take a smart complete film like Forgetting Sarah Marshall over this byproduct of a late night get together with absolutely no follow through.

Let Me In (2010) ****
Directed by Matt Reeves

My tweet:

Let Me In (2010)- Perhaps too faithful to Let the Right One In, a great movie. Yet, that also means this film is quite good as well. ****/5

Other thoughts:

Let the Right One In is a hauntingly beautiful Swedish movie. Let Me In is a hauntingly beautiful American movie. Let the Right One In is slightly more beautiful and slightly more haunting, but Let Me In definitely stands on its own as a quality remake. Let Me In is more vicious in its horror, which actually makes it less scary. I think it's perhaps a little bit too literal as an adaptation, but its source material is truly excellent. As such, Let Me In ends up being very good. Further, Let Me In has much better performances from its two leads Chloe Moretz and Kodi Smit-McPhee than their Swedish counterparts. The final scene in the swimming pool is so damn creepy in Let the Right One In. It's pretty damn disgusting in Let Me In. I'll take creepy over just disgusting any day, and yet, I'll take both Let the Right One In and Let Me In if I had the option to choose both. Both are quite similar and quite successful.

The Art of the Steal/ Daniel Ellsberg/ Harry Nilsson/ Double Take

2011-01-29T09:50:00.002-05:00

January 29, 2011

The Art of the Steal (2010) ***1/2
Directed by Don Argott

My tweet:

The Art of the Steal (2010)- Engrossing activist conspiracy doc. Storytelling is better than one sided argument presented. ***1/2 out of 5

Other thoughts:

There is almost nothing wrong with the film making in this fascinating documentary unpacking the fight between the city of Philadelphia and a group of zealots who believe that the Barnes Collection of art deserves to remain in the Barnes School in a small suburb right outside Philadelphia. The problem lies in the fact that the argument is not as cut and dry as those behind the film think it is. The Barnes Collection is worth tens of billions of dollars. Granted, those Philadelphians who want the collection might have a great deal of financial interest in the tourism that would result if it was moved five miles into the city. Still, though, I found myself uncomfortable with the fact that Alfred C. Barnes desired to limit the public's access to a culturally significant collection of art. Besides, it was Barnes' own damn fault for leaving the collection to a small college who didn't really know what to do with it. The larger argument centers around the supposedly illegal actions of a number of individuals, including Pennsylvania government officials, who went ahead and did the very things that Barnes' last will and testament demanded against. Indeed, there's a slippery slope here concerning the government seizing private property, but the argument can be made that these are special circumstances. Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying that I wholeheartedly disagree with the position of those behind The Art of the Steal. I'm simply saying that I'm conflicted. That being said, this documentary is really well done, especially considering the convoluted history of the many people who were in charge of the Barnes Collection over the years. Never once was I confused by all the names and the abundance of legal arguments within. There's a twist towards the end involving a suspicious item in the Pennsylvania state budget that perhaps isn't as damning as the filmmakers clearly think. Otherwise, The Art of the Steal gave me a lot to chew on, and though I have yet to come to any real conclusions, I'm all in favor of a film that has me thinking.

The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers (2010) ****
Directed by Judith Ehrlich & Rick Goldsmith

My tweet:

The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers (2010)- Ellsberg's a great narrator. Fascinating doc. ****/5

Other thoughts:

For someone so radical in his political beliefs, Daniel Ellsberg comes across surprisingly grounded. humble and logical. He narrates and is the primary interviewee in this look back at his decision to photocopy and distribute confidential documents exposing the governmental lies behind the Vietnam War. Ellsberg, who worked for the RAND corporation after a civilian stint in Vietnam, is such a fascinating and impressive presence on screen. By the end, the viewer ends up convinced that Ellsberg did not do what he did for his own benefit. Just watching and listening to him, it's clear that he's not a fame seeker. He simply stood up for what he believed in, knowing full well that it might lead to prison. Feature length documentaries live and die based on the subject matter and the way it's presented. The Most Dangerous Man in America chose both perfectly.

Who is Harry Nilsson (And Why Is Everybody Talkin' About Him?) (2010) ***1/2
Directed by John Scheinfeld

My tweet:

Who Is Harry Nilsson (And Why Is Everybody Talkin' About Him?) (2010)- Straightforwardly tells of a brilliant & tragic talent. ***1/2 of 5

Other thoughts:

For some reason, perhaps because of its title, going into this documentary, I was under the impression that Nilsson was a one hit wonder with the song Everybody's Talkin' At Me from Midnight Cowboy who then disappeared into oblivion or died young. Of course, this is far from actuality. Harry Nilsson was one of the greatest and more popular artists of the early 1970s, releasing many different albums and having a number of hit singles including Coconuts, Without You and One. Nilsson was a singular talent who captured the attention of the Beatles, the band that Nilsson idolized. John Lennon called Nilsson the best American musician out there, and this movie does a commendable job showing why that's not necessarily hyperbolic. Ultimately, there's not a whole lot within Who Is Harry Nilsson that you wouldn't find on any above average episode of VH1's Behind the Music, but after watching this tale of the rise and fall of a musical master, I went on iTunes and bought Nilsson's two-disc greatest hits album. I played it yesterday and absolutely loved it. That in itself must say something about the quality of a movie with the mission of exposing music fans to an under-appreciated artist.

Double Take (2010) ****
Directed by Johan Grimonprez

My tweet:

Double Take (2010)- A bit pretentious, but ultimately a fascinating argument for the Cold War as Macguffin. **** out of 5

Other thoughts:

This is an odd little docu-essay. Double Take bases its exploration on the assumption that if you ever meet your double, you must kill him before he kills you. According to the film, the Cold War took this maxim to its extreme, as two governments brought the world to the brink of nuclear war. Perhaps, the USSR and the USA, despite being enemies, were both equally irresponsible, relying on posturing and hubris in order to demonstrate power over the other. Before the nuclear bomb threats, both countries raced into space to be the first to claim responsibility for the next level of human exploration. Believe it or not, the analogy for all this is based on Alfred Hitchcock and a Hitchcock impersonator who narrates the film. At the time of the growing conflict between the US and the USSR, Hitchcock was starting his television show Alfred Hitchcock Presents and releasing the films The Birds and Topaz. The Birds is about man's arrogance in desiring to control nature, an arrogance that can clearly be seen in the events leading up to the Cold War. Topaz, on the other hand, is a literal film about the Cold War and the Cuban Missile Crisis. There is an argument within Double Take about consumerism that I didn't quite understand, though considering that the same commercials for Folgers instant coffee played throughout, it's clearly there. Films like Double Take, much like autobiographical docu-essays such as My Winnipeg, The Beaches of Agnes or Of Time and the City, run the risk of coming across pretentious if they end up too indulgent. There was a short documentary film nominated for an Oscar last year called Rabbit a la Berlin, which is a terrible attempt at meditating on the Berlin wall by way of the rabbits who lived in proximity to it. Double Take could easily have been a similar disaster. Thankfully, it's a fascinating and entertaining watch. I have no idea how Grimonprez came up with the idea to compare the Cold War to Alfred Hitchcock and his definition of a Macguffin, but somehow, it all comes together quite nicely.

The Academy Award Nominations

2011-01-28T00:08:00.006-05:00

January 28, 2011

The favorite to win Best Picture, The Social Network, only received the third most nominations of any film, behind True Grit's 10 nominations and The King's Speech's 12 nominations. Some have predicted that The Social Network is no longer a sure fire bet to take the top prize, and while that might be true, I still think it is the odds on favorite so far. The most egregious Oscar snub, in my opinion, is Christopher Nolan's lack of a directing nomination for Inception. Many thought he was snubbed a few years ago as well when his name wasn't called among the nominees for The Dark Knight. Inception is an impeccably well crafted film.

By the way, I predicted all 10 Best Picture nominees correct, evidence once again of my awesomeness! On the other hand, for some reason, Javier Bardem for Best Actor for Biutiful was not on my radar screen at all. Oh well.

What do you think were some of the surprises/snubs among the nominees?

Make sure you check out the Oscars on February 27, 2011.

Best Picture
127 Hours
Black Swan
The Fighter
Inception
The Kids Are All Right
The King's Speech
The Social Network
Toy Story 3
True Grit
Winter's Bone

Best Actor
Javier Bardem- Biutiful
Jeff Bridges- True Grit
Jesse Eisenberg- The Social Network
Colin Firth- The King's Speech
James Franco- 127 Hours

Best Actress
Annette Bening- The Kids Are All Right
Nicole Kidman- Rabbit Hole
Jennifer Lawrence- Winter's Bone
Natalie Portman- Black Swan
Michelle Williams- Blue Valentine

Best Supporting Actor
Christian Bale- The Fighter
John Hawkes- Winter's Bone
Jeremy Renner- The Town
Mark Ruffalo- The Kids Are All Right
Geoffrey Rush- The King's Speech

Best Supporting Actress
Amy Adams- The Fighter
Helena Bonham Carter- The King's Speech
Melissa Leo- The Fighter
Hailee Steinfeld- True Grit
Jacki Weaver- Animal Kingdom

Best Director
Darren Aronofsky- Black Swan
Joel & Ethan Coen- True Grit
David Fincher- The Social Network
Tom Hooper- The King's Speech
David O. Russell- The Fighter

Best Original Screenplay
Mike Leigh- Another Year
Scott Silver, Paul Tamasy, Eric Johnson, Keith Dorrington- The Fighter
Christopher Nolan- Inception
Lisa Cholodenko, Stuart Blumberg- The Kids Are All Right-
David Seidler- The King's Speech

Best Adapted Screenplay
Danny Boyle, Simon Beaufoy- 127 Hours
Aaron Sorkin- The Social Network
Michael Arndt, John Lasseter, Andrew Stanton, Lee Unkrich- Toy Story 3
Joel Coen, Ethan Coen- True Grit
Debra Granik, Anne Rosellini- Winter's Bone

Best Cinematography
Black Swan
Inception
The King's Speech
The Social Network
True Grit

Best Art Direction
Alice in Wonderland
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1
Inception
The King's Speech
True Grit

Best Costume Design
Alice in Wonderland
I Am Love
The King's Speech
The Tempest
True Grit

Best Sound Mixing
Inception
The King's Speech
Salt
The Social Network
True Grit

Best Editing
127 Hours
Black Swan
The Fighter
The King's Speech
The Social Network

Best Sound Editing
Inception
Toy Story 3
Tron: Legacy
True Grit
Unstoppable

Best Visual Effects
Alice in Wonderland
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1
Hereafter
Inception
Iron Man 2

Best Makeup
Barney's Version
The Way Back
The Wolfman

Best Original Song
"If I Rise"- 127 Hours
"Coming Home"- Country Strong
"I See the Light"- Tangled
"We Belong Together- Toy Story 3

Best Original Score
127 Hours
How to Train Your Dragon
Inception
The King's Speech
The Social Network

Best Animated Short Film
Day & Night
The Gruffalo
Let's Pollute
The Lost Thing
Madagascar, a Journey Diary

Best Live Action Short Film
The Confession
The Crush
God of Love
Na Wewe
Wish 143

Best Documentary Short Film
Killing in the Name
Poster Girl
Strangers No More
Sun Come Up
The Warriors of Qiugang

Best Documentary Feature
Exit Through the Gift Shop
Gasland
Inside Job
Restrepo
Waste Land

Best Foreign Film
Biutiful
Dogtooth
In a Better World
Incendies
Outside the Law

Best Animated Feature
How to Train Your Dragon
The Illusionist
Toy Story 3

Golden Globe Winners

2011-01-26T17:35:00.003-05:00

January 26, 2011

The big story the day after the Globes centered around host Ricky Gervais' mean-spirited, lazy hosting gig. Most people I follow on Twitter have Gervais' back, but I was quite disappointed with him. Though I do think he was a bit of a bully, that's not where my real criticism lies simply because most celebrities should be able to take whatever is dished out against them. I was most disappointed by the fact that his jokes were completely expected and not at all clever. It's like Sacha Baron Cohen's film Bruno. Some might praise Cohen's audacity for being willing to do what he does, much like Gervais' bravery in insulting celebrities right to their faces. On the other hand, Bruno was a pretty bad movie, much like Gervais was a pretty bad host. Doing something with gumption does not equal quality. Anyway, back to the films. Overall, I was pleased with the Globes' predictable choices.

Here are the winners:
Drama Picture- The Social Network
Musical/Comedy Picture- The Kids Are All Right
Drama Actor- Colin Firth- The King's Speech
Musical/Comedy Actor- Paul Giamatti- Barney's Version
Drama Actress- Natalie Portman- Black Swan
Musical/Comedy Actress- Annette Bening- The Kids Are All Right
Supporting Actor- Christian Bale- The Fighter
Supporting Actress- Melissa Leo- The Fighter
Director- David Fincher- The Social Network
Screenplay- Aaron Sorkin- The Social Network
Song- You Haven't Seen the Last of Me- Burlesque
Score- The Social Network
Foreign Language Film- In a Better World
Animated Film- Toy Story 3
Television Movie/Miniseries Actor- Al Pacino- You Don't Know Jack
Television Movie/Miniseries Actress- Claire Danes- Temple Grandin
Television Movie/Miniseries- Carlos

My Oscar Nomination Predictions

2011-01-24T23:45:00.002-05:00

January 24, 2011

The Oscar nominations will be announced early tomorrow morning. I predict The Social Network and The King's Speech will be the two top films in terms of number of nominations. For the third year, I am going to predict what films will receive nominations in the major categories, and once again, for the third year, I am going to prove how bad I am at this.

Best Supporting Actor:
Christian Bale- The Fighter
Andrew Garfield- The Social Network
John Hawkes- Winter's Bone
Mark Ruffalo- The Kids Are All Right
Geoffrey Rush- The King's Speech

(Outside chance- Jeremy Renner- The Town)

(Long shots- Matt Damon- True Grit, Michael Douglas- Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps, Vincent Cassel- Black Swan, Guy Pierce- The King's Speech)

The biggest wild card for this one will be John Hawkes. He's better than Renner in a better film, but will voters remember Hawkes' performance considering that he's overshadowed by Jennifer Lawrence's impressive turn? Also, Renner is a better known entity than Hawkes. Don't count out Globe nominee Douglas. He's got a lot of good will on his side, but the fact that Wall Street 2 is crap won't help. I think it's between six men for the nomination, though this is Christian Bale's award to ultimately take home.

Best Supporting Actress
Amy Adams- The Fighter
Helena Bonham-Carter- The King's Speech
Mila Kunis- Black Swan
Melissa Leo- The Fighter
Hailee Steinfeld- True Grit

(Outside chance- Jacki Weaver- Animal Kingdom)

(Long shots- Leslie Manville- Another Year, Barbara Hershey- Black Swan, Dianne Weist- Rabbit Hole, Noomi Rapace- The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, Julianne Moore- The Kids Are All Right)

The supporting categories tend to be difficult to predict because it's not always clear whether a performance is a lead or supporting one. This might be the issue with Steinfeld, who might be nominated as lead actress or who might not be nominated at all because she will split votes in the two categories. Same goes for Rapace and Moore. I don't think Rapace has much of a shot for a nomination at all, but Moore might have enough votes in the supporting category to be a surprise nominee, though I truly doubt it. That fifth slot, if Steinfeld isn't nominated, is pretty close between Weaver and Manville. I'm giving the edge to Weaver because it's a heavier performance. Still, though, I expect Steinfeld to make it in as a supporting actress. The nominations will be key to who will emerge as the favorite to win. If Steinfeld is nominated, I think she might be the favorite. Otherwise, I think it will be Leo that will take home the award.

Best Actor
Jeff Bridges- True Grit
Jesse Eisenberg- The Social Network
Colin Firth- The King's Speech
James Franco- 127 Hours
Ryan Gosling- Blue Valentine

(Outside chance- Robert Duvall- Get Low)

(Long shots- Mark Wahlberg- The Fighter, Aaron Eckhart- Rabbit Hole, Leonardo DiCaprio- Inception, Leonardo DiCaprio- Shutter Island)

I'd be thrilled to have Leo DiCaprio sneak in with a much deserved nomination for Inception, but I don't think it's going to happen. Robert Duvall is apparently great in Get Low, but will people remember the film when they vote, especially considering Duvall's overall lack of awards momentum for the role? I still think Wahlberg has a chance. I thought he was quite good giving a humble performance in The Fighter, but others see his humility as dullness, so that might work against him. Bridges is not a lock considering that he's not as flashy as Wayne was in the same role in 1969. Gosling and Eckhart have their better female counterparts in Michelle Williams and Nicole Kidman overshadowing them which might hurt. That being said, I think Bridges and Gosling will be nominated. Both True Grit and Blue Valentine have a lot more acting good will than Rabbit Hole and Inception. If there's a surprise tomorrow morning, though, it might just be in this category.

Best Actress
Annette Bening- The Kids Are All Right
Nicole Kidman- Rabbit Hole
Jennifer Lawrence- Winter's Bone
Natalie Portman- Black Swan
Michelle Williams- Blue Valentine

(Outside chance- Hailee Steinfeld- True Grit)

(Long shots- Julianne Moore- The Kids Are All Right, Carey Mulligan- Never Let Me Go, Kim Hye-Ja- Mother, Noomi Rapace- The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo)

Don't count out Julianne Moore in this category, especially if Steinfeld receives a supporting nomination, which I think she will. That being said, I'm most confident about my predictions in this category. I absolutely think these five ladies will be nominated.

Best Director
Darren Aronofsky- Black Swan
David Fincher- The Social Network
Tom Hooper- The King's Speech
Christopher Nolan- Inception
David O. Russell- The Fighter

(Outside chance- Danny Boyle- 127 Hours)

(Long shots- Lisa Cholodenko- The Kids Are All Right, Joel & Ethan Coen- True Grit, Ben Affleck- The Town, Debra Granik- Winter's Bone)

Nolan is the wild card here. He wasn't nominated for The Dark Knight, so should I take that as a sign that he similarly won't be nominated again or that he will be nominated partially to make up for that oversight? I do think the film stands on its own as being a real directorial achievement, so I expect him to be nominated. I don't think 127 Hours will get a great deal of votes in any category, though I'm about to predict that it will be nominated for Best Picture, but I wouldn't be surprised if it gets 9th or 10th place on that list. Don't count out the Coens. Okay, actually, yeah, you can pretty much count out the Coens. Many think True Grit is one of their weaker efforts, and though it will be nominated for Best Picture, I think many voters will be conflicted at the prospect of nominating them for Best Director. I think the five men I predicted will be announced. I feel good about these choices.

Best Picture
127 Hours
Black Swan
The Fighter
Inception
The Kids Are All Right
The King's Speech
The Social Network
Toy Story 3
True Grit
Winter's Bone

(Outside chance- The Town)

(Long shots- Blue Valentine, How to Train Your Dragon, Rabbit Hole, Shutter Island, The Ghost Writer)

Considering I only got 7 out of 10 nominees correct last time, I wouldn't put your money on my predictions. That being said, I think I'll get at least nine out of 10 correct. I wouldn't be surprised to see The Town nominated. I don't think any of the other long shots have much of a shot. Some have predicted Shutter Island, but I think too many were disappointed by it for it to sneak in. The best shot out of the long shots is the painfully mediocre film How to Train Your Dragon. If The Town sneaks in, which film will it replace? I think 127 Hours, The Kids Are All Right, Winter's Bone and Inception are all far from locks so any one of those might not get the nomination. I think The Kids Are All Right is perhaps the film that has the best chance of the four of being left out. Still, I think (or at least I hope) I'll make up for my failures last year in this category.

I'll post the nominees on my blog tomorrow.

Temple Grandin, Robin Hood, 44 Inch Chest, Alamar, Tales from the Script

2011-01-21T22:43:00.001-05:00

January 21, 2011

Temple Grandin (2010) ****1/2
Directed by Mick Jackson

My tweet:

Temple Grandin (2010)- Danes is spectacular in an earnest yet inspirational look at autism & accomplishment. Compelling watch. ****1/2 of 5

Other thoughts:

Temple Grandin is a wonderful movie. It's better than I ever could have imagined a made for cable biopic about an autistic woman who invented a humane way to slaughter cows might be. There are so many tricky aspects to a movie about this subject matter. First of all, how do you go about playing an autistic woman, especially considering that the film sincerely attempts to show viewers what it's like to live with such a disability? Claire Danes, giving a performance that has cemented her in my judgment as one of the most talented actresses working today, could easily have gone down the Dustin Hoffman Rain Man gimmick route, portraying a two dimensional automaton. Instead, she breathes a great deal of life and joy into a character so often frustrated by her total lack of social skills. Second, what's the best way to showcase the agricultural advancements that Grandin brilliantly conceived without repelling the audience at the gore and death associated with the slaughtering of animals? Personally, if I was the head of HBO, I would never in a million years have greenlit a film like this one precisely because of these two towering obstacles. Mick Jackson, with a great deal of help from Danes, Julia Ormand, David Strathairn and others, jumped these hurdles with room to spare. Temple Grandin is fascinating, entertaining and inspiring. Granted, I'm not sure what Catherine O'Hara's character is doing in this movie. Her very presence confused and distracted me since her character seems to have no real reason for being in the movie at all. Besides this minor quibble, I have nothing but great things to say about Temple Grandin. It's an absolute delight.

Robin Hood (2010) **1/2
Directed by Ridley Scott

My tweet:

Robin Hood (2010)- Dull, muddled storytelling, murky cinematography and indecipherable battle sequences. **1/2 out of 5

Other thoughts:

Wow, the story of Robin Hood has never been so dull. This is the backstory before the iconic tale of the man who steals from the rich to give to the poor. I don't really care enough about this movie to research the history involved, so I'll be purposefully curt in my description. Robin Hood is a soldier who has to deliver the news that a king is dead, then hides out in a town with Cate Blanchett whose husband died in battle. The two fall in love and must fight the French. The whole time, arrows fly. The battles are so poorly staged, and the momentum of the plot is literally nonexistent. Worst of all, this cinematic tedium goes on for a God awful two hours and twenty minutes. I'll take Kevin Costner, men in tights and Disney animation over this slick snoozefest any day.

44 Inch Chest (2010) ***
Directed by Malcolm Venville

My tweet:

44 Inch Chest (2010)- Great performances, but monotony hurts the execution of a fundamentally clever screenplay. *** out of 5

Other thoughts:

I added 44 Inch Chest way back at the beginning of 2010 when I was adding far too many movies every week to my list to see than someone who is a full time high school teacher could ever reasonably watch. Around late summer 2010, I parsed the list down, only holding onto those films that I felt I really wanted or needed to see. 44 Inch Chest made the cut solely because I already had it sent to me from Netflix. It took me almost five months to actually watch it. I'm certainly glad that I did, even though the film is quite messy overall. It doesn't quite achieve what it sets out to, even though I respect its ambition and its best moments enough to give it a pass. 44 Inch Chest is very similar to Tarantino's Reservoir Dogs, except it's not as bloody and (believe it or not) it's much more profane. It's an odd story of a man who discovers that his wife has cheated on him with a young man. The next day, lost in total shock, he invites an eclectic group of acquaintances to help him remember what he did the day before and advise him on what to do next. He did awful things the day prior, and he's thinking about doing unimaginably awful things later that day all out of revenge. With the exception of a handful of flashback scenes, the entire movie takes place in one room. It's a very stagy film, yet the colorful dialogue and the amazing performances by such great British actors as Ray Winstone, Ian McShane, John Hurt and Tom Wilkinson almost keep this thing afloat. Unfortunately, its unfocused conclusion doesn't hold up at all. It's like they didn't know where to go with such great material in the first two acts. 44 Inch Chest could have been a masterpiece, and even though it never gets there, what it is and what it could have been is definitely enough to make me glad that I didn't take it off my list.

Alamar (2010) ***1/2
Directed by Pedro Gonzalez-Rubio

My tweet:

Alamar (2010)- Environmental message feels tacked on, but father/son story is subtly sweet, smart and sad. Lovely little film. ***1/2 of 5

Other Thoughts:

IFC's great critic Matt Singer has been singing the praises of this little film for months now, and when he proclaimed it his number one film of 2010, I decided to check it out right away. At only slightly over one hour, it fit perfectly into my schedule late one night. Alamar is another film like 2009's wonderful hidden treasures Treeless Mountain and The Window that's released by the Film Movement organization dedicated to promoting truly independent cinema. This is a simple tale of a father who spends his last days with his young son on a fishing boat before his son and his ex-wife move to Europe. Narratively, not a whole lot happens, but we see a man being a good father to a good little boy who clearly looks up to the man he won't be able to see much in the future. Very often, I found myself fascinated by the world of a fisherman much like the six year old boy. His wonder is beautifully captured by Gonzalez-Rubio, and it's alongside the boy that we journey out to the sea. Further, there's a white bird that quickly became one of my favorite characters of any film of 2010. Despite its sweetness and its undeniable charm, I do have to conclude, though, that there's not really a whole lot under the surface. Its lack of substance runs the risk that it might be easy to forget a few months or years down the line. Perhaps Alamar's biggest fault lies in the statement on screen we see before the closing credits about an area of water that they hope will soon be a refuge for its wildlife. Never once did I see Alamar as a movie with an environmental message. The random inclusion of that disconnected statement at the end did leave a bad taste in my mouth. Though Alamar won't come anywhere near my number one film of 2010 when I am finally able to make that decision, it's a lovely little treat.

Tales from the Script (2010) **1/2
Directed by Peter Hanson

My tweet:

Tales from the Script (2010)- Looks like it was edited as part of a junior high media class. Slapdash screenwriting insights. **1/2 out of 5

Other thoughts:

Tales from the Script looks cheap, and considering that it's easily going to be a staple film in many Introduction to Film Appreciation courses, I don't think that's acceptable. This is a wonkish interview film with actual Hollywood screenwriters providing personal insights and anecdotes into the creative process, making it in the business, dealing with studios, directors and actors, among other topics. The talking heads throw their often trite insights at the viewer, and admittedly some of their words of wisdom do stick, providing more than one fascinating glimpse into the movie-making process. On the other hand, many sequences and stories ultimately end up a complete waste of time. Beyond its six chapter structure, there's little coherence to the editing of the babbling writers. Further, there's a varying range of success and talent on screen. We get everyone from John Carpenter to the man who wrote Catwoman. Perhaps the idea is to gather as many different perspectives as necessary, but they all start to sound the same after a while. Overall, too many of these people simply come across jaded, cynical and petty. "Life is so hard" and "woe is me" are often felt mantras threaded throughout. Even a documentary like Visions of Light about the history of cinematography in film has fascinating cinema clips adding richness to the interviews on screen. In Tales from the Script, they have one film scene introducing each of the six or seven chapters. Once again, I'm guessing this is due to budget and time restraints, and once again, that's simply not a good enough excuse.

Rosemary's Baby

2011-01-15T23:44:00.001-05:00

January 15, 2011

Rosemary's Baby (1968) ****1/2
Directed by Roman Polanski

My tweet:

Rosemary's Baby (1968)- Genuinely terrifying and undeniably beautiful. Farrow's fantastic. Few clunky scenes. ****1/2 out of 5

Other thoughts:

What is it about the personification of evil that makes for such terrifying horror films such as The Exorcist and Rosemary's Baby? In a way, the idea that a creature from hell acquires power in this world by taking on human or semi-human form really ought to be so ridiculous that the viewer can easily remove himself or herself from ultimate terror. Yet, these movies really burrow deep in one's psyche. Films like Rosemary's Baby are the ones that have the potential to require me to use a nightlight.

Roman Polanski made his American directorial debut with this wonderfully sinister film. The first hour feels like a French New Wave movie in the vein of Godard's Breathless. There's definitely a European sensibility to Polanski's direction which is understandable. Mia Farrow and John Cassavetes play young newlyweds who move into a gothic apartment in New York previously inhabited by an old woman who recently died. Down the hall live an eccentric elderly couple, played by Sidney Blackmer and Oscar-winner for this film Ruth Gordon, better known to most as Maude from Harold and Maude, who befriend their young neighbors with what seem like good intentions. One night, Farrow's Rosemary has a nightmare in which she's raped by the devil himself. Upon waking up, she realizes that her husband was having marital relations with her at the moment she was dreaming.

Soon after she learns of her pregnancy, strange things start to happen. Her husband has conveniently found success as an actor, and Farrow, who plays Rosemary, constantly feels very sharp pain that her doctor insists will go away very soon. Eventually, with the goading of a recently deceased friend of hers, Rosemary begins to distrust everyone around her, including her husband, her neighbors and her doctor. Perhaps she's suffering from prepartum delusions, or maybe there is a tangible evil that's always nearby.

Mia Farrow, who was known to most at the time as Mrs. Frank Sinatra, gives an amazing performance in a really difficult role. She must be likable, yet cold and distant all at once. For much of the film, Rosemary suffers quite a bit while maintaining a cool demeanor. The final scene, especially, is so over the top that I can't even begin to imagine how Farrow was able to find her motivations. The supporting cast, including Gordon who's always fun to watch on screen even if she really can only play one type of character, does fine work, especially cinema verite pioneer director Cassavetes.

There are a handful of moments that are a bit too contrived to work, so the movie isn't quite a masterpiece. The whole sequence with the anagram from the book makes little sense. Further, Rosemary transitions from slightly anxious to appearing downright psychotic perhaps a little too quickly. The aforementioned climactic sequence goes down as one of the wackiest ever while proving profoundly unsettling at the same time. Perhaps it might have been even better if everything at the end wasn't so staged. The New Wave style is abandoned during the final act when the horror takes full effect, which does invite the viewer to disconnect slightly. If even these freakish moments had been played straightforwardly, the film as a whole might have proven even scarier than it ended up.

Rosemary's Baby isn't just about the ridiculously impossible. It's also a scary metaphor for motherhood. Having never been pregnant myself, I can only begin to imagine the anxieties that go along with bringing another human life to term. It would only be natural to wonder if one's baby is going to be healthy, and what kind of person that baby will grow up to be. Rosemary's horror is shared by all mothers in many different ways. The responsibilities that go along with parenting are enough to make people think twice about having children in the first place. Of course, the decision Rosemary must tackle at the end of the film is beyond any mother's worst fantasies. Still, though, having children can be, among other things, horrifying.

A palpable fear of Satan having tangible power in this world is an irrational one, and yet, as a cinematic theme, it's still as in vogue as it was back in the late 60's and early 70's with films like The Last Exorcism and the upcoming film Priest. Maybe it's the idea of evil itself actually able to reason independently, much like humans, that really gets to people. Rosemary's Baby won't force me to sleep with my light on tonight, but it does make me hope that my dreaming remains at a minimum for quite a while. Also, it might be a good idea for me to take a home pregnancy test, you know, just to be safe.

Four 2010 Documentaries- Joan Rivers, Harlan, Casino Jack, Waking Sleeping Beauty

2011-01-14T04:56:00.000-05:00

January 14. 2010

Joan Rivers: A Piece of Work (2010) ***1/2
Directed by Ricki Stern & Anne Sundberg

My tweet:

Joan Rivers: A Piece of Work (2010)- Nothing too novel, but Rivers is a fascinating genius/circus freak. Smart film making. ***1/2 out of 5

Other thoughts:

I love the title of Joan Rivers: A Piece of Work. Here's a woman who can laugh at herself, all while taking her image and legacy way too seriously. At almost 80 years old, Rivers works herself to the bone because she equates work with acceptance and validation. Insecurity has never been this funny, I assure you. It's the irony at play between profound self-loathing and comedy genius that makes a documentary about Joan Rivers so fascinating. With each B-level project Rivers does (Celebrity Apprentice, a one woman stage show in London met with mixed reviews, playing small comedy clubs in parts of the country easily offended by her extreme vulgarity and political incorrectness, a documentary about her life called Joan Rivers: A Piece of Work which she couldn't have known would be as well received as it has been), she seems to do damage to her legacy, which, if she doesn't destroy it completely before she dies, is as a trailblazer for women in comedy. Rivers never quite lets down her guard completely on camera, but we get the sense that she probably doesn't really let her guard down with anyone anyway. She hides her anxieties behind a paradoxically anxious style of joke telling, at which she's so damn good! Rivers is the real deal when it comes to talent, which makes her alarming need for constant public exposure and approval so lamentable. Also take into account the plastic surgery that's alluded to in the title of this film, and we're left with a person we shouldn't love. Yet, we do come to love and respect Joan Rivers by the end because of her singular comic acumen. Stern & Sundberg's film making doesn't really do anything we haven't seen done before just as well in many other biographical documentaries, but they deserve a lot of credit for having the insight to choose the subject of their documentary so perfectly. Rivers is a piece of work indeed, and, like both a sophisticated virtuoso and a carnival freak, it's impossible to look away.

Harlan: In the Shadow of Jew Suss (2010) ****
Directed by Felix Moeller

My tweet:

Harlan: In the Shadow of Jew Suss (2010)- Fascinating doc about a family's Nazi filmmaker patriarch & shame of Nazi descendants. **** of 5

Other thoughts:

Thank goodness I was born into a respectable family. Harlan: In the Shadow of Jew Suss is not just about an unbelievably talented filmmaker who made a handful of brutally racist Nazi propaganda films in Germany, but it's also an examination of the innocent children, step-children, nieces, nephews and grandchildren that had the misfortune of being born into a family with the stench of sin corroding the blood running through their veins. Director Felix Moeller certainly could have made a straightforward documentary about Viet Harlan and the specific legacy of the deplorably anti-Semitic film Jew Suss, but instead he ambitiously broadens the scope of his exploration to include reactions of Harlan's kin, making this a fascinating glimpse into the many Germans still living today who come from families of former Nazis and Nazi sympathizers. I bet Germany can't wait for the day when the Holocaust becomes ancient history. It'll take at least another century or two before that will even begin to reach fruition. Until then, the country simply has to keep its head down and keep plugging ahead, much like the descendants of Viet Harlan. It's fascinating to see the many varying ways the interviewees have chosen to balance condemnation of Harlan's legacy with familial loyalty. Some choose to rationalize Harlan's decisions and outputs, while others coldly condemn him and anyone else in their family even willing to give the man an inch. Of course, most of the dozen or so Harlan relatives, especially the youngest of those interviewed, fall somewhere in between these two extremes, though always with a clear response to the questions posed by the off screen interviewer. Every word uttered shows an internal struggle that's clearly been given a great deal of thought and energy. Harlan: In the Shadow of Jew Suss isn't just a documentary that history or film buffs will enjoy. It's a movie that asks a very challenging question of us all--how much of what happened before we are born are we responsible? Answering, "nothing," is profoundly naive.

Casino Jack and the United States of Money (2010) ***
Directed by Alex Gibney

My tweet:

Casino Jack and the United States of Money (2010)- First half is clear and the overall scope is impressive, but this doc is scattered. ***/5

Other thoughts:

Conservative super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff is the epitome of the type of arrogance that's way too rampant within conservative politics particularly. Liberals believe in personal freedoms; in general, though, they believe that the government needs to be a source of checks and balances so that capitalism doesn't completely leave the poor and middle class without a net. Conservatives in general sort of believe in certain government regulations, though always as a necessary evil. Capitalist liberals don't seen capitalism as the enemy; conservatives too often see the government as a cancer. It's this kind of stuck in the trenches logic that makes militant libertarians convinced that they must do whatever is necessary to fight for freedoms. At one point in this documentary, the fact that Abramoff was the president of the College Republicans is showcased. Perhaps his biggest problem is that he never got over the jejune arrogance that plagues all college students. Gibney's slightly unfocused examination of deceits and manipulations that ultimately lands Abramoff in jail paints a disturbing portrait of a group of men waging a chaotic war on the political left, turning into a slippery slope of injustice with a great deal of casualties exploited because of their financial desperation. Considering that many of the victims of Abramoff and friends have darker skin than they do says something quite loudly about they way they look at the dignity of the human person. Casino Jack and the United States of Money lays out Abramoff's history well until we get to his trial and conviction. Gibney assumes the audience already knows the ultimate outcome inside and out, and therefore, those of us who really aren't all that familiar with the guy are left frustrated that a riveting tale is left unfinished. Overall, though, this man is a living cautionary tale of the type of behavior that results when arrogance is mixed with unprecidented political power, especially for those who hold no elected office. As such, Casino Jack and the United States of Money is an indispensable movie.

Waking Sleeping Beauty (2010) ***1/2
Directed by Don Hahn

My tweet:

Waking Sleeping Beauty (2010)- Turns into gossipy tale of egos, but within, there's fascinating history of Disney's renaissance. ***1/2 of 5

Other thoughts:

Not until Pixar in the 2000s would animation see such a string of critical and box office successes in a row like The Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin and The Lion King. These films mark a revival of the virtually dead animation department of Disney studios after the massive disaster of The Black Cauldron and the relative disappointments of The Great Mouse Detective and Oliver and Company. It took Steven Spielberg and Robert Zemeckis collaborating with Disney to make the wonderful movie Who Framed Roger Rabbit? to begin to salvage the greatest studio reputation in the history of the animated film. By the time The Lion King was released, having the moniker of being a Disney animated film became the most profitable thing in all entertainment when one considers merchandising on top of unprecedented box office successes. It took some truly audacious and talented men to carry Disney out of the muck of stagnation into the unsteady and risky world of progress. These men were not only brilliant, but they had egos the size of Alice down the rabbit hole. Waking Sleeping Beauty is a documentary about this great revival of animated films in the late 80s and early 90s, giving as much time to the cattiness of three megalomaniacs as it does to behind the scenes insight into a handful of cinematic masterpieces. The history behind The Little Mermaid especially is really riveting stuff, ending ultimately in the death of musician Howard Menken to AIDS shortly before Beauty and the Beast premiered. It's this type of film history that I crave, and Waking Sleeping Beauty does it well...that is, when it does it at all. Sadly, too often we're subjected to tabloid gossip and conjecture about Jeffrey Katzenberg, Michael Eisner and Roy Disney. All the walls came tumbling down with the notorious resignation of Katzenberg, resulting in business gossip that arguably hasn't been matched since. Sure, their ultimate interpersonal collapse amid studio successes is well told, but as subject matter, it's of a much lesser quality than the timeless classics from that period of Disney cinema. The pettiness and insecurities of a few rich, spoiled executives will be a footnote in history someday soon. The movies they were responsible for will continue to be loved as long as there are children somewhere on this planet. That's where the real story lies.

True Grit

2011-01-09T23:57:00.000-05:00

January 9, 2010

True Grit (2010) ***1/2
Directed by Joel & Ethan Coen

My tweet:

True Grit (2010)- Solid story told well, acted well and shot well. Sadly, though, this is a huge step down for the Coens. ***1/2 out of 5

Other thoughts:

I'm conflicted about whether or not it's appropriate to compare this version of True Grit to first of all, the original version, and second, to the Coen Brothers' previous films. I've come to the conclusion that it's okay to mention those other films, but when it comes to True Grit's overall success or failure, I really ought to look at it autonomously. To put it another way--I like the 1969 version of True Grit slightly better than this one, and this is my least favorite Coen Brothers film that I've seen so far. Yet, I don't think I've given any Coen Brothers film I've reviewed on this blog any less than four and a half stars, and the 1969 True Grit received four stars, so there's still quite a bit of room for this film to still be considered a good movie even if it doesn't equal these comparisons.

This time around, the Coens try to remain faithful to the religiosity and the dark humor of the original novel by Charles Portis which was slightly lost in the 1969 film. Both similarly tell the tale of young Mattie Ross, a teenager who is seeking revenge on Tom Chaney, the man who killed her father in a drunken rage and has now escaped to Indian Territory. Far from home, she cleverly acquires the money necessary to hire U.S. Marshall Rooster Cogburn, a one-eyed drunk known for being trigger happy much more than he's known for his people skills. Also pursuing Tom Chaney for his involvement in the murder of a senator is a Texas Ranger named LaBeouf. The three make an unconventional trio as they try and follow the trail of Chaney and his men.

There are a few marginally deep questions about the consequences of choosing violent revenge, but beyond that, there's very little to chew on besides what is ultimately a pretty shallow slice of western pulp entertainment. Wayne made Cogburn into a deeply flawed hero with quite a bit of masculine gravitas, similar to pretty much every other character Wayne tackled. Jeff Bridges makes Rooster much more real, letting the heroics of his actions speak for themselves. Both Wayne and Bridges are equally effective in different ways. However, by the end of the 1969 version, the film completely belongs to John Wayne. This time around, Bridges works well with co-stars Hailee Steinfeld and Matt Damon, ultimately sharing ownership of a tale about relationships as much as it is about action and adventure.

Damon is infinitely more interesting than Glen Campbell, who gave a wet noodle of a performance back in 69. Yet, the break out star of True Grit seems to be young Steinfeld. Many are talking of an Oscar nomination for her role as Mattie Ross. I will say that she's quite a step up from Kim Darby, and she's very good considering her age and the fact that this is her first film role. That being said, she's not as good as Bridges or Damon. Ultimately Mattie is slightly two-dimensional as a character--extremely intelligent and quite confident beyond her years. Steinfeld commands her character's charisma, which is vital considering that she's able to manipulate the adults around her in order to get what she wants. Beyond that, though, there's not much to Steinfeld's performance that really supports the internal struggles of her character at the heart of the conflict within the plot.

The first act is infinitely better than the 1969 version. The Coens consistently cut abruptly in these scenes, providing a forward momentum which seamlessly transitions into the thrust of the adventure that follows. We're not given any more than we need to know, allowing the characters to mount their horses and actually get down to business a lot faster. Roger Deakins once again provides gorgeous cinematography similar to his work in No Country for Old Men. The ending, which is much more faithful to the novel than the 69 version, is certainly interesting, though there's not quite enough deep questions posed before it to really support its philosophical heft.

All of the Coen Brothers films that I've seen have been at least near masterpieces, often hitting many different notes at the same time. They're funny and brutal and challenging at once. True Grit has a few laughs and a few moments of well choreographed violence, but it fails to challenge its audience. This is a well-told, well-directed tale, but beyond that, there's really little else of note. True Grit is a really nice slice of entertainment just as the 1969 version was as well. That one seemed to embrace its superficiality a lot more than this one, which gave it an element of charm that's lacking in the Coens' direction. I don't have a problem with the Coens doing a straightforward film every once in a while, but they're capable of greatness. I suppose it's a little disappointing when they're willing to settle for goodness.

Meet Me in St. Louis

2011-01-09T22:08:00.000-05:00

January 9, 2011

Meet Me in St. Louis (1944) ****
Directed by Vincente Minnelli

My tweet:

Meet Me in St. Louis (1944)- Judy Garland's a force of nature in a delightful musical that's perhaps a bit too sweet & sentimental. ****/5

Other thoughts:

Considering that Meet Me in St. Louis is over 65 years old, it's more than a little quaint. Also, the film is a tongue-and-cheek nostalgic tale against the backdrop of the 1904 World's Fair, which makes the quaintness exponentially greater. With songs lyrics like, "Meet me in St. Louis, Louis...I'll be your tootsie, wootsie, wootsie," and, "Clang, clang, clang goes the trolley. Ring, ring, ring goes the bell," it's certainly understandable if modern audiences resist the stench of corn and cheese emanating from what was MGM's biggest box office hit since Gone with the Wind in 1939.

Yet, if one does not disengage altogether, it's pretty easy to be won over by this really lovely little musical about a family very much in love with their home town. Meet Me in St. Louis is a musical for sure, but it doesn't have any show stopping numbers with huge choruses and elaborate choreography. It's quite intimate, which adds to its charm. Had this been a lavish, garish production, it would be all to easy to dismiss it as a total failure considering its overall naivety. The last thing this stuff needs is more bombast.

The idealism of blossoming young romance is balanced against the unconditional love of family quite nicely. The opening scene surprised and delighted me. We're introduced to two women who are passive aggressively trying one up each other making a potful of ketchup. One of these women is the matriarch of the family Anna, played by the great Maltese Falcon femme fatale Mary Astor. The other is the maid named Katie, played by Marjorie Main. Judging this exchange alone, these women seem like they absolutely despise each other, and neither comes across especially warm. What a surprise, therefore, when only a few scenes later, they work together to try and trick the patriarch Alonzo (Leon Ames) into having dinner early so that the oldest daughter Rose (Lucille Bremer) could have the phone in the dining room to herself when her boyfriend in New York calls presumably to propose marriage. Both women are filled with mischievous joy, similar to every other member in this wacky family, especially the youngest, Tootie, played by Margaret O'Brien, who won a special Oscar for best child performance.

Based on the autobiographical book by Sally Benson, Meet Me in St. Louis has its share of bawdiness amongst its buttoned-up humor, similar to a film like The Philadelphia Story. There are many subplots, some of which are downright bizarre, including a Halloween night where children act downright felonious. Young Tootie and her slightly older sister Agnes put a dummy on the trolley tracks (off screen) so that the conductor will think there's a body in the way which causes the trolley to derail completely. Also, Tootie likes to imagine that her dolls are dying of disease and then buries them in the graveyard when they finally lose the will to live. Granted, these are probably recollections of Benson's childhood straight from her book, but they're way too macabre for something that literally looks like the cinematic equivalent of a Norman Rockwell painting.

The main plot surrounds the burgeoning relationship between the Smith's second oldest daughter Esther, played by Judy Garland, and the new neighbor John Truett, played by Tom Drake. Esther manipulates their introduction by having her brother invite John over to their house for a party. It's here that everyone dances to Skip to My Lou and Esther and Tootie sing Under the Bamboo Tree. Esther hopes to see John on their trolley ride into town the next day. At first he doesn't show up, but then everyone sees him running trying to catch up with the trolley already on the move. It's here that Esther sings the iconic The Trolley Song. Eventually, the family plans to move to New York City because of Alonzo's new job. This prompts John to propose to Esther on Christmas Eve, but they soon realize that a long distance relationship simply won't work.

Heartbroken, Esther returns home to find Tootie waiting up for Santa Claus. Sitting on a windowsill Garland sings Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas. If anyone doubts the talent of Judy Garland, simply watch how electrifying she is in this scene. She literally commands the screen with her singing and her slight facial reactions to the lyrics. Beyond The Wizard of Oz and In the Good Old Summertime, I don't think I've seen any other Judy Garland films, but I'm convinced by her performance in Meet Me in St. Louis that she may very well be the most talented musical actress ever to grace the screen. At only 21 years-old, she seems like such an old soul on screen. Her confidence matched with her talent truly gives Meet Me in St. Louis its lifeblood. She elevates an otherwise flimsy film into a dynamic filmgoing experience.

Margaret O'Brien became a breakout star after playing Tootie. Personally, I found her character and her performance downright obnoxious. Further, she's tone deaf. Kids who ham it up on screen are not cute. If anything, they come across spoiled and become unbearable pretty quickly. I couldn't wait for scenes without Tootie. Also, considering that the film is a love letter to St. Louis, the fact that the whole movie was obviously shot on sound stages in Hollywood makes this a pretty lackluster ode to St. Louis. The final scene involving the characters delighting over the glories of St. Louis doesn't work at all. Maybe it might have been outside of the studio system's modus operandi, but we really needed some location shooting within St. Louis itself. Even some kind of Robert Wise-esque helicopter shots of the city might have done this material some good.

Still, people have been eating up this movie for a couple of generations now, and it'll certainly be beloved for quite a long time to come. Meet Me in St. Louis is far from high quality cinema. Yet, despite the free-flowing sap, it's a charming musical trolley ride of a film.

Trash Humpers

2011-01-08T13:23:00.007-05:00

January 8, 2011

Trash Humpers (2010) ****
Directed by Harmony Korine

My tweet:

Trash Humpers (2010)- Performance art that's a brutal condemnation of those choosing to consume hatred and live as hypocrites. **** out of 5

Other thoughts:

Harmony Korine has always been the kind of filmmaker that won't appeal to mass audiences. Though I hear Gummo and Julien Donkey-Boy are both tough sits, I can't imagine anything he has made or will ever make being as alienating as Trash Humpers, a movie that probably deserves to be described as performance art more than as a movie. It plays like the viewer has found an old VHS tape on the side of the road and watched it only to find seemingly incoherent acts of depravity. Yet, Harmony Korine isn't a filmmaker devoid of ideas whose only purpose is to shock an audience. He's unapologetically condemning those in America who promote hate while hypocritically cloaking themselves in normalcy and moral superiority.

Anyone who claims that Trash Humpers makes no sense is flat out wrong. Some characters are given the opportunity to ramble on, and almost always, these ramblings involve homophobic jokes and racial slurs. At one point, a man wearing a french maid's dress is reciting poetry while our three main characters, donning facial makeup to make them look elderly, throw firecrackers on the roof of what looks like a parking garage while cackling at his words. The next scene, we see that man lying in a pool of his own blood in the middle of a kitchen floor.

Harmony Korine has dealt with those people society sees as freakish in every film he has directed. One of my favorite movies of the decade is Mister Lonely, written and directed by Korine, which is the story about a Michael Jackson impersonator who goes to live on a commune with a bunch of other celebrity impersonators. It's there where he finally feels like he belongs, yet even that world is one of hardships and disappointments, especially for the Marilyn Monroe impersonator, played wonderfully by Samantha Morton. Trash Humpers spews venom at those people who would dismiss those who live in that commune (or anyone else for that matter) as less than they are.

The imagery speaks for itself in this regard. At one point, the elderly trio laugh non-stop at a chubby eight year-old boy attempting to shoot a basketball over and over again only to miss reaching the rim by at least a foot. As the title suggests, they have an odd fixation with garbage and garbage cans. They abuse dolls, while later in the film, the female elderly woman sings a real baby to sleep while tenderly strolling her in a baby carriage. They destroy televisions, pummel radios and defile mailboxes. All of this imagery clearly supports Korine's thesis that people who think they are better than he is need only look at the quality of their choices of consumption.

As a film by a filmmaker speaking out for those without a voice in our society, Trash Humpers works very well, though I doubt that anyone who needs to hear this message will seek it out and actually sit through it. Yet, as a work meant to offend and provoke, I don't think Korine succeeds quite as effectively as he think he has. Knowing the kind of film I was about to watch, I was on guard against being shocked, and as such, not once was I offended or really all that repulsed by what I was seeing. It's impossible to really engage with anyone or anything on screen, and as such, we're not witnessing human beings interacting with other human beings. Every character involved is as much of an object as the many trash cans that are utilized in unique ways. Therefore, it's all too easy to keep this movie and its message at an arms' length. Trash Humpers certainly has the audacity to be transgressive, but its execution sadly never quite gets there.

There are seeds of hate within the conservative revival that continues to dominate our nation. Fox News and Glenn Beck are winning daily in the ratings, and many of their viewers are elderly. Korine's not giving anyone a pass when he holds a mirror up to the freakishness of the beliefs by which bigots structure their lives. Of course, not everyone who calls himself or herself a conservative is a bigot, and Trash Humpers isn't aiming at those who can tolerate people different than they are. All I know is that I hope Korine never makes a documentary condemning the way I live my life. Though, if the objects of Korine's scorn in Trash Humpers are any indication, I probably wouldn't end up paying attention to his movie about me in the first place.

The (Pretty Much) Final Five Films from 2009 I'll See

2011-01-08T09:25:00.006-05:00

January 8, 2011

Walt & El Grupo (2009) **1/2
Directed by Theodore Thomas

My tweet:

Walt & El Grupo (2009)- Should have been a short doc. This story showcasing three months is languidly stretched out. **1/2 out of 5

Other thoughts:

One of the things I needed Walt & El Grupo to prove to me is the benefit of "good will" excursions. It didn't. By the end of this documentary about the three months Walt Disney and friends spent in South America as World War II was in its early stages, there's a flimsy argument made that this trip helped deliver an image of South Americans as fun and friendly back to the United States while also showing those in South America that the United States truly cared about them and their interests. Another somewhat irrelevant point was made as well. After the labor strike at Disney following the success of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Disney himself was going through a very difficult time, and it was this trip which got him through, allowing him to continue one of the all time great careers in Hollywood history. I'm not buying the truth of either argument, especially because they're presented in the most one-sided way possible. This movie feels like something produced solely for the Disney family archives, showcasing Walt Disney as a singularly jovial ambassador finding glee within other cultures. Worse even than all the patronizing on display is the fact that this documentary is so damn boring, and this is coming from someone who absolutely loves learning about the history of film. Letters are read, and montages of photographs with Latin music are doled out. Little time is given to the cartoons that resulted from Disney's experiences on this trip, the most notable one being The Three Caballeros. There's not enough insight from the talking heads who mostly consist of children and grandchildren of Disney and his diplomatic posse. There's simply not enough importance for this stuff to work as a two hour long documentary. The subject matter of Walt & El Grupo is exactly the sort for which the short documentary genre exists.

Afterschool (2009) ***
Directed by Antonio Campos

My tweet:

Afterschool (2009)- Despite jejune moments and a cynical naivety, there are enough thought provoking questions to carry this film. ***/5

Other thoughts:

Afterschool is too much like Paranoid Park, and considering that Paranoid Park was my favorite movie of 2008, the fact that it's not nearly as good is especially troublesome for me. Campos employs experimental editing and cinematography in order to try and capture the hell that is high school. In that vein, Afterschool is also similar to Gus Van Sant's Elephant, another better film. All three films deal with young people responsible for brutal deaths, and with Paranoid Park and Afterschool specifically, these deaths allow adult audiences to connect with the elevated stakes with which all of adolescence is imbued. Again, had I not felt like I have seen this exact sort of thing before in Paranoid Park, I might have appreciated Afterschool that much more, considering the appropriateness of the allegory. Afterschool focuses on an angry and troubled young high school boy in a boarding prep school administered by adults that care only about the image of the school and not about the students. Herein lies another problem with Afterschool. The cynicism of the screenplay comes through all too loud and clear, making the characterizations of the adults especially naive. The boy must deal with his internal struggles with sex and violence while he's trapped in a world where he's experiencing both for the first time without being equipped to handle any of it. He's asked to edit a memorial video for twin senior girls who seemingly died of drug overdoses. To make matters worse, the boy was the only one in the room when they died. He deals with disappointment after disappointment until he finally acts out and we're left to wonder whether or not he's moved beyond the point of no return into a world where innocence is truly a thing of the past. There are enough interesting sequences at play that I do recommend the film on its artistic value alone, but I'm still troubled by the fact that Afterschool is biting off the innovations of Paranoid Park. If you're going to copy the blueprint of another film, at least match its quality. Next time, Campos better come up with his own voice. I think he has it in him.

(Untitled) (2009) ***
Directed by Jonathan Parker

My tweet:

(Untitled) (2009)- Well-acted with some great laughs, but it never really rises above the intellectual-lite that it parodies. *** out of 5

Other thoughts:

(Untitled) is a comedy that elicits huge laughs when the experimental non-tonal band plays a brutal, pretentious cacophony and calls it art. It's the sort of "art" that's so jarring and discordant that just about everyone will see it as worthless. Unfortunately, the rest of the film relies less on visual and aural gags, instead focusing on droopy dialogue and pseudo-philosophizing on the meaning of art to keep us invested and entertained. (Untitled) certainly isn't bad. It's just not nearly as smart as it think it is or needs to be to really sell the subject matter.

A Christmas Carol (2009) ***
Directed by Robert Zemeckis

My tweet:

A Christmas Carol (2009)- Classic story told well, but technology still washes out emotions. Too many chase sequences for Dickens. *** of 5

Other thoughts:

My biggest problem with Zemeckis' CGI follow up to A Christmas Carol is the fact that there are way too many chase scenes for a film based on a Charles Dickens' novel. When whole sequences are included just to show off 3D technology, then we know that a better job could have been done with the film's narrative. Though he's able to contort his face in impressive ways, Jim Carrey's vocal work is perhaps a bit too earnest for its own good, and the technology still leaves a lot to be desired especially if we're expected to care whether or not characters are actually emoting. Overall, though, A Christmas Carol is still one of the great morality tales ever written, and Zemeckis provides some truly gorgeous and frightening moments. There are better adaptations of Dickens' classic out there; however, this one (just barely) gets a pass.

Paris 36 (2009) ****
Directed by Christophe Barratier

My tweet:

Paris 36 (2009)- A wonderfully rich story with likable characters. Visually stunning. Historical metaphor doesn't quite work though. ****/5

Other thoughts:

Paris 36 is trying to be both a backstage drama and a political allegory for France right before World War II. As a look at a group of underdogs reviving a theater called Paris 36, this movie is really pretty wonderful; however, as a metaphor of politics and history, not so much. It's the story of an out of work father who loses custody of his accordion-playing son to his estranged wife. In order to prove that he can be a stable father, he attempts to revive a run down vaudevillian theater to its splendor. Of course, with no money, it's not an easy task. He's accompanied in his mission by some loyal performers who unfortunately have troubles of their own. Add into the equation the fact that the Paris 36 posse is not on the good side of a local Nazi who runs the town like the head of the mob, and the road to theatrical success is not an easy one to navigate. With everything awful going on in the world, though, people need escape, and thus, the charming staging of some of the musical numbers and the talent of the performers are enough to fill the seats slowly but surely. The song "Lion de Paname" was nominated for an Oscar, and though no single song stands out, this is a backstage movie that I prefer over both La Vie en Rose and Me and Orson Welles. Paris 36 deserves to find a bigger audience.

Pinocchio

2011-01-02T20:39:00.002-05:00

January 2, 2011

Pinocchio (1940) *****
Various Directors

My tweet:

Pinocchio (1940)- Walt Disney's masterpiece. More sophisticated than Snow White. The high point of the entire animated film genre. *****/5

Other thoughts:

Pinocchio is quite possibly the best animated film I've seen, and it's quite possibly the best animated film ever made. After the monstrous success of Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, Disney used its table winnings and bet it all on animation, characterization, vocal performances, a score and a story all more sophisticated than its predecessor. It was a more naive time in Hollywood back then, and as such, the thought was that the box office will be even better if Pinocchio was of a better quality. Though not a financial failure, Pinocchio proved that this new concept of an animated feature film was not going to be endlessly profitable without a keen eye on market research. Considering that Disney workers went on strike due to unfair treatment by studio heads shortly after Pinocchio's release also helped check the arrogance of a bunch of young men high on the potent drug of the success of Snow White in 1937.

Snow White is a wonderful film, but its vocal work leaves a bit to be desired. Also, the animation of the human beings are too literal, which is still the case with the Blue Fairy in Pinocchio. Disney animators would film real life people and sketch animation on top of the film, resulting in a kind of primitive rotoscoping which makes the animation look way too stifled. This time around, especially when considering the characters of Geppetto and Stromboli, humans become true cartoons, and thus they feel truly part of the world of Jiminy Cricket, the wooden Pinocchio, Lampwick and Gideon. Pinocchio demonstrates a huge step forward technically, but it's also so much more fun to watch than Snow White as well.

The opening song, "When You Wish Upon a Star," sung by Cliff Edwards, is so majestic. While listening to his vocals, one can't help but be transported to a peaceful world full of dreams fulfilled. Then we're introduced to Jiminy Cricket, a wise cracking narrator who serves as our gateway into the world of Pinocchio. We love to be in his company, and we join him in his quest to guide the often gullible wooden boy to a life of virtue in order to prove that he's worthy of becoming a real boy. The opening sequence with the clocks sets the stage for the kind of spectacularly meticulous whimsy we'll see over and over again even among the movie's darkest moments.

The story structure proves to be more episodic than most Disney animated films, which makes sense considering that Pinocchio was originally written as a serial story in a children's literary journal in the 19th century. Venturing out from the safety of Geppetto's home, Pinocchio encounters foxes on his way to school, performs for Stromboli, escapes, visits Pleasure Island, ventures under the sea, gets swallowed by a whale and finally ends up back at home with Geppetto for the film's inspirational conclusion. Granted, this perhaps isn't Disney's most logically cohesive output, but like the great films of Miyazaki, the visuals and the characters are meant to be enough to keep audiences invested.

A handful of iconic sequences help propel Pinocchio to the pantheon of great animated feature movies, not the least of which is the clock sequence mentioned earlier. Pinocchio's performance of "I Got No Strings" is a darkly ironic one considering that he's at the mercy of the terrifyingly effective Stromboli while in captivity. The Pleasure Island scene is a deeply cynical look at the worst of humanity. So many are truly damned because of their lives without a conscience. In many ways, the movie Pinocchio is aggressively moralizing, but it's done not by condemning the viewer, but by emphasizing the dangers and effects of a life led astray. When the donkey boys are screaming in agony, it's enough to send shivers down our spines. Also, do scenes come more visually stunning than the sequences at the bottom of the ocean and inside the belly of the whale? Sixty years later, Disney/Pixar would perfect undersea animation with Finding Nemo, but this first attempt isn't too far off. Back then, Pinocchio's animators had to establish many rules themselves, and they didn't have the assistance of computers. The fruits of their labors are singularly astonishing.

Advances continue to be made in animation even today, so by saying that Pinocchio is the high point of the animated film genre, that doesn't mean that later films aren't more technically sophisticated. It does mean, however, that no other animated film in history is as visually striking and narratively sublime at once. Also, Pinocchio still feels virtually as modern today as it was back in 1940. Snow White is the greater historical achievement; Pinocchio is the better movie, hands down.

Best Films of 2010 So Far

2011-01-02T04:45:00.001-05:00

January 2, 2011

Note: This top five is based on the 2010 releases that I saw up to and including Rabbit Hole.

2010 was an interesting year for film. I've only seen 50 so far, and I have over 100 more that have captured my interest. Many have decried this past year as a weak year for film overall, and despite the fact that I've seen some really excellent movies, I tend to agree. There were few films that really caught on with both critics and audiences alike.

The five best films out of the fifty 2010 releases I've seen at this point are all absolutely fantastic movies that I wholeheartedly recommend! Unfortunately, I'm not sure if there are all that many other excellent films remaining that I have left to see. I do hope so, but after following the critical response to the films of 2010 closely, I think I might have seen most of the best of the best that's out there.

Here are the best films of 2010 so far:

5. 127 Hours

James Franco gives a richly nuanced performance in Danny Boyle's tricky film about the true story of Aron Ralston, an outdoor enthusiast who gets his arm stuck under a rock in a crevasse. Eventually, he must do the unthinkable to survive, which probably makes you think that it's going to be a certain type of movie. 127 Hours is never simple and never conventional. It's frenetic and brilliant.

4. Carlos

At five and a half hours, Carlos delivers not only the heft but also the entertainment with this bloody biopic about famed terrorist dedicated to the Palestinian cause who was known the world over as Carlos the Jackal. As the title character, Edgar Ramirez is a wonder to behold, delivering a performance in many different languages that many have compared to some of the best work of Marlon Brando. Olivier Assayas' ambition resulted in one of the great movie going experiences of my life. Sure, by saying that, I'm primarily referring to the accomplishment of sitting through such a long film, but the fact that it's one of the best films of the year makes the memory that much sweeter.

3. A Prophet

Jacques Audiard's French film Un Prophete is magical in more ways than one. It's a prison gangster film unlike any other in either the prison or gangster film genres. It's the story of a teenager who rises up the ranks within the walls of a jail. Tahar Rahim's character Malik is a changed man by the end, and that transformation requires him to act in ways he couldn't even imagine before his arrest. A Prophet is a glorious achievement. It's not always easy to witness what we see on screen, but it's absolutely worth it.

2. The Social Network

Aaron Sorkin pens the best screenplay of the year, and I'm not kidding when I say that the dialogue within might be among the best in film history. David Fincher beautifully directs a cynical examination of the founding of Facebook and the disintegration of the modern relationship due to the ways we now interact socially through the internet. Anchored by a pitch-perfect performance by Jesse Eisenberg, The Social Network moves with such rapid fire energy that audiences are left breathless not only by the cruelty displayed but also by the momentum and energy of everyone involved in what I truly believe could become the movie of a generation.

1. Exit Through the Gift Shop

I've seen so many movies in the past few years that it's really something when one stays with me long after I see it. Exit Through the Gift Shop is a documentary that will not allow its audience to understand exactly what it's trying to do. In part, it's a fascinating look at the movement of "street art" which has become quite famous in the last few years. It's also a look at the accomplishment of an artist whose persona may have been fabricated for the film--or maybe not. Of course, we're left with larger questions exploring the meaning of art and our relationship with our own consumption. Be warned that if you see this film, you will be manipulated, but it might just open your eyes to ways you're manipulated in life that you never thought of before. Yet, even with all of its philosophical undercurrents, what helps make Exit Through the Gift Shop the best film of the year so far is the fact that it's the most entertained I was in the movie theater in a 2010 film. The sequence at the Disney theme park will have you on the edge of your seat. Exit Through the Gift Shop works in every way imaginable, and considering that it's available right now on DVD and Netflix Instant, see it!

Honorable Mentions:

Fish Tank, Greenberg, The Secret in their Eyes, Toy Story 3, Inception, Mother, Temple Grandin, Rabbit Hole

And the very worst film of 2010 so far is:

The Good Heart

Brian Cox gives it his all, but even he can't help this absolutely terrible one-dimensional excuse for melodrama. Written and directed by Dagur Kari, The Good Heart is the tale of a homeless man, played by Paul Dano in a terribly mannered performance, taken in by a cantankerous bar owner recovering from a heart attack. Dano is gentle and idealistic, while Cox is nasty and cynical. Their opposing natures change the other, and all the while, a duck lives in a cage inside their bar. Something happens because of that duck which had me wanting to throw my cat at the television screen. The dialogue goes beyond clunky, and the ducky twist at the end is among the worst endings of any movie I've seen. The Good Heart, though well-intentioned, is a cliche-ridden disaster.

Rabbit Hole

2011-01-01T20:15:00.000-05:00

January 1, 2011

Rabbit Hole (2010) ****1/2
Directed by John Cameron Mitchell

My tweet:

Rabbit Hole (2010)- What a surprise departure for Mitchell! Tricky subject matter handled with a great deal of acumen. ****1/2 of 5

Other thoughts:

In order to avoid being pigeonholed as a certain "type" of filmmaker, it might prove wise for an up and coming director to accept a project completely outside of his comfort zone. Not only is it helpful for one's reputation, but it also might help strengthen one's abilities as well, forcing a relatively new director to think in ways and tackle problems he hasn't come across in his career thus far. Though he's been around long enough that no one considers him "up and coming" anymore, M. Night Shyamalan did something similar this year by directing a live action 3D adaptation of a kids cartoon show instead of a Hitchcockian psychological thriller with a glimpse of the supernatural often coming by way of a "wow" moment at the end. It's always important to credit risk taking in Hollywood, but by most accounts, The Last Airbender proved to be a colossal disaster, with many critics claiming that Shyamalan was playing completely against his strength of masterfully suggesting the presence of the unseen by trying to tackle an action epic using CGI to emphasize candid visuals.

Therefore, one must choose his or her projects carefully. Rabbit Hole is John Cameron Mitchell's third film, and it couldn't be more different than his first two--2001's Hedwig and the Angry Inch, a glam fest about a transsexual punk rocker, and 2006's Shortbus, a humorous comment on society by showcasing graphic real sex. Instead of another visually striking film for a niche audience, Mitchell chose as his next project to tackle an adaptation of David Lindsay-Abaire's very low key stage play about a couple dealing with the grief of the sudden death of their four year old son. Adding another difficult layer is the fact that we join the couple eight months after the tragedy, so we're restricted from the sort of explosive emotions one might expect immediately following something so harrowing.

Nicole Kidman and Aaron Eckhart play Becca and Howie who are clearly not doing well at all. Becca has become quite cynical and even downright cruel at times, which we see almost immediately when Becca berates another grieving couple for positing that God needed another angel in heaven in order to give some meaning to something beyond explanation. Becca is the last to learn that her sister is pregnant. This coupled with her mother's insistence on comparing Becca's son's death with the death of Becca's brother who was a thirty year old heroin addict when he died makes family interactions unbearable for her, and too often they don't end well.

Howie, on the other hand, is all-too-eager to try and take that next step, though his nightly ritual of watching a video of his son might be holding him back. He resents Becca for trying to erase evidence of his existence, at least that's how he sees it. He's even open to having another child, and after making the first romantic gesture towards her in eight months, she rejects him outright. As they grow apart, he connects with a woman from group therapy, played by Sandra Oh, whose husband just left her. They smoke pot nightly and clearly she would be willing to accept him romantically if he ever decides to pursue it.

Becca meanwhile has her own peculiar way of dealing with her feelings. She follows the school bus of the high school student who caused her son's death by accidentally hitting him with his car. Eventually, the two sit down for a conversation in a public park, which leads to an odd camaraderie between them. He shows her the comic book that he's working on called Rabbit Hole about parallel universes where everyone exists as themselves except by living lives different than they are in the real world. Becca finds this comforting.

Howie and Becca drift farther from each other with their dishonesty. Clearly, their son's death is either going to break them apart completely or somehow bring them together. Sadly, the odds are stacked against them. Either way, though, both have to figure out how to make it through each unbearably difficult day to the next one after that.

Rabbit Hole is not dealing with new material at all. If you want to watch a movie about a couple grieving the loss of a child, simply turn on the Lifetime Movie Channel and you're guaranteed to find something that day which is aiming to jerk the tears out of your eyes. Yet, Rabbit Hole is much smarter than that. This couple's struggle is thankfully foreign to most of us, and there is a place for heightened emotions and hyper-real dialogue within such a cruel tragedy. At the same time, there needs to be truthful insight or else we're left with just another manipulative manufactured weepfest.

Lindsay-Abaire wrote the screenplay himself, and he's able to keep us not only believing the struggles of our main characters, but also totally invested as well. We're presented with situations that are sort of expected but don't always play out in the most obvious ways. Take Becca's encounter with the high school kid named Jason, played by newcomer Miles Teller. Most people in Becca's situation probably wouldn't do what she did, but when the two are talking, the exchange feels very real, yet it still contains some mystery and intrigue. Is he taking the place of her son in her mind? Is she trying but not capable of forgiving him? Is she there simply to try and get answers to questions that really have no answers? There's not a single moment in Rabbit Hole where an actor does something totally unbelievable. Expectations are confounded, but never in a way that destroys believability altogether. This is tricky to do, especially considering how much we've seen this material in film and on television in the past.

Of course, perhaps the key to truth with this material lies with the performances. Aaron Eckhart has the more straightforward role of a man who wears his struggles on his sleeve. Eckhart, a fine actor, is certainly up for the challenge even if his performance isn't as compelling as Kidman's. Not only is Kidman one of the most talented actresses working today, but she's also one of the bravest, not afraid to take on projects with some of the most off-beat directors like Noah Baumbach and Lars von Trier. As a one-time gossip magazine staple, Kidman has proven over and over again that she's more than a pretty face. Here she gives one of her best performances as a woman on the verge of martial and personal destruction. She's cold to those around her, and yet she projects her struggles in her performance so well that we do warm to her at first through pity and later through respect. Granted, Kidman's accent work is a little bit questionable at times, but it's forgivable especially considering how good she is otherwise.

There's also a solid supporting cast including Diane Wiest as Becca's less sophisticated yet caring mother, Tammy Blanchard as her rough around the edges pregnant sister Izzy as well as the aforementioned Sandra Oh and Miles Teller. Mitchell's direction, though far from flashy, provides a texture which further helps to elevate this material beyond movie of the week pablum. The way he focuses on his actors' faces in just the right ways at just the right moments shows that he doesn't need visual flamboyance as a crutch for his talent behind the camera. Mitchell is one of the best directors working today. One only needs to watch all three disparate film to see this.

Kudos to John Cameron Mitchell and everyone involved for a wonderfully surprising, emotionally satisfying character study. The risk was well worth it. M. Night Shyamalan, on the other hand...well, I'll continue to root for you in the future.

2010 Year End Movie Wrapup Blog-a-Thon- Day 4

2010-12-31T22:33:00.000-05:00

December 31, 2010

And there you have it folks! Four days of analyzing the films and Oscar possibilities of 2010. I'm writing this introduction one hour and forty-five minutes before 2011! What a great way to end the year by sharing insights with three great lovers of film. Please feel free to comment on any of these posts to any one of us and I'll make sure your comment is seen by the intended recipient.

Key:
Sean Patrick Kernan's writing will be in maroon. Visit Sean's blog here.
Julian Stark's writing will be in green. Visit Julian's blog here.
Candice Frederick's writing will be in blue. Visit Candice's blog here.
My writing will be in orange.

Sean Patrick Kernan

What a great year this has been and to cap it off with this four day intensive look back at the best movies of the year with three of the most educated and unique bloggers on the net has been phenomenal. Candice, Brian and Julian thank you. Dear reader, please contribute as well, you can email me or on Candice, Brian and Julian's sites they have comment sections.

And, there is always Twitter

Candice @Reeltalker

Brian @bpdreview

Julian @202chicago

Sean @SeanPatriKernan

Julian Stark

I actually have to agree with Candice that Mark Ruffalo was better in Shutter Island. I actually didn’t see too much in his Kids Are All Right performance, even though it’s easily ranks high on my list of this year’s best films. To be honest, I’d completely forgotten about his work in Shutter Island, but that’s probably because it’s been so long since I’ve seen it.

Anyway, as far as my Oscar wishlist (alphabetical order) is concerned…

Lead Actor

Leonardo DiCaprio (Inception)

Leonardo DiCaprio (Shutter Island)*

Robert Downey, Jr. (Iron Man 2)

Jesse Eisenberg (The Social Network)

Aaron Johnson (Kick-Ass)

Lead Actress

Annette Bening (The Kids Are All Right)

Anne Hathaway (Love and Other Drugs)

Natalie Portman (Black Swan)

Anika Noni Rose (For Colored Girls)

Tilda Swinton (I Am Love)

Supporting Actor

Christian Bale (The Fighter)

Nicolas Cage (Kick-Ass)

Vincent Cassel (Black Swan)

Kieran Culkin (Scott Pilgrim vs. The World)

Zach Galifianakis (It’s Kind of a Funny Story)

Supporting Actress

Amy Adams (The Fighter)

Barbara Hershey (Black Swan)

Mila Kunis (Black Swan)

Juliette Lewis (Conviction)

Chloe Moretz (Kick-Ass)

*I know that it’s a maximum of one nomination per category, but I can dream, can’t I?

However, here’s what I’m predicting (listed in order of most likely to win to least likely; essential locks for nominations are IN CAPS)

Lead Actor

COLIN FIRTH (THE KING’S SPEECH)

JESSE EISENBERG (THE SOCIAL NETWORK)

JAMES FRANCO (127 HOURS)

Ryan Gosling (Blue Valentine)

Robert Duvall (Get Low)

Lead Actress

NATALIE PORTMAN (BLACK SWAN)

ANNETTE BENING (THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT)

JENNIFER LAWRENCE (WINTER’S BONE)

NICOLE KIDMAN (RABBIT HOLE) – close enough to being a lock to be considered one

Michelle Williams (Blue Valentine)

Supporting Actor

CHRISTIAN BALE (THE FIGHTER)

MARK RUFFALO (THE KIDS ARE ALL RIGHT)

Andrew Garfield (The Social Network)

GEOFFREY RUSH (THE KING’S SPEECH)

Jeremy Renner (The Town)

Supporting Actress

MILA KUNIS (BLACK SWAN)

AMY ADAMS (THE FIGHTER)

MELISSA LEO (THE FIGHTER)

HELENA BONHAM CARTER (THE KING’S SPEECH)

Barbara Hershey (Black Swan)

Candice Frederick

To respond to Sean's question about my impression of Greenberg in more depth, I'll say this: Quite frankly I just wished someone other than Stiller played the role. I know he was supposed to be a smug guy, but he didn't give Greenberg any justice. As an actor I think he should have drawn some empathy from the audience to make them see his point of view, and he just didn't. I was disappointed. To me, that showed that he never fully understood the character enough to play him.

I would love The Town to receive a best picture nomination. Though I think too man folks would see it as a The Departed redux for it to stand alone and get recognized. But I definitely agree that Renner should get a nod. To me, his performance in that movie was better than Wahlberg's in The Departed.

And I agree that Wahlberg is swallowed by his terrific cast performances in The Fighter to be a real contender, but it looks like he'll get a nod. Armie Hammer was great in The Social Network but I really think with Sorkin's wonderful script his performance might have been written for him already.

I'm not getting all the love for Kick-Ass. I didn't think it was kickass at all; I thought it was lame But I know I'm in the minority on this one.

I just want to also add that I hope Inception gets more appreciate from the academy than some special effects nods. The script was great, as was the acting. I'd love to also see The Social Network, Black Swan, The Kids are All Right, and Night Catches Us up on the board for best picture. With a 10-movie slot, it might be safe to assume there may be a few duds, throaways, and/or curve balls in the mix. What do you think they'll be? Shutter Island maybe? Blue Valentine? I guess is 127 Hours, Winter's Bone, The King's Speech, and The Fighter as well.

Sean Patrick Kernan

Julian I am so with you on the Kick Ass love. That movie kicked my ass all over the theater and I loved every minute of it. Kick Ass was one of my favorite experiences at the movies in 2010 which is what I want to talk about before I also chime in on the Oscar talk. Two horror movies provided two of my other favorite experiences of the year. Going in to The Crazies I was expecting another lame zombie movie. What I got instead was a taut, witty horror movie that kept me consistently breathless with it's brilliant B-movie-ness. Breck Eisner may just have a career yet and that provides of the bigger surprises of the year. The other favorite experience of the year was The Last Exorcism a smart, self aware horror movie that took a TV actor, Patrick Fabian, and made him look like a superstar. Fabian's charm ropes you in and then once you are hooked director Daniel Stamm rips the rug out from under you in surprising fashion. Just when I thought I couldn't be surprised by a horror movie, The Last Exorcism actually made me jump in my seat.

It was not an exceptionally good year for comedy but a couple stood out for me. Get Him to the Greek is a movie I know Candice is not a fan of but it worked for me. I'm a fan of Russell Brand's schtick and Get Him to the Greek actually makes me eager to see his take on Arthur. The more surprising successes for me were Easy A and Going the Distance. Emma Stone nails every moment of Easy A despite being hampered by omniscient narration and a predictable High School setting. Stone's chemistry with Stanley Tucci and Patricia Clarkson as her parents is phenomenal and may be the funniest thing about a very funny movie. Going the Distance worked for me because of how unabashedly foul it was. It's not that I love four letter words but the proper employment of expletives works for me and Going the Distance, and especially Drew Barrymore, deploy expletives in the most unique and unexpected ways.

So, digging into the Oscar talk I think we are underestimating True Grit. We have to keep in mind how much the Academy loves something familiar, hence all the love for The King's Speech. The only thing the Academy loves more than familiarity is zeitgeist, hence the ultimate zeitgeist movie The Social Network getting so much love. True Grit has last year's Oscar winning lead actor. It has Oscar winners the Coen Brothers, pedigree my friends gets you along with the Academy, how else did Meryl Streep get nominated for half a movie in Julie and Julia. Matt Damon is a former Oscar winner and young Hailee Steinfeld has a great narrative, she was selected after a nationwide search of more than 17,000 other actresses and the performance is stunning. If not for the fact that True Grit is a remake it might be lock to win it all.

The Social Network will win this year because Fincher is due, the film is current and by Academy standards it's a hip choice. That's not a knock on The Social Network which is a phenomenal movie but it's not hip, your mom has a Facebook page now. If the Academy were truly hip we'd be talking about Tiny Furniture or I Am Love or Mother, movies that are hot with the tastemakers who are not running with the pack but are setting the pace. I don't claim to be one of those people, I don't have the time to keep up with them but I am aware enough to know what they are talking about and they stopped talking about The Social Network the minute Academy member mommies and daddies started appreciating it. Again, not a knock on The Social Network, merely an observation about the way our culture moves, the moment the Academy starts talking about Lena Dunham is the moment she will stop being hip.

Here is my list of the 10 movies the Academy will find acceptable..

The Social Network

The King's Speech

True Grit

Winter's Bone

The Town

Shutter Island

Toy Story 3

Black Swan

127 Hours

The Fighter

Watch out for The Way Back, Get Low, The Kids Are All Right, Rabbit Hole, How to Train Your Dragon and unfortunately Alice in Wonderland.

Winter's Bone is a strange case of a movie that critics have delivered all the way to the Academy. It's rare that critics have such power these days but without the critics Winter's Bone would have died on the vine. Instead, Winter's Bone has been making the papers nationwide for the past two weeks, sitting at or near the top of critics lists everywhere. Shutter Island is going to top Inception because the studio muscle has been stronger behind Shutter Island than behind Inception, a rare example where box office may hurt a nominee with the perception that it has been rewarded enough by box office dollars. Keep in mind that Lord of the Rings was the culmination of three films and not an honor for that particular. The notion that box office matters all that much should have been blown up by The Hurt Locker last year. Being a hit helps but for the image conscious Academy creating a hit movie is more fun than bandwagoning on a hit.

Candice I am happy to see you champion Night Catches Us. I wasn't as big of a fan of that film as you are but critics taking on a cause out of passion for the movie is always appealing to me, it's why I still love going to the movies and being a film critic, the chance to find a movie and tell as many people about it as will listen. I had an opportunity this year to be a champion for a tiny independent film that was shot just up the road from me here in Iowa. It's called 16 to Life and it's a charming little Juno-esque story of a small town girl looking for her first kiss on her 16th birthday. 16 to Life is a charming, ultra-literate and witty little comedy that is filled with these tiny perfect moments. I met the director Becky Smith and interviewed her on the radio and was really impressed and moved by how she and the cast were barnstorming this little movie from town to town and film festival to film festival where audiences were delighted enough to give it a couple awards. If you can find 16 to Life I urge you to check it out, it will be one of my last experiences at the movies in 2010.

Brian Dunn

Please someone promise me that we'll do something like this again next year. I've had a blast, and I feel like I've really been able to cement my own thoughts on the year as a whole by doing this. Again, I still have so many movies to see, and after this back and forth, I can't wait to get back to watching some of the great 2010 movies you all have mentioned that I haven't yet seen.

I haven't yet made my own list of what I think will be nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars, so I think I'll start formulating one by looking at Sean's choices.

The Social Network is a given, and it's also my favorite non-documentary film of 2010. I think Julian said that it's not a technically impressive film. I couldn't disagree more. Fincher's direction is certainly more subtle than someone like Christopher Nolan's for Inception, but his handiwork is certainly there on screen. No one does CGI the way Fincher does it. It's almost invisible how he's able to implement the CGI without ever drawing attention to it. He's done it again and again with Zodiac and Benjamin Button as other examples. The regatta scene in particular in The Social Network is perhaps the most viscerally exciting scene of the year, and that's all Fincher right there. Plus don't forget what he did with Armie Hammer's characters. By the way, I do think Hammer's fantastic, and he has gotten the recognition he deserves. I can understand Candice's and Sean's points about The Social Network not being the hip film because the Academy loves it, but I do think it will stand the test of time. I wouldn't be surprised to see it high on people's best of the decade lists in 2019. I also wouldn't be surprised to see it on something like the American Film Institute's list of the Greatest American Films in like 30 or 40 years. I truly believe it has the potential to be the movie of this generation. It will win, and it should.

The King's Speech (a really nice movie) is a given. I do agree that True Grit will be nominated for Best Picture. I don't think it will win much at all. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it goes home empty on Oscar night. Again I haven't seen it, but I have read many critics' reviews. I get the sense that many see it as a very solid movie, but as a Coen brothers film, it's not among their best work. The acting is good all around, and I'd love to see Matt Damon, a great actor, get nominated especially since I didn't even think about him until he was mentioned by the three of you. However, I haven't heard anything like "Jeff Bridges' best work" or "Matt Damon's best performance" or "the Coen Brothers' best film." I really do think it will be nominated though. And that whole argument that Julian refuted about the Globes not liking the Coens is ridiculous and Julian explained why perfectly.

I do think Winter's Bone will be nominated as well, and Sean's right that it is the critics that deserve credit for the buzz for it. It's a wonderful film, and it's the sort of film that never would have a chance of being nominated if there were still five nominees. Winter's Bone is exactly the sort of film that gives the ten BP nominee system merit. I think Candice mentioned that she didn't think The Town will be nominated. I disagree completely. It's gotten really good critical buzz and it's done well at the box office. I think it's a pretty sure bet that it will be nominated. Someone mentioned earlier that Ben Affleck might be a surprise nominee for Best Actor. He's good in the film, but I don't see that happening.

That brings me to Shutter Island. I liked Shutter Island. I was entertained by it, but wow, that film is polarizing. Some people hate it. Match that with the fact that it came out early in the year and that it's not among Scorsese's best and I think it's one that might get in, but probably won't. If it had been released later in the year, that might have given it a better shot, but I think the haters are going to have the last word on that one.

Toy Story 3 is a given. It's as charming as any film released this year. Black Swan is also a pretty sure thing in my opinion as well, even if I'm not totally in love with it. I actually think The Fighter is a definite. I don't think the moderate box office is going to hurt it. It's an Oscar bait kind of a film. It'll be nominated--at least I think so.

127 Hours is one of my favorite films of the year. I do think it will be nominated, but it might be the one that might disappoint me by slipping through the cracks. It's such a unique kind of a film and some Academy voters might have avoided it because of the subject matter. That being said, I still think it will get in.

So the nominees so far of Sean's that I agree with are:

The Social Network

The King's Speech

True Grit

Winter's Bone

The Town

Toy Story 3

Black Swan

127 Hours

The Fighter

That tenth spot will be an interesting one to say the least. Now I'll admit the sad fact that I only predicted seven of the 10 nominees last year, so that makes it difficult for me to even trust myself to predict the biggest wild card of the ten. I really really don't think Shutter Island will get in. So I think that tenth spot will in fact go to Inception. It's a great film. Everyone's seen it. It will be nominated for a number of technical awards. It's just been released on DVD. Christopher Nolan is unbelievably well respected. I think Inception's lack of early awards buzz won't matter that much. Critics groups don't vote for ten films. The Golden Globes' voting process is ridiculous because it's less than 100 people who like famous people and being bribed. The Academy is certainly a serious group of people so they won't nominate something like Iron Man 2, but I think the general moviegoing audience wants to see Inception nominated, and considering that it's also a great film, I think the Academy will award it.

The tenth movie that will be nominated will be:
Inception

If I'm wrong, it'll probably be among the following films: The Kids Are All Right, How to Train Your Dragon, Blue Valentine or Rabbit Hole. Again considering my track record from last year, I really do think The Kids Are All Right will be nominated in place of something. But I can't choose eleven films so I'll keep it off even though it's a wonderful movie.

Once again, thanks to Candice, Julian and Sean, and thanks to everyone who has read our exchange. 2011 is here, and I can't wait to start watching the movies we'll be discussing for next year's Blog-a-Thon.

2010 Year End Movie Wrapup Blog-a-Thon- Day 3

2010-12-31T15:07:00.004-05:00

December 31, 2010

We continue our discussion by finishing up some thoughts on the best actresses of the year while primarily delving into those men who we think will and should be nominated for both the lead and supporting acting Oscars.

Brian Dunn

Day three and none of us have damned anyone else to hell or insulted each other's pets or anything like that. We should all be quite proud!

I'll move onto the male performances in a second, but I want to share a few final thoughts on the ladies. I spent so much time talking about who I thought would be nominated that I didn't really emphasize who I think deserves to win. Again, I haven't seen Kidman or Williams yet, but it looks like the award will probably be between Portman and Bening. I do think Portman is the best when she's at her best, so if she wins, which I'm inclined to think she will, then I won't be upset. However, I agree with the praise that you all have given to Bening. Not only is she wonderfully subtle in The Kids Are All Right, but she's lost twice to Hilary Swank in 1999 and 2005. The good news is that Swank has no chance of winning even if she does get nominated, which is unlikely. Unfortunately, I do think Portman's performance is hefty enough to take the Oscar. Granted, Bening might get some lifetime achievement votes which could put her over the top. I don't usually root for votes of this sort, but because Bening is so good and because Portman will probably win an Oscar in the future, I'll be crossing my fingers for Bening on Oscar night.

I also forgot completely about Greta Gerwig, who is a wonderful actress. Again, though, I wonder if voters have forgotten about her as well. I'd think she'd be more appropriate as a supporting actress for Greenberg, and I'd be thrilled if she did sneak in with a nomination. Again, though, I wouldn't put any money on that happening. I also totally agree with you Sean when you mention Rooney Mara. That opening scene is a masterwork in both acting and screenwriting. It sets up the Mark Zuckerberg character in a truly unconventional and brilliant way. I only knew Mara as the surprise choice to play the English language Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Her performance in The Social Network has me convinced that she'll be great. I'd also like to point out that once again Rebecca Hall is getting no awards buzz for being the best thing in a film--this year being The Town. She was the best part of Starter for 10, Vicky Cristina Barcelona and Please Give. I'm getting annoyed that she's still ignored for her talent. Finally, it's worth noting the performance of Katie Jarvis is a wonderful little film called Fish Tank from January. No chance at all for a nomination, but she's good enough for sure.

Now to delve into the male performances of 2010. I haven't yet seen True Grit, but I don't think Bridges will be nominated for it. I think we can count on Colin Firth for The King's Speech, James Franco for 127 Hours and (pretty much) Jesse Eisenberg for The Social Network. I do think Ryan Gosling will be nominated for Blue Valentine also. That leaves the fifth slot open. Robert Duvall in Get Low? Never ever count out Robert Duvall. I haven't seen it yet, but it's definitely his film. Sure, Bridges is a possibility, but so is Mark Wahlberg for The Fighter. He plays his role pretty quietly, but it's effective and I think The Fighter will receive a number of nominations. Wahlberg might just ride that wave to a nomination. I wouldn't count out Leonardo DiCaprio for Inception though. Upon second viewing of that film, I was absolutely blown away by his performance. He's truly excellent in it. Also, Javier Barden is supposed to be excellent in Biutiful. Also, is Carlos eligible for Oscars? If so, Edgar Ramirez gives one of the best performances I've ever seen in that film. It probably won't happen, but his performance is at least worth mentioning. So if I'm forced to predict at this point, the five will be: Firth, Franco, Eisenberg, Gosling and Duvall--or Firth, Franco, Eisenberg, Wahlberg and Duvall--or Firth, Franco, Eisenberg, Wahlberg and Gosling. Gahhhh!!!! This is so hard. All right, the first grouping. That's my choice and I'm sticking to it.

As for who deserves the Oscar, and keeping in mind that I haven't seen Blue Valentine or Get Low yet, I think Franco gives the best performance of the year. Firth is great, and he will probably win it, but like Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man, I'm not easily won over by a performance that relies on an acting crutch like autism or a stutter. Again, though, between A Single Man and The King's Speech, Firth has firmly established himself among the best actors out there, so I wouldn't be surprised to see him nominated often in the future. Franco is so good in such an off-beat film. His hosting gig and his still growing reputation as an actor will probably work against him. I think Eisenberg is amazing in The Social Network, and I'm thrilled that he's been gaining awards momentum. I was afraid that people would write him off because they think he can only play one type of role. Eisenberg's performance is one that could have been gimmicky or relying on a crutch since his character is so socially awkward, but he's perfect at delivering Sorkin's tricky dialogue. He's one of my favorite actors out there. If he wins, I'd be perfectly fine with that. I wouldn't count him out since he's won a number of critics awards, but I don't think a win for him is likely. This is Firth's award.

I already mentioned Ramirez in Carlos, but there are two other excellent performances that definitely won't be nominated that I think are good enough to be mentioned. Ben Stiller plays Greenberg with such truth, and he doesn't fall into the trap that so many comic actors do when playing dramatic roles by underplaying everything to appear more serious. It's a tricky character, and Stiller brings to it all the nuance that's necessary. He's surprisingly touching and reviling at the same time. I'd also like to point out Casey Affleck in Michael Winterbottom's film The Killer Inside Me. He plays a cop who leads a double life as a brutal serial killer. The film is graphically violent and ultimately sloppy, but Affleck is terrifying because he's so convincing as the boy next door type when he's not giving into his inner demons. He's one of the best actors working today.

I'm going to make a proclamation right now that Christian Bale WILL be walking home with the Supporting Actor Oscar for The Fighter. It's the archetypal Oscar performance. He's truly is the best thing about The Fighter. He's also one of those actors known for having more potential than maybe anyone else out there. I think Geoffrey Rush is just as good, if not even a little bit better in The King's Speech. I loved the humanity and humor that he brought to his role. He and HB Carter both bring the lightness and accessibility that makes The King's Speech more than another stuffy British drawing room costume picture. I think Ruffalo gives a career best performance in The Kids Are All Right. He'll be nominated for sure, and he'll have to be happy with that because he won't win. His performance, though, really cemented him as one of the best actors working today in my book. I still believe Andrew Garfield will be recognized for his work in The Social Network, despite his distracting accent problems. He's excellent in Never Let Me Go, so I'm on board with giving him some recognition even if his performance didn't completely work for me in TSN. I think the fifth spot is pretty open. Jeremy Renner might be nominated for The Town. He's good in that, and he's certainly one of the up and coming stars. Good will for his turn in Hurt Locker might help him sneak in. I'd like to see the rest of the buzzed about films to see if someone not on my radar screen might be worth considering. At this point, I think I'll lean toward that fifth spot being inhabited by a performance I have seen--John Hawkes for his great work in Winter's Bone as Teardrop. He's so frightening at first, which makes his ultimate virtue so surprising. Cassel from Black Swan might sneak in there, but I'm rooting against it. I doubt Michael Douglas will be nominated for the stupid Wall Street 2, but he's good in it and he certainly has the good will of the voters on his side. If there's going to be a surprise nominee anywhere, I think it'll be in this category. I'll never forget how floored I was that Michael Shannon was nominated for Revolutionary Road a few years ago. I didn't even know who he was and who he played when I first heard his name announced and I had seen Revolutionary Road at the time. Could certainly happen again this year.

Julian Stark

If guessing at the winner of Best Actress wasn’t hard enough, I have to decide on my personal favorite! Annette Bening in The Kids Are All Right and Natalie Portman in Black Swan both have my two-way vote for performance of the year. Likewise, I can’t fully pick which of the two gets the Oscar in February.

Both are giving supposedly “career-best” work and have had impressive longevity in Hollywood. Of course, Bening has more seniority than Portman, but Portman has the film with broader support and more citations from critics groups.

I’d have to side with Portman for the win because she has the flashier performance, and sometimes flashier equates to better in the minds of Oscar voters. Then again, voters might be highly impressed with Bening’s subtle performance. More often than not, it seems that she’s giving bombastic performances in very diva-like roles, but her work as Nic in Kids is a far cry from that kind of role. She’s essentially playing against type, which could give her a boost.

As for the men this year in the Lead Actor race, I’m sorry to say it, but Carlos isn’t eligible for Oscar consideration. I believe it played on VOD before hitting theaters, and it’s been thus far recognized as a television miniseries. Though the Emmy Awards aren’t as esteemed as the Oscars, it’s very likely get some love there.

Colin Firth and Jesse Eisenberg are definitely in, and James Franco is essentially a lock, though not as cemented in the top five as Firth and Eisenberg.

Firth is the easy front-runner to win, and the only possibility for an upset would probably be Eisenberg, though it’s quite a stretch to say that anyone could beat Firth. If The Social Network will be as big of a hit with the Academy as we’re assuming it will be – and there’s no reason to think otherwise – won’t they want to shower it with awards? The Hurt Locker nabbed six trophies last year, and Slumdog Millionaire won eight the year prior. This isn’t really much of an “artistic” film in terms of technical achievement, so would the Academy give its leading man the gold to bump up the film’s number of wins?

I honestly don’t think that there’s a whole lot of room for that to happen, but if he upsets for SAG, he’s a major threat for the win.

After that, it gets kind of tricky. The three aforementioned men got in with SAG and the Hollywood Foreign Press Association. Jeff Bridges and Robert Duvall got in for SAG, while Ryan Gosling and Mark Wahlberg made the cut at the Globes. So, who gets in?

From the way it looks right now, Ryan Gosling is probably the most likely of the four to get in. Though SAG snubbed him, Blue Valentine is a highly acclaimed film; the lauding in particular is for the work done by Gosling and co-lead Michelle Williams. I’m calling the latter for an Actress nomination, and for some odd reason, I can’t see voters listing Williams as their top Actress choice without doing the same for Gosling in the category’s male counterpart.

Of course, that leaves one open spot. So is it Bridges, Duvall, or Wahlberg?

The least likely of these men to get in is probably Wahlberg. Though The Fighter did great in the Golden Globe nominations tally – five nods outside of Wahlberg’s – those nominations were announced before the film had a wide release. Voters were probably counting on it being a huge hit, and with A-list star and terrific marketing, not to mention a genre that tends to do well at the box office, it should have been one. The Fighter’s done admirable business so far, but it hasn’t done impressive business. Plus he hasn’t had the success with the critics groups that his co-stars have.

True Grit probably stole some of The Fighter’s thunder; both films obviously had a male demographic in mind, but one was more accessible thanks to its PG-13 rating. On that note, I’m not wholly convinced that Jeff Bridges is making the cut either, despite being in my top five at the moment. As a matter of fact, I’m not so sure that True Grit is going to be the major Academy player that people have made it out to be, though Roger Deakins will certainly be noted for the film’s marvelous cinematography

The lack of Golden Globe nominations for True Grit might be telling, even though I don’t want to give too much credit to this group that infamously gave an award to Pia Zadora over Kathleen Turner, not to mention nominated Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland for any kind of honor, but this is a precursor group.

When True Grit got a complete shut out, many argued that the Hollywood Foreign Press Association doesn’t like the Coen Brothers. If that’s the case, why did this group nominate award Javier Bardem for his work No Country for Old Men and nominate the film for Motion Picture Drama in 2007? Furthermore, why did they nominate Burn After Reading for two awards in 2008 and throw A Serious Man’s Michael Stuhlbarg a nomination last year?

Again, the Golden Globes aren’t the be-all and end-all of, well, anything, but not making the cut there could be indicative of True Grit having less Oscar success than many are expecting. That being said, I can’t see the film getting in for any of the big awards save for Adapted Screenplay and maybe Actor.

And what are we to make of Robert Duvall? For the majority of the season – even extending into the pre-season, he’s been an assumed Actor nominee for apparently career-best work in Get Low, but where did that buzz go? No big critics honors, no Golden Globe nomination, not even a mention from Indie Spirits. Virtually nothing to go on outside of that SAG nod that likely came from being a veteran actor. An Oscar bid is very possible, but I wouldn’t bank on it.

But who’s to say that Bridges, Duvall, and Wahlberg are the only men in contention for that hypothetical fifth spot? Will the Academy throw us a curveball and nominate Javier Bardem for the foreign-language flick Biutiful? Could Leonardo DiCaprio make the cut for one of his superb leading performances? While I’m at it, will Aaron Eckhart be nominated alongside his onscreen wife Nicole Kidman for Rabbit Hole? Heaven forbid that I’m missing another possibility!

Though I wouldn’t count on it, there is room in the race one of these left-field contenders to make the cut. DiCaprio obviously has the most Oscar-bound film among these potential curveballs with Inception, and he’s great in it, but it’s not an actor’s piece like Biutiful and Rabbit Hole.

In regards to how the Academy will vote in Supporting Actor, Christian Bale is the no-brainer to win. Mark Ruffalo, despite being ignored by the Globes, was recognized by the Screen Actors Guild and won the crucial New York Film Critics Circle Award, so he’s definitely in and the most likely to surprise with a win. Then again, does Bale really have any competition?

The third wheel in the race is probably Geoffrey Rush. He’s assured a nomination, but I see no possibility for an upset from him whatsoever. He’s already won before, is in a subtle role, and starred in that massive flop The Warrior’s Way just recently. Next in line might be Andrew Garfield for The Social Network. There is a whole lot of buzz attached to him right now (next Peter Parker), and as was said earlier, the Academy won’t hold back when it comes to nominating and awarding this film.

The last spot (like in Supporting Actress… and Actress) is up in the air from where I’m sitting. Jeremy Renner is in my lineup for now at number five, but something about predicting him just feels strange, even though the Golden Globes and SAG embraced him with nomination love.

Checking out the other possible contenders, a nomination for Michael Douglas in Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps wouldn’t receive a warm welcome from me, but sympathy often turns into accolades in Hollywood, as was evidenced by his Golden Globe nod. There’s also John Hawkes for Winter’s Bone, who gives a great supporting performance and surprised us with a SAG nomination. There’s more support for that film than Money Never Sleeps; then again, John Hawkes isn’t Michael Douglas.

Brian, I definitely think that there could be a shocker nominee here, but I’m most expecting a jaw-dropping nod in the Supporting Actress race a la Maggie Gyllenhaal last year, though some people called that nod.

But back to Supporting Actor. Of those who didn’t receive a nomination from either the HFPA or SAG, I’d guess Vincent Cassel in the place of Jeremy Renner.

As for my personal opinions on the male performances this year, Jesse Eisenberg’s leading work in The Social Network is my absolute favorite male performance of the year. It might not be the best representation of Mark Zuckerberg himself, but it’s a perfect realization of the narcissistic and sociopathic Mark Zuckerberg that Aaron Sorkin intended for the film.

I also took very well to Leonardo DiCaprio’s performances this year in Inception and Shutter Island. I’d give him more credit for the former since there’s more of a reveal with that one as opposed to him simply going crazy, but both are fine showcases of immense acting talent.

I haven’t seen The King’s Speech just yet, so I can’t comment on Colin Firth’s lauded performance, but at long last, I’ve found someone who agrees with me about Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man! On that note, if Firth’s work is similar to Hoffman’s Rain Man, then I doubt that I’ll really care for it. I have yet to see James Franco in 127 Hours since the film didn’t open anywhere near me. I’m perhaps more interested, however, in seeing his acclaimed work in the less-than-acclaimed Howl. I’m sure he’s great in both and really curious to see each film.

On the supporting side, I’d say that Christian Bale and (sorry, Brian) Vincent Cassel are probably my two favorites this year. The former, as was mentioned earlier, is the definitive “Oscar role.” Druggie? Check. Big outbursts? Check. Stealing scenes? You’ve got it! Cassel, like the other supporting players, has to play into an essence of a character and a fantastical illusion of himself.

It also goes without saying that Robert Downey, Jr. gave one of my favorite male performances this year in Iron Man 2. It’s technically as strong as his work in the first film – blame the script – and the film itself is more of an Avengers commercial than anything, but I appreciated his way of developing the character.

Much to my surprise, an actor who I think deserved more recognition this year is Zach Galifianakis. He was absolutely hysterical in Due Date and really outshined Downey – something you’ll almost never hear me say about any performance. But it was his supporting work in the indie dramedy It’s Kind of a Funny Story that really impressed me. Not only did he prove his ability to play someone other than The Hangover’s Alan; he handled his character with a more subtle sense of humor and expertly navigated through some difficult dramatic material.

That being said, who are some other actors that didn’t get enough credit this year?

Sean Patrick Kernan

Ugh! Brian, you hit on my nightmare Oscar scenario, Michael Douglas getting Best Supporting Actor for Wall Street 2 because he almost died in real life. His Gordon Gekko redux was a solid turn but the film is so weak that it drowns all three leads. Oliver Stone is part of the trend I mentioned earlier about directors going mainstream only Stone's compromises ruined his film while The Fighter, True Grit and Rabbit Hole somehow turned out really well despite the compromises. Part of my problem with Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps was my personal expectations. When I heard Oliver Stone was going back to Wall Street at the height of the real life crisis where Wall Street had completely screwed the American people I was excited and was eagerly awaiting the legendary left wing director to get in a few good licks against the greedy pigs who tanked the economy. Instead, what we get in Wall Street 2 is a watered down version of the first film with Shia Le Beouf doing a weak spin on Charlie Sheen's Bud Fox (Sheen's cameo, an entirely different letdown in the same film).

Dipping into this Best Actor talk, I know Ben Stiller will not be nominated for Greenberg but I want to raise it just so Candice can give us the assessment of Greenberg she has teased so often on Twitter :). Colin Firth is the front runner. The performance is safe and predictable, compelling but not new; just the kind of old school stuffiness that the old farts in the Academy love. Plus, after losing out for his more aggressively interesting performance in A Single Man last year First is due. Jeff Bridges will be nominated and like Firth, it's the kind of performance that Academy oldsters really like. Mark Wahlberg is out for The Fighter because Bale, Adams and Leo sucked all the air out of the movie and suffocated his performance. Compared to all the colorful people around him Wahlberg's lead was a cypher left only to react to them. James Franco deserves the win here because his performance was so tough and yet so skilled and nuanced.

So, if Firth, Bridges and Franco are in that leaves two spots. One goes to Jesse Eisenberg for a complex turn that he makes look effortless. It's not easy to play a robot especially a human robot but Eisenberg nails it and in the end brings the melancholy in the saddest and most unexpected way, I've never felt so sorry for a refresh button. Robert Duvall deserves the other slot because in a career of amazing performances his work in Get Low may be his best ever. Yes, much of the appeal of Duvall's performance hinges on a big showy speech but it's one hell of a speech and he knocks it out of the park. That speech in Get Low ranks right up there with Bening singing Joni Mitchell as one of my favorites of the year. Ryan Gosling is a potential spoiler for Blue Valentine but I think Michelle Williams stole that movie from him. Gosling is good but she is so much better that he kind of gets overshadowed.

Leo DiCaprio was mentioned but for which movie? I was not a fan of Shutter Island a shockingly predictable thriller that marked Martin Scorsese finally showing his age after a series of brilliant films but the studio push for DiCaprio in Shutter Island is strong. I received multiple mailings and emails from the studio touting Shutter Island. The Inception campaign seems focused solely on the Best Picture pitch and not so much on the acting. If I may digress for a moment however, I would like to join the Marion Cotillard love-fest, she was amazing in Inception, the soul of the film really. Back to the actors, watch out for Ben Affleck in The Town an old school thriller, solid pedgree, good box office and Affleck is a good comeback story. My guess is that The Town is going to surprise people with a Best Picture nomination and if the momentum is strong Affleck pulls the upset nomination for Best Actor as a consolation prize for not getting a director nod.

Best Supporting Actor has basically been awarded to Christian Bale but there is still room to speculate on Geoffrey Rush who gives the more interesting performance in The King's Speech. There is an odd similarity really between the supporing players in The Fighter and in The King's Speech. In both films the supporting players are so colorful, unique and interesting that the leads fall into the shadow. That took the impact of both films down a peg for me because I wasn't as interested in Wahlberg in The Fighter or Firth in The King's Speech. The final moments of both lacked power because they stepped out of the shadow of the stronger performances and it was too late for me to really care more about them. Unlike Jesse Eisenberg in The Social Network who rises above a great ensemble or Jeff Bridges who rises to the challenge of two stellar supporting performances, Firth and Wahlberg melt against the much stronger supporting players.

Julian, you mentioned Galifianakis in Due Date but do not forget his work in It's Kind of a Funny Story. That film was sadly missed at the box office but it is a really heartfelt performance in a wonderfully quirky film. You're absolutely right though about Galifiankakis outshining Downey Jr, not an easy task. Due Date was one of the few good comedies in a dismal year for laughs at the box office. Mark Ruffalo deserves to win, in my opinion, for The Kids Are All Right, such a great, nuanced performance. Ruffalo is so subtle in the way he evolves that character throughout that film that it's not till everything has become a mess that you realize how far he has come. I need to watch The Kids Are All Right again, a colleague and friend of mine just named it number one in her year end movie column and in the days we've been doing our blogathon Kids has recurred for me multiple times.

It is an absolute crime that Armie Hammer has not been honored for his work in The Social Network. It's not merely the challenge of playing twins but the brilliant ways he gave both Winkevoss's a life force of their own. I liked what Andrew Garfield did as Eduardo but Hammer's was the supporting performance in that film that stuck with me. There is another whole lengthy subtext in Armie Hammer's performance and the complexity of what the Winklevoss's stand for in The Social Network. I won't dig into it here as it might require a sixth viewing of The Social Network to nail it down but it's there and it's in Armie Hammer's performance as much as in Andrew Sorkin's script.

Matt Damon in True Grit is phenomenal in a showy performance. I love Damon when he is in character actor mode even more than I love him as a leading man. Damon finds so many interesting beats to play, his work rewards repeat viewers who find new things about his work each time. I have no doubt that if I watched True Grit I would find something I missed the first time in the way Damon played Le Beof. Jeremy Renner does something similar to Damon in The Town, a showy performance but with nuance and layers. Jem has an inner life that he only hints at, it's hidden behind his almost constant rage. As Renner transitions from ensemble lead to top supporting player and finally to fully fledged leading man we are going to see some unbelievable work.

Candice Frederick

Okay, fellas, I'm about to throw a wrench in things for just a bit:

Vincent Cassel has been brought up so many times throughout our discussion it made my head spin. I don't get all the raves. He was just another prop to me. Renner is far more compelling in The Town, than Cassel in Black Swan to me. And Annette Bening--who I really respect in the industry--has really played the annoyed and stuffy housewife role much of her career (brilliantly, might I add, but predictably). I much preferred her in Mother in Child (though I wouldn't be mad if she got nominated for Kids instead). It doesn't look like we're getting much love for Julianne Moore, huh? Always a nominee, never a winner? My vote is still for Kerry Washington in Mother in Child but, if I had to choose between the mainstream favorites, I'd go with either Melissa Leo or Julianne Moore (leaning more toward Moore though).

I'd agree with both Julian and Brian about using disabilities as a crutch one account only: it's so predictably, formulaic Oscar. But this is kind of why I was asking about wild cards before. This however doesn't take away from their talent, just kind of makes it more of a snoozefest for me. It looks like Firth will get a nod, but I'd actually like to see someone who played a character without a crutch get some recognition.

This brings me to Mark Ruffalo. It's funny how you both mention his performance in The Kids Are All Right, but not his far more compelling performance in Shutter Island. I enjoyed both films, but I enjoyed Ruffalo better in SI. Yes, he was the quintessential hippie, California guy in Kids, but that was all that was striking about that performance to me. It was effortless, but does it really take that much effort for the role? I don't know, but I thought the most compelling aspect of Kids was the relationship the parents had with each other, and their separate relationships with their kids. Ruffalo was a mere peg in their game to me.

I really respect Mark Wahlberg. I think his longevity in the industry says a lot about him, but he has yet to show me an Oscar-worthy performance. I actually thought The Fighter was one of his weaker performances to date. At times, he seemed almost lost in the film as everyone around him controlled the ship. I know that was also in part to a character trait, but I also felt no empathy for his character either, which is a problem for me.

Speaking of Jeff Bridges in True Grit, it's very rare that the academy recognizes the same character twice in a film. But this may in fact be a wild card for them. I'm a huge fan of Matt Damon's and wouldn't mind him getting some love from the academy as well. His time to win an Oscar for his superb acting is far overdue.

I actually wouldn't mind Franco taking home the Oscar that evening (if it can't be one of my personal favorites). His performance is very quirky and solid, and one I wouldn't ordinarily like. I always think solo performance movies lose my interest after a while. Granted, 127 Hours lulled at points to me, but there is no denying Franco's exquisite performance.

Good thing Winter's Bone had good performances because I did not feel the level of respect on the movie as a whole as many other people did. The story wasn't riveting at all to me, but the performances helped that a bit.

Eisenberg was really good in The Social Network. But I will say that his performance was the compilation of all other Eisenberg performances you've seen before, just escalate to fit this caricature of a character. Done well, might I add. But I was expecting him to do that performance, just like that. I also didn't get the same impact from Rooney Mara as you guys did. To me, she was the catalyst for the film, but not so much the heartbeat of it.

I'd love to see Gosling and Williams get their second Oscar nominations of their career for their performances in Blue Valentine. I can honestly say these two actors never cease to surprise me. They don't have a signature anything, but you just know that their performances, if anything, are going to be good. I can appreciate that about them.

I wasn't a fan of Greenberg like it seems like you all were. I was actually annoyed by it. But i will agree that Gerwig was probably the only reason I didn't give up on it completely. She was solid in the role, but just not really memorable or impact for me. On that same token Rebecca Hall, as you pointed out, Brian, was fantastic in Please Give, as was Catherine Keener for that matter. I am more inclined to say that Hall had the more engaging performance for me. It was her trademark mousy performance, but it worked so well for that character. Hall also gave one of the best lines in The Town to me, but I didn't really like her performance in it. I thought she was underplaying it a lot.

I like Robert Downey, Jr.--a lot. But he didn't give me anything to swoon over thsi year (same goes for Michael Douglas). And Galfianikis, eh, he needs a new shtick to me. Something...better.

Predictions aside, my wish list would be as follows (wild cards included):

Lead Actor: Gosling, Franco, Mackie, Eisenberg, Hawke (Brooklyn's Finest), DiCaprio (SI)
Lead Actress: Moore, Bening (Kids), Washington (Night Catches Us), Portman, Williams

Supp. Actor: Bale, Garfield, Damon, Renner, Ruffalo (SI)
Supp. Actress: Cotillard, Leo, Weaver, Steinfeld, Lewis (as in, Juliette)

but in actuality, the nominations will most likely go down as the following:

Lead actor: Gosling, Franco, Firth, Wahlberg, Eisenberg
Supp. actor: Bale, Garfield, Renner, Ruffalo (Kids), Rush

Lead actress: Moore, Bening (Kids), Portman, Williams, Kidman
Supp actress: Leo, Weaver, Steinfeld, Bonham Carter, Adams

The Sound of Music

2010-12-30T09:56:00.000-05:00

December 30, 2010

The Sound of Music (1965) ****1/2
Directed by Robert Wise

My tweet:

The Sound of Music (1965)- How do you solve a problem like a sugar sweet screenplay? Fantastic direction and amazing music. ****1/2 of 5

Other thoughts:

You may not know this by reading my blog, but I'm actually quite the movie musical aficionado. If you scroll through the films for which I've written reviews, you won't find too many classic musicals like Oliver!, My Fair Lady, The Music Man, West Side Story, Cabaret, Grease, The Pajama Game, Oklahoma, South Pacific, Carousel, The King and I and Annie among others. Yet, I'm well versed in all of them, and, as a matter of fact, if you were to play any song from any of the above mentioned musicals, I'd probably know every single word without any assistance at all. I was gifted with a good singing voice, so as a child who thrived on the acceptance and praise of others, I fell in love with everything Broadway, auditioning for every musical in my high school as well as the surrounding community theaters in my area. I started this blog in 2008, and I've only written reviews for the films I've watched since then. Therefore, the films I was obsessed with as a child are not to be found anywhere on the site.

The Sound of Music is one of the seminal films of my early life. Not only did I watch it over and over probably starting around the age of 9 or 10, but I owned the soundtrack on CD. I auditioned for it when I was 16, which made me too old to be one of the Von Trapp children, and a bit too young to play Rolfe, the whistle-blowing Nazi-in-training. Alas, it's been at least ten years, if not more, since I've seen the film, and it's amazing to me how much I didn't remember as clearly as I thought I would.

The side plots with the Baroness and the Nazis didn't register to me that strongly as a kid. The Baroness, played by three time Oscar nominee Eleanor Parker, is quite the rancid villain, taking advantage of the admittedly hokey naivety of Maria, the postulant nun assigned to be the governess of the seven children of Austrian Captain Von Trapp. In my vague recollection, before this revisit, I sort of remember that Maria and the Captain fall in love and that some other lady was disappointed about it. It's interesting what you recall from your childhood as an adult.

The political subplot concerning the Nazi takeover of Austria didn't really register to me in any specific way back then either. I remember that they had to escape from the Nazis and that Rolfe blew the whistle, but I wasn't clear as to why the Nazis were chasing the Von Trapps in the first place. Now, of course, it's very easy to understand that the Captain is an Austrian nationalist who reviled the Nazis, and, upon being ordered to serve in the Third Reich, he decides to take his family and cross the border into neutral Switzerland rather than support Hitler's cause.

Ultimately, though, it's not the love triangle or the escape from the Nazis that draws people into what was once the most financially successful film of all time. It's the singing and the dancing, of course. Rogers and Hammerstein composed what I believe is their best score when they wrote The Sound of Music for Broadway audiences in 1959. Granted, songs like Do-Re-Mi, So Long Farewell and My Favorite Things can become grating, especially when they've been sung to death as they have ever since 1959, but they're as timeless as the most classic children's songs like Twinkle, Twinkle and Mary Had a Little Lamb. The simple ballad Edelweiss is one of the purest tunes in Broadway history, as is the title song The Sound of Music. Even the lesser numbers like How Do You Solve a Problem Like Maria?, I Have Confidence, Sixteen Going on Seventeen and Something Good are so charming that the viewer can't help but be lifted into a world of innocence and idealism.

Yet, the moment that really affected me the most with this viewing was Peggy Wood's arresting performance of Climb Every Mountain. Granted, Wood's singing was dubbed, but it was dubbed beautifully. Even with some of the most iconic sequences in all cinema within this picture, I think it's the exchange between Wood's Mother Superior and Julie Andrews' Maria that is the emotional and narrative high point of the entire film. So much of the first act with the nuns and the children almost begs to be resisted because of its sugary, almost cloying, sweetness, but when Maria returns to the abbey once she realizes that Von Trapp is in love with her and has a sit down spiritual direction session with the Mother Superior, it's almost as if Ernest Lehman's script matures completely in one single sequence.

Clearly, Maria is going through a deep existential and religious crisis, and the Mother Superior gives her advice that's totally believable and quite profound. She emphasizes that there's holiness in the love between a man and a woman. Maria leaving the convent is not a sign that she's turning her back on a vocation to God. At one point, she says that loving Captain Von Trapp does not mean that she loves God any less. In a world where religious men and women are often painted with such cynical strokes, it's refreshing to see one who is charitable and wise, embodying the sort of person that would please God. When Mother Superior starts singing Climb Every Mountain, there's a richness to her character that's cultivated perfectly, despite a limited amount of screen time. On its own, Climb Every Mountain might come off like a musical inspirational poster with a kitten in a basket sleeping next to a ball of yarn, but because of the preceding conversation, it grounds itself in truth and ends up one of the great stirring moments in all film.

Unfortunately, though, despite my eternal undying affection for The Sound of Music, I don't think it's among the very best movie musicals ever made. There are too many ways in which it could have been an even better film. First of all, the actors who play the children are pretty terrible all around. I have little patience for unbearably bad acting even by children on screen. We've seen over and over and over again the fact that some children are capable of giving performances that are good enough to be nominated for Oscars. Watch Tatum O'Neill in Paper Moon or Hayley Joel Osment in The Sixth Sense or Justin Henry in Kramer vs. Kramer or Henry Gibson in E.T. or Jack Wild in Oliver! or Anna Paquin in The Piano. I could literally go on and on. It's simply not acceptable to cast child roles solely based on the way children look. Most of the kids that were cast had literally no film acting experience before The Sound of Music. I don't blame the kids, by the way. I blame Robert Wise for allowing mediocrity to infect such a meticulously crafted film.

Christopher Plummer, God love him, has said over and over again how much he despises The Sound of Music, often referring to it as The Sound of Mucus or S & M. He was miserable during the filming, finding the whole thing tedious and corny. Sadly, his contempt shows through quite clearly in his unbelievably stiff performance as Captain Von Trapp. He's so uptight that, when he goes through a transformation upon first hearing his children sing, it looks more like he's just gone through an exorcism. His light demeanor is in such stark contrast to the nastiness we've seen previously. The second half of the film belongs primarily to the Captain as he forges a plan to escape before he's commissioned to join the Third Reich. He never once has the fire that you'd imagine a man in his situation would have in any aspect of his performance. Further, his chemistry with Andrews is almost non-existent.

Both of these problems, ironically, highlight the astounding greatness of Julie Andrews as Maria. Considering that, for most of the movie, she's asked to act opposite these dreadful child actors or the icy Christopher Plummer, it's wondrous how she's so good in every moment. A lesser actress might have either been brought down by those around her or disconnected with everyone else as if she were in a one woman show. Andrews is so charming to watch when she's with the children, and despite the lack of reciprocity, she glows in her moments with Plummer. Trained in opera and on the Broadway stage, Andrews makes the most of every moment on screen. She's playing to the back of the auditorium, but she does so in a way that's cinematic. The grand scope with which Wise directs demands performances that match. Andrews is not only up for the task, but she gives The Sound of Music its lifeblood. By the time the film was released to the public, Mary Poppins had been a huge hit, giving Andrews her Oscar. It's pretty incredible to think she was cast as Maria before Mary Poppins was even released in theaters. They hired a relative unknown, which is a gamble that paid dividends for sure.

Despite his myopic ability with children, Robert Wise's direction provides The Sound of Music with its grandiosity and its richness. I'm sure it's difficult to adapt a stage musical to the big screen, to shift one's paradigm from the confines of a stage to the endless potential of sound stages and real life locations. The aerial shots of the mountains at the beginning and end are astonishingly beautiful, and it's fascinating how similar the opening of The Sound of Music is to Wise's true musical masterpiece West Side Story. Even the way Wise shoots the Von Trapp mansion, the waltzing at the party, the children frolicking through Salzberg, the abbey, the Austrian concert and the wedding sequence transforms material originally meant to be limited to the size of a stage into such bombastic visual grandeur. Yet, there's a sophistication to every scene that gives a hokey screenplay heft and acclaim.

The Sound of Music won me over when I was a kid, and it won me over as a thirty year old just as well. Sure, we're wading knee deep in some pretty thick syrup here, but the overall effect is one hundred percent palatable. As a matter of fact, I'd even go so far as to say that Wise and Andrews provide generation after generation with quite a feast; however, after this main course, I doubt you'll want to even think about dessert.

2010 Year End Movie Wrapup Blog-a-Thon- Day 2

2010-12-30T07:51:00.007-05:00

December 30, 2010

I'm having a great time so far! Social media like Twitter, e-mail and blogs are really great for both professional and amateur film critics alike, because film criticism can often be a very lonely venture. It's great to share one's passion with other smart people with the same love of good movies.

Anyway, I digress. Here's day two of the Blog-a-Thon. The major topic for today is female performances.

Sean Patrick Kernan

Sean here, it's day 2 of the year end wrap up, a roundtable discussion about the movies and performances of 2010 with 3 of my favorite movie bloggers, Candice Frederick, Brian Dunn and Julian Stark. Today begins with Candice

Candice Frederick

This is so much fun! I'm a big movie geek so you can only imagine my joy to find out that I was participating in a roundtable discussion with Robert Downey Jr. (I mean, Julian), and da coolest teacher ever Brian Dunn!

But let's get down to business:

Sean, you bring up some interesting points. Rabbit Hole, The Fighter, and Black Swan each had critical acclaim mixed in with also some objective criticism. For me, Rabbit Hole has to be a performance piece, and a good one at that. We can't say that family grief over a loved one, especially a child, isn't something we haven't seen on the big screen before. So how's Rabbit Hole different? Does its hailed wonderful performances give it the edge above any other movie about dealing with grief? The movie is flying under the radar at the box office, but will it shine come Oscar time? I'm not sure if it's strong enough.

You're right in saying that many of the awards magnetic films this year have garnered success at the box office as well, which isn't always true for Oscar. Many times it's the opposite. As Brian pointed out, it tells a lot about moviegoers and the changing climate we're in film-wise. For example, The King's Speech is typical Oscar bait. But something like, say, Black Swan or Inception aren't as much. I think we're beginning to go away from the old school drama and look more to analyzing the world and how we view ourselves. That's perhaps evident most in Inception, and Black Swan--two films that each hold up a mirror to the lead character as they (DiCaprio's Cobb in Inception, and Portman's Sayers) begin to feel their once comfortable world close in on them. But will Oscar look beyond the cool effects to recognize startlingly great performances, even from Marion Cotillard in Inception?

Then you have actresses like Annette Bening receiving huge praise this year for her great performances in both Mother in Child and The Kids are All Right. Both films that are real performance pieces (Mother in Child a little more so). But there's no "shock value." In Mother and Child, we're back to family grief again with Bening's character. In Kids, if you blink you might miss Bening's hyper subtle expressions as she too loses control of the world she built around her (like Inception and Black Swan, but with no bells and whistles). But do we go for the bells and whistles or do we go for the subtle performance pieces? Another great performance in Mother in Child that deserves to be mentioned is Kerry Washington's. She steals the movie for me with her heartbreaking performance as well.

The Social Network is a movie so extremely current and now that I was unsure awards would even give it a second glance. Clearly the precursors have proven that otherwise. But what is that saying about the awards climate? Are they going for the hip and now, or are they just really awarding fantastic acting and a razor-sharp story? I hope it's the latter.

In a climate so incredibly saturated with needless and almost buffoon-like remakes comes True Grit, the remake of the 1969 western with John Wayne. Awards haven't been so kind to remakes or sequels in the past years but True Grit is pulling out the big guns (pun intended) with terrific acting, and already good script and the "It" directors, Joel and Ethan Coen.

Where does that leave Night Catches Us, the semi-documentary-styled narrative following Marcus (played fantastically by Anthony Mackie), an ex-black panther who returns home in 1976 to try to start his life over again in the town where the residents know him for what he used to be. This also stars Kerry Washington. It's yet another historical narrative with a sharp yet soft undertone. These type of films, first one that comes to mind is the terrific biopic Malcolm X, traditionally don't take too well with Oscar in the long run but leave a lasting impact on audiences.

As opposed to recent years, this year has at least proven the extraordinary performances from women are on the rise. And they're not just sidekicks, or hookers, or the damsels in distress; they're wild, crazy, psychotic, whip-smart, and can perform a perfect ballet performance right after committing a bloodbath too! Multi-talented, I tell ya.

To your point, Brian about documentaries, Oscar in the past seems to have always gone for the tragically historic. But perhaps this year it'll recognized some of the more abstract documentaries you mentioned that also deserve recognition. That will be an interesting category to see.

Candice Frederick
Film Blogger/CNN Guest Film Critic
http://ticketstubz.blogspot.com/
http://www.linkedin.com/in/candicefrederick
http://twitter.com/ReelTalk

Brian Dunn

It's been great reading everyone's astute insights into the year in film that is 2010. I'm on board with almost everything not containing the words Kick Ass that's been written so far; however, I'm about to throw some raw meat into the yard, so get ready! :)

Black Swan is a very good film, and it earns my respect for its ambition and its gumption; however, at times it doesn't hold up under the weight of its own craziness. The carnival freak show aspects are interesting to watch, but they're cheap and familiar. Also, am I the only one who saw everything that occurs during the climactic final ballet sequence coming from a mile away? Aronofsky's working with a pretty pedestrian screenplay, and he single-handedly elevates it into something quite successful, but it's far from a masterpiece in my book.

It's peppered with uneven performances. Vincent Cassel, as the ballet director, should be frightening, but he doesn't come across with the screen presence necessary for us to believe that Portman's character is going to go to such lengths to please him. I think Barbara Hershey overacts, while Mila Kunis underacts. Kunis was so charming in Forgetting Sarah Marshall. Where did that charm go? She's substituted apathetic line deliveries for what used to be charisma.

Portman is excellent, but I don't think the comparison to DeNiro in Raging Bull is merited. For the first half of the movie, Portman seems to be "playing at" innocence, and there are a handful of moments when she comes across just a bit too precious as a result. By the end, though, once she embodies the Black Swan persona, she's absolutely amazing. Like Leo DiCaprio, Natalie Portman is one of those actors that's best when she's asked to do the heavy lifting on screen. When she's asked to be normal or subdued, it often takes a while for me to jump on board with her misjudged acting choices.

It really has been a great year for lead female performances as Julian and Candice mentioned. I'm guessing that the five lead acting Oscar nominees will be Annette Bening for The Kids Are All Right, Nicole Kidman for Rabbit Hole, Jennifer Lawrence for Winter's Bone, Natalie Portman for Black Swan and Michelle Williams for Blue Valentine. I've not yet seen Rabbit Hole or Blue Valentine, but it certainly says something when a number of great lead female performances probably won't be nominated. It's been quite a year for females taking center stage.

I think Julianne Moore is great as well in The Kids Are All Right. Also, Kim Hye-Ja plays the title character in Bong Joon-Ho's haunting thriller Mother, a little seen gem of a film. Once again, Tilda Swinton gives what I hear is a tour de force performance in I Am Love, which I haven't yet seen. She was in a film from last year called Julia which is a must-see for Swinton's performance alone. The rest of Julia is pretty terrible, though. Also, it looks like Happy-Go-Lucky's Sally Hawkins won't be nominated for a buzzed about turn in Made in Dagenham. Perhaps the biggest tragedy in my book is that Carey Mulligan has pretty much no chance at all at a nomination for a career best performance in Never Let Me Go. I truly believe Mulligan is going to be the next Kate Winslet, and her turn in this underrated, off-beat science-fiction movie that looks like a Jane Austin adaptation is pitch perfect. Finally, it's worth noting the fine work done by Noomi Rapace in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, The Girl Who Played with Fire and The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest. I've only seen the first film, and I pretty much hated it, but Rapace is an electric presence on screen. In a weaker year, she probably would sneak in with at least a nomination.

On the other hand, I don't think it's been a great year for supporting female performances. The Fighter was a good film, but like Sean said, it was quite mainstream. In fact, I found it too familiar and formulaic. At the same time, Russell's direction and the mix of narrative styles made the final product feel messy. Both Melissa Leo and Amy Adams will probably be nominated for their work in The Fighter, and both are very good, but their roles are poorly written. The actresses do the best with what they're given. Again, I didn't buy Mila Kunis in Black Swan. She'll probably be nominated in this category as well as Helena Bonham Carter for The King's Speech. Hers is easily my favorite of the four. On paper, her character probably comes off like a prop or a set piece, but Carter's quirky line delivery and determined optimism elevates the material into something truly grand. That fifth spot seems pretty wide open at this moment. Barbara Hershey might get the nomination for whatever it was she was doing in Black Swan. Jacki Weaver was nominated for the Golden Globe for her work in Animal Kingdom. I haven't seen it yet, and I think the thing working against her the most is whether or not enough Academy members have seen it. At this point, I think the best bet for that fifth spot belongs to Hailee Steinfeld for her apparently scene-stealing performance in True Grit. Some question whether she'll be nominated for lead actress since that seems more apropos, but I guarantee that it won't happen because of the list of ladies I mentioned in my previous paragraph. I'm really glad that Candice mentioned Marion Cotillard in Inception because I totally forgot about her. She was amazing in that film. As a matter of fact, if I were a voting member of the Academy, she'd probably get my vote over any other supporting actress performance at this point--note that I have yet to see True Grit or Animal Kingdom. Unfortunately, I don't think she has much of a chance of a nomination because she'll most likely be overlooked. She has no buzz at all, which is too bad. On the other hand, I HATED her performance in La Vie en Rose, so maybe her losing a deserved nomination for Inception will somehow balance the world once again.

www.bpdreview.com to read Brian Dunn's reviews and commentaries

Julian Stark

Candice, the world of film is most certainly changing from honoring stoic dramas to lauding intelligent introspection and perspectives on the world around us. I couldn’t agree more. Black Swan and Inception are films that both intrigue and captivate; they also make us examine our own selves. The former of these films is a definitive horror film but not in the traditional sense. It’s not scary for moments of scares but because it showcases the horrific effects of obsession, particularly with perfection.

Annette Bening was phenomenal in The Kids Are All Right, and though I have yet to see Mother and Child, I have no doubt that she’s superb there as well. Same goes for Kerry Washington, who was really good in Tyler Perry’s For Colored Girls, though I’d argue that Anika Noni Rose delivered that film’s greatest performance. She transformed her character from cheerful and happy-go-lucky to cold and emotionally reserved. That’s not to knock the other great work in the film, though, as every actress does her fair share of exceptional work.

As for The Social Network being honored for its modernity or for its own merit, the two factors probably go hand-in-hand. It marks that odd case where a film that relates to people of all age groups comes into the awards season seeming unstoppable. I might not agree with Peter Travers saying that The Social Network “brilliantly defines the decade,” but part of the film's greatness is that it relates very much to this generation. In a world where most great films take place in other time periods or aren’t restricted by era or generation, this film thrives on being current.

I share your hatred of modern remakes, but I likewise am impressed with the Coen Brothers’ reinterpretation of True Grit. The leads are completely on point, and the writing is easily impressive.

As far as Brian’s Actress lineup is concerned, I definitely agree that those five women will be walking the Oscar red carpet. If any one of the listed ladies gets the boot, I’d assume it to be Michelle Williams, but I honestly can’t imagine who’d replace her. Could it be surprise SAG nominee Hilary Swank? Maybe that BFCA mention for Noomi Rapace means something, or perhaps the Golden Globe nomination for Halle Berry indicates her second nomination with the Academy. In any of these possible situations, though, this hypothetical last nominee probably has no shot at winning, as it’s a hotly contestant race between Annette Bening and Natalie Portman; the other three nominees will have to be content with their recognition.

While there were rare glimmers of light for supporting female roles, I have to concur that for the most part they had a pretty dull year. I loved Amy Adams in The Fighter, but I can’t say the same for the performance given by Melissa Leo. While she nailed certain scenes out of the park, it overall felt way too histrionic and hammy. In fact, I’m not so certain that “Time Warp” from The Rocky Horror Picture Show wasn’t originally intended to be performed by her character Alice. I’m being facetious, of course, but that’s my unfortunate opinion of the performance.

However, I have to really disagree on Black Swan. I think that both of the supporting ladies mentioned did exceptional work. They both had to play fleshed out characters, as well as portray Nina’s psychosis-induced thoughts of their characters. It was a difficult task, and I think that both did it perfectly. I also really enjoyed Winona Ryder's flashy yet brief performance. I haven’t seen The King’s Speech yet but intend to do so very soon. Helena Bonham Carter is great in everything I’ve seen her in thus far, so hopefully that doesn’t change with this highly lauded drama.

Supporting Actress in regards to Oscar is really peculiar this year. Last year we saw four of the five Golden Globe nominees go on to reap SAG bids; those same performances were in the Oscar top five. Oddly enough, the fifth nominee was Maggie Gyllenhaal for Crazy Heart; she was nominated for neither a Golden Globe nor a SAG trophy.

If the same happens this year, then Amy Adams, Helena Bonham Carter, Mila Kunis, and Melissa Leo are definitely in. The big question is who that fifth nominee will be. Again, under the assumption that we’re repeating last year in an odd sense, neither Hailee Steinfeld nor Jacki Weaver will make the cut despite their supporters. That being said, we’re likely for a surprise nominee.

Candice and Brian, you both mentioned Marion Cotillard’s outstanding work in Inception. That performance is so many things at once: stern, fragile, strong-willed, heartbreaking, tough, defenseless. It’s almost incomprehensible that so much can be done in such a small role. Since the film itself likely for attention in Picture, Director, and Original Screenplay, perhaps she’ll sneak in for that fifth spot.

I would definitely keep Barbara Hershey on the radar as well. Despite her lack of love with precursor groups, she’s a well-known veteran in a film that Oscar voters will definitely be watching. Furthermore, she has something of an overdue narrative and inhabits the psycho-mother role that Oscar voters love so much, or is that quota restricted to Melissa Leo this year? Though I have my doubts about both, Hailee Steinfeld and Jacki Weaver aren’t out of it either.

Now heading into far less likely territory, could Chloe Moretz shock us with a nomination for Kick-Ass? It sounds crazy – I even think I’m delusional – but she’s picked up several critics citations. In a race with one very wide open slot, I wouldn't count her out just yet. However, Juliette Lewis's work in Conviction is probably more likely to get in. It’s a small role, but she completely nails it out of the park and took the somewhat crucial Boston Society of Film Critics honor for it. Oscar voters who didn’t pay too much mind to the Tony Goldwyn courtroom drama might give it a look-see thanks to Swank’s out-of-nowhere SAG bid and be blown away by Lewis’s small yet pivotal role. But will that be enough to get her in for her second Oscar derby?

Julian Stark (pen name)

Founder and Editor: "Movies and Other Things" (http://julianstark-moviesandotherthings.blogspot.com)

Contributing Writer for Player Affinity (http://playeraffinity.com)

Candice Frederick

Just because it's the last sentence I read, I have to ask: wouldn't this be Swank's third Oscar derby? Correct if I'm wrong (I tend to be sometimes ). I have yet to see Conviction but she is an extraordinary actress who is one that I can say is not overrated. She's just that good. I wouldn't mind seeing her in the lead actress category.

Man, how I wish Juliette Lewis will score another nod this year. Yes, her performances can be quite predictable for me. But predictably good! But Chloe from Kick-Ass (for the record, that's twice we're mentioning that horrid film Brian, if you're keeping score )? I thought the film was ridiculous, overhyped, overdone, and stale. See I think one of the things that makes a stand alone fantastic performance is that you literally cannot see anyone else playing the role. But I could hand pick at least 15 kids that would be as good if not better than Moretz. Sorry, Julian, I can't get behind you on that one.

We touched on For Colored Girls, the disastrously adapted film version of Ntozake Shange's 1975 play. Though the adapting needed some work, you cannot deny the terrific performances of all the cast--with standouts from Kimberly Elise, Anika Noni Rose, and Michael Ely. None of the aforementioned will probably me nominated. But as Brian mentioned, sometimes the films aren't so great but the performances are breathtaking. This is one of those cases. My wish list woudl include at least those woman in supporting actress nominees. This would of course take the focus off the perhaps Weaver and Steinfeld.

As for your thoughts on Melissa Leo and Amy Adams. I know Oscar loves recognizing Adams's work, but this may be a year that they could give i a rest. I thought this was a stark departure from her signature mousy performances (my favorite being in Doubt), but I didn't think this was a very strong performance at all. I actually thought her performance was a bit hammy, and Leo's was more believable to me. Was Leo over the top? Sure, but wasn't her character supposed to be?

Rapace was good in the "The Girl Who" films. But where is the buzz? Same goes for Hawkins and Hye-Ja. I found I Am Love a little drab from what I saw, but maybe it picks up later? Mulligan is an enigma to me. I generally don't see what other people see in her performances, but I have to see Never Let Me Go.

As for yout thoughts on Black Swan, Brian, I will agree with you on one thing: I did kind of see the ending coming. But I think if you know anything about Swan Lake, you might have guessed that as well, right? But I have to disagree about a few other things: I didn't think the performances were uneven at all. I though they were thorough through, thorough as they could be given the story. I know folks have been raving about Kunis, Cassel, and Hershey but I have to say I don't see it, especially Cassel and Kunis.I feel this is another time when awards are recognizing people's personal best, and not the actual best. This is the best I've seen Kunis act, but that's not saying much. I saw her in Forgetting Sarah Marshall and I really don't get what folks loved abou the movie or her performance. As for Cassel, Cassel is always solid to me but never extraordinary. Hershey though I think gives a terrific performance, but like Julian said, one tha is predictable, and one that I'll add is a mere prop in Portman's controlled world.

I'm not sure whether I'd agree with comparing her performance to DeNiro's in Raging Bull either, but I thought it was erratic when it needed to be an straight-lined when it needed to be as well.

I know we're swooning over the femme fatales this year, but what about the men? Do you think they just have it in the bag? I know it's usually stiff competition in their categories that may already be a lock, but I would just like to add Anthony Mackie to my wish list. Unlike his forgotten role in last year's The Hurt Locker, he pulls in a tour de force, riveting performance in the under-appreciated Night Catches Us, a screenplay beautifully written by Tanya Hamilton. Any other wild cards you guys would like to include? I know Bale, Firth, Eisenberg are considered locks, but who would you throw out? Who would you add?

Candice Frederick
Film Blogger/CNN Guest Film Critic
http://ticketstubz.blogspot.com/
http://www.linkedin.com/in/candicefrederick
http://twitter.com/ReelTalker

Sean Patrick Kernan

Man this is fun. Ok, lot's of stuff to talk about. Annette Bening floored me in The Kids Are All Right. That scene at dinner when she sings along with Joni Mitchell is heartbreaking and few actresses could have given that moment such power. For that, I am giving Bening an edge of Natalie Portman for my Best Actress of the year award. As for my comparison between Portman in Black Swan and De Niro in Raging Bull, I am talking the physical toll of the roll as much as the power of the performance. Both Portman and De Niro risked their health to play those roles, De Niro in the boxing scenes and when he put on 100 pounds for the retired, lounge act Jake La Motta late in the film. Portman, who was already of a slight build before Black Swan, lost 20 pounds, broke ribs and a toe while making the film all the while speaking in a voice that was foreign to her and playing heavy mental anguish. Portman's physicality in the role, the toll she took on herself is, to me, very reminiscent of De Niro in Raging Bull. But, I welcome the differing opinions.

Conviction failed to move me. I am a huge Hilary Swank fan and yet I found her to be miscast here. She is playing a beat that Tony Goldwyn is not directing; she's playing drama and he's playing melodrama. Swank is going for something raw and Goldwyn is making a crossover melodrama to appeal to the housewife set. The makers of Conviction want the credibility of an indie drama and the box office office of a Sandra Bullock drama and to get that they watered down the darker, less commercial elements. Unfortunately, they didn't tell Hilary Swank who kept playing that darker, more serious indie beat. This is the third year in a row that people have tried to explain to me the brilliance of Sam Rockwell and I still don't see it. I think Rockwell is solid but his work in Choke, Moon and Conviction has not blown me away. Conviction is just too middle of the road for me.

The topic of Supporting Actresses was raised and the biggest disappointment of the awards season for me has been the lack of buzz for Greta Gerwig in Greenberg. Not only is she adorable as Florence but she manages to take Roger Greenberg, this irredeemable bastard and make him seem human. She is the rare actress in a Noah Baumbach movie who doesn't play the Noah Baumbach game of nihilistic, angry self interest. She's sweet and odd and she see's something in Roger that no one else could see without her. When it comes to Supporting Actresses it's Greta Gerwig, Mia Wasikowska for The Kids Are All Right, Hailee Steinfeld for True Grit, Amy Adams for The Fighter and I think Jackie Weaver is more of a lock than you might think. The screener for Animal Kingdom was one of the first to arrive, weeks before other movies started going out to voters. That jump got the film more eyeballs than expected and that may be why her buzz has been hot for a while.

I am going to take up for Vincent Cassell in Black Swan, I think there is more to that performance than he gets credit for. It's tempting to write off the character as just this libidinous, power mad a-hole but what he's doing with Nina is not merely about him wanting to sleep with her. He senses that this angst she carries, the frightened little girl inside her is holding back an extraordinary talent. His challenges are not for his gain but to bring something out of her. That something is unfortunately a massive psychosis but that wasn't his intent. I honestly believe that Thomas's true passion was the ballet and getting the best possible performance on the stage. His methods were shocking but effective and Cassel made me believe that there was something more to this guy than what was in his pants.

Back to Supporting Actress for a moment, there is one highly controversial but intriguing notion of a nominee, Rooney Mara for The Social Network. Her Erica Albright is the beating heart of The Social Network. Her challenge Mark Zuckerberg is the challenge to everyone who has placed far too much importance into the world of social networking, the challenge to connect in reality, physically, in person with a fellow human being. Mark from the first moment is a failure at connecting with other people and even after he has connected with more than a million people online he still can't connect with a real person and that coda, Mark desperately refreshing his Facebook page hoping she will be his friend online, so amazingly sad. Each of Rooney Mara's scenes, and there are just a couple of them, nails the real theme of The Social Network, the failure to really connect with another person and the over-reliance on the social network as a stand in for real life.

2010 Year End Movie Wrapup Blog-a-Thon- Day 1

2010-12-29T12:58:00.007-05:00

December 29, 2010

Davenport, IA WOC 1420's film critic and twitter buddy of mine Sean Patrick Kernan invited me, along with two other film bloggers Julian Stark and Candice Frederick, to participate in a Blog-a-Thon discussion of the films of 2010. This will be a three or four day long discussion. Our first day's discussion centered around overall impressions or trends in 2010. One of my goals for days two, three and possibly four is to respond more to Julian, Sean and Candice so that discussion and debate will start to flow.

Key:
Sean Patrick Kernan's writing will be in maroon. Visit Sean's blog here.
Julian Stark's writing will be in green. Visit Julian's blog here.
Candice Frederick's writing will be in blue. Visit Candice's blog here.
My writing will be in orange.

Sean Patrick Kernan

Three of my favorite bloggers have been kind enough to join me for what will be a four day blog-athon to wrap up the year in movies. Brian Dunn, Julian Stark and Candice Frederick are three friends I met on Twitter and have exchanged ideas and reviews with for much of 2010 and it is a privelege to share some blog space with them this week....

Thanks to my favorite Twitter folks @202chicago aka Julian Stark, @reeltalker aka Candice Frederik and @bpdreview aka Brian Dunn for participating in this end of 2010 wrap up. Lots of big topics so let's jump in...

There were many interesting trends in 2010 but one that emerged late in the year for me was a surprising move to the middle of the road for some of the more daring directors of recent years. David O. Russell, John Cameron Mitchell and the Coen Brothers all made excellent films this year but I was rather surprised at how mainstream each of these films were. Russell's The Fighter is a sports movie with all of the inherent dramatic beats right down to the final dramatic fight for it all. Sure, Christian Bale delivers some of his typical method stuff but this is truly a mainstream, crowd-pleasing sports movie from a director who has fought genre restrictions in Three Kings and especially in I Heart Huckabees.

Rabbit Hole is a terrifically moving drama with an excellent Nicole Kidman performance but there is no escaping the fact that this is a straight, mainstream drama safe for all audiences and a complete 180 for the director of Hedwig and the Angry Inch and Shortbus. I kept expecting drag queens to show up at the grief counseling sessions or some kind of homoerotic theme to emerge and nothing happened. The most outre moment of the movie has Aaron Eckhardt and Sandra Oh sharing a doobie. John Cameron Mitchell is the last director I would have expected to go so mainstream. If Rabbit Hole had starred Sandra Bullock the damned thing could have been, heaven forbid a blockbuster.

Finally, the Coen Brothers made a western; a plain, no nonsense western. And more atypically, the ever so independent Coen's made an oh so trendy remake. Is there anything more Hollywood these days than a remake? Yikes! True Grit is a great movie, one of my favorites of the year but it defies the spirit of what we know of the Coens. It flies in the face of the independent spirit they have cultivated. Even more shocking, True Grit has none of the Coen's trademark quirk. Aside from the guy wearing the Bear rug as a bathrobe where was the Coen's trademark oddity? All of this complaining on my part makes me sound unsatisfied but I did like the movies. The Fighter, Rabbit Hole and True Grit are fantastic but maybe, and I am just realizing this as I type it, I kept them far from my top 10 of the year because I was so put off by their 'mainstream-ness.'

Darren Aronofsky certainly did not fall into the mainstream trap. Black Swan is decidedly weird and daring. I watched Black Swan on the edge of my seat waiting for it to tip over into Mommie Dearest camp, kitsch disaster and it took my breath away how Aronofsky managed to keep it from tipping. Black Swan is truly an artistic dramatic achievement with characters that move you and a compelling story but truly the driving force for me was the suspense of whether it would turn into a car wreck. That Black Swan is not a pile up on the side of the movie freeway is arguably Aronofsky's greatest achievement. In my review I compared Natalie Portman's performance to that of De Niro in Raging Bull and I received a few odd glances. I stand by the comparison. Both performances are physical transformations involving painful real life experiences to inform the drama on the screen. Portman arguably went through even more because she transformed her body and her performance from the vocal affectation to the sheepish manner are a departure from what she has done in the past, De Niro already had the goomba down, his genius in Raging Bull was the physical toll he took on himself.

Julian Stark

Thank you so much for inviting me to be a part of this discussion, Sean! It’s always a privilege to discuss the wonderful world of film with you, Candice, and Brian.

It was definitely fascinating to see some of the more daring directors head down a mainstream path this year. Though I haven’t seen Rabbit Hole for myself just yet, I was shocked to find out that its director was behind the cult classic Hedwig and the Angry Itch.

Another film that seems to fit in with this peculiar change is David Fincher’s The Social Network. Don’t get me wrong: it’s a terrific film from one of today’s finest working directors, but where is Fincher’s trademark flair? Granted, an overload of flair wouldn’t have served the film very well, but it’s odd to see Fincher make such a mainstream film. Then again, he did it two years ago with The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, so perhaps my surprise is unwarranted.

And there is certainly something to be said of Darren Aronofsky and Black Swan. Who would have guessed that this strange yet brilliant tale of a psychopathic ballerina would overtake The Wrestler as Aronofsky’s highest grossing film in the States? Of course, that just goes to show what positive word of mouth can do for a film.

Interestingly enough, Black Swan has performed better than David O. Russell’s The Fighter, which should have done far better over the holiday season given the dearth of sports films out at the moment, not to mention its inspiring story, the actors involved, and the awards attention it has received thus far. Safe to say, it doesn’t look like The Fighter will be this year’s Rocky.

Another thing I’ve noticed about this year is how it’s been terrific for actresses of all ages. In regards to the younger actresses, there were quite a few breakthroughs. Jennifer Lawrence took the cake for her terrific character work in the Ozark thriller Winter’s Bone, but let’s not forget about some of the other great breakthroughs. Chloe Moretz gained some minor recognition for last year’s (500) Days of Summer, but it was this year’s Kick-Ass that saw her shocking audiences with some not-so-appropriate language, not to mention a brazen attitude and expert fighting skills. She also starred in the lauded remake Let Me In and the underrated kid flick Diary of a Wimpy Kid. In all three films she played completely different characters and did so brilliantly and effectively; I expect her future in Hollywood to be a bright one.

Another young actress on the rise is Emma Stone. Though the redhead made her big screen debut in 2007’s Superbad and starred in the surprise hit Zombieland last year, Stone really wowed audiences and critics for the first time with her leading performance as the accidental outcast Olive Pendergrass in Easy A.

And who can leave out fourteen-year-old Hailee Steinfeld? She starred opposite screen veteran Jeff Bridges, not to mention well-known actors like Josh Brolin and Matt Damon, in the Coen Brothers’ True Grit. Not only was she able to hold her own in her first big role; she arguably gave the best performance in the film as Mattie Ross, a complete realization of the stubborn yet scared character.

Last but not least in regards to breakthroughs, Australian actress Mia Wasikowska had her first commercial success with Alice in Wonderland and showed impressive range in the indie dramedy The Kids Are All Right.

Heading from young breakthroughs to simply younger stars, Amy Adams played against type, though not too drastically, yet still held some of her trademark charm opposite Mark Wahlberg and company in The Fighter. Michelle Williams aged alongside Ryan Gosling in the highly lauded film Blue Valentine.

Natalie Portman gave an absolutely timeless performance in the aforementioned Black Swan. Mila Kunis gave a great supporting performance in the same film. She provided some exceptional character work, playing up to what Portman thinks her character is and fully realizing her character’s actual nature.

Barbara Hershey, who portrays Portman’s stage mother, provides an incredible performance as well. This, of course, leads into the other side of this great year for actresses, since older actresses had a great year as well. Perhaps this has something to do with the lack of films starring Meryl Streep this year, but I digress.

Though Julia Roberts may have been dethroned from being “America’s Sweetheart” by Sandra Bullock, she carried Ryan Murphy’s unfortunately muddled Eat Pray Love to box office success and in all honesty was the only thing that kept me watching until the very end. Two-time Oscar winner Hilary Swank led the courtroom Conviction, which also starred Melissa Leo and Juliette Lewis; both of them have had a great year as well, receiving accolades for their work in multiple titles. Dame Helen Mirren appeared in five domestically released titles this year, including the box office hit RED.

But it was Annette Bening that probably had the best year of any not-so-young actress, giving celebrated performances in both The Kids Are All Right and the ensemble drama Mother and Child. In fact, she and Portman gave what might be the best performances of the year, male or female.

Julian Stark (pen name)

Founder and Editor: "Movies and Other Things" (http://julianstark-moviesandotherthings.blogspot.com)

Contributing Writer for Player Affinity (http://playeraffinity.com)

Brian Dunn

I'd also like to thank Sean for getting this going and asking me to contribute. I'm a huge fan of his blog and his reviews, and I'm really excited to be participating with Julian and Candice, two of my favorite people on Twitter and whose opinions on film and the Oscars I respect a great deal.

It'll take me another couple of months to see every 2010 release that has piqued my interest, but I've seen enough of the important, noteworthy choices, and I've been following the critical and box office responses very closely. The biggest trend of 2010, in my opinion, is the blur between what's real and what's not. My favorite movie so far of 2010, a documentary called Exit Through the Gift Shop, had me leaving the theater in a daze, trying to figure out what it was that I had just seen and what it all really meant. It's directed by the noted "street artist" Banksy, who appears in the film as nothing but a black silhouette with his voice distorted in order to protect his identity. The first half of the film is a pretty straight-forward look at the phenomenon of "street art," an anarchic movement of public displays of creativity. Most of the artists implement their work in the middle of the night, which makes sense considering how close "street art" comes to vandalism. The second half of the film centers around a rising star in the "street art" movement who obsessively tapes every aspect of his life on his camcorder. As he begins to receive notoriety, fame and success alongside the entire "street art" movement, he begins to lose touch with himself, and the integrity of his work becomes questionable as a result.

It may not sound like it, but Exit Through the Gift Shop is a total mind trip, because one wonders whether the film in itself is an example of the very thing its showcasing. There are other documentaries that fall into this category that I have yet to see like Casey Affleck's I'm Still Here, about Joaquin Phoenix's supposed foray into hip-hop, and Catfish.

There were also a number of fictional films that similarly had audiences discussing and debating over what's reality and what's not. Christopher Nolan's excellent film, Inception, is perhaps the clearest example of this. Not only were we asked to follow a series of interlacing layers of dreaming that are mathematically proportional and precise, but we're also left with an open ended final shot which has the audience asking whether everything is just a dream. Inception is one of those films whose hype seems to have come and gone, and while I believe it will receive many nominations, I don't think it will be a favorite to win any of the major Oscars like Picture, Director, Screenplay or Acting. Yet, its box office success gives me a great deal of hope. At a time when Hollywood is catering so much to the least common denominator, it's refreshing to have Christopher Nolan provide us with a film that actually trusts its audience enough to ask questions of itself and of his film. With Inception, the answer to the question, "Is it all a dream?" is not what's important. It's the thinking and the discussing and the debating that matters. The same thing is true for Exit Through the Gift Shop as well.

Even a film like David Fincher's The Social Network provided a great deal of watercooler debate over the villainy of Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg. The thing I found especially compelling about Aaron Sorkin's screenplay is the fact that he took a real person and real events in the not-too-distant past and ultimately fictionalized everything and everyone. I find it odd that some people I've talked to in real life talked about Jesse Eisenberg's character and the real Mark Zuckerberg interchangeably, judging the real person solely on the film. In many ways, this blur between reality and fiction is the most impressive because it's the most subtle. I do believe that The Social Network will go down in history as the first "historical" movie that focuses on the internet age. It's quite an achievement, and it's one of the very best films I've seen this year.

Black Swan, of course, similarly has us questioning whether we can trust what we're witnessing on screen. While I did enjoy the film quite a bit, I don't think it's as successful as the other films I mentioned, simply because I could see the conclusion coming from a mile away. That's the tricky thing about blurring the lines between reality and non-reality--it has to be subtle or else it becomes gimmicky. Two other good films from 2010, Shutter Island and The Book of Eli, both provided gimmicks, pulling the rug out from under the viewers at the end, but there's only so much room for discussion in films like these because all the questions are ultimately answered. These films try to replicate the "wow" moment of something like The Sixth Sense, and that can be fun, but it can also be cheap. Thankfully, Black Swan, Shutter Island and The Book of Eli are extremely well-made and very entertaining; however, they're perhaps not as clever as they think they are.

It's no surprise when we're living in a world in deep economic turmoil that filmmakers want to provide us with escapes even within our escapist entertainments. People have more worries and more stresses in their lives so they're eager to lose themselves in films more so now than ten years ago when the economy was good and the threat of terrorism wasn't such a huge part of our everyday thinking. Movies serve a place by giving us an oasis from the arid wasteland of the world around us. They need to satisfy in this regard, and when a movie makes you think and ask questions, it's allowing you to actively participate even while escaping. 2010 gave us a handful of films that were both entertaining and intellectually stimulating. The desire to escape isn't going away, so I'm happy that at least some film makers are taking this desire seriously.

@bpdreview on Twitter
www.bpdreview.com

Candice Frederick will join us tomorrow as we continue our year end review.

Candice Frederick
Film Blogger/CNN Guest FilmCritic
http://ticketstubz.blogspot.com/
http://www.linkedin.com/in/candicefrederick
http://twitter.com/ReelTalker

Carlos

2010-12-29T11:10:00.002-05:00

December 29, 2010

Carlos (2010) *****
Directed by Oliver Assayas

Note: I saw and am reviewing the 330 minute uncut version. There is also a shorter 165 minute version of the film that is presently available On Demand.

My tweet:

Carlos (2010)- Epic, bloody and fascinating look at an insecure man's rise and fall as a terrorist. Ramirez=brilliant. 330 minutes fly by. *****/5

Other thoughts:

What exactly goes into making a successful film that's five and a half hours long? Let's be honest here and question whether 330 minutes is really that much of an accomplishment for the filmmaker. It seems like sitting through a film that long is more noteworthy for the audience member than the director, screenwriter and actors. Don't most movies start out longer before they go through the editing process? Avatar and the Lord of the Rings apparently had hours more footage that didn't make it on screen, thereby assuring that special editions and collectors editions will be ready to purchase on DVD and Blu-Ray in the future.

Having sat through a five and a half hour film is something I'm quite proud of. I've never seen a film this long before, and for most of the three and a half hour plus films I've seen in the past, I often would watch in more than one sitting. It's not appropriate to applaud a filmmaker simply because of a film's running time. Granted, if test audiences don't like a film because it's too long, then studios will probably demand that cuts be made, so there's an argument to be posited that if a movie over five hours long gets released as is, then maybe its muscular length might just be merited. Of course, as always, the best way to judge any film is to actually see it.

I talk about my thought process because the only real reason I saw Carlos is because of the challenge of sitting through a film that's so lengthy, especially one that is only playing in the DC area for four days as part of its Roadshow Tour around the country. Granted, I liked Assayas' film Summer Hours from last year, though I'm almost positive that I wouldn't have seen his newest film in the theater if it had a normal running time. On Thanksgiving Day, I trekked up to Silver Spring to the fantastic AFI Silver theater, paid fifteen dollars, received my 40 page collector's edition booklet, exchanged my ticket for a free box of popcorn, bought a beer and sat down for part one of Carlos.

We're introduced almost immediately to a young handsome husband and father named Ilich Ramírez who's asked to be a lookout for a ransom mission carried out by a bunch of young Japanese terrorists. This is a singularly obsessive individual, which makes sense considering that he ultimately becomes a brutally violent terrorist who is known the world over simply as Carlos. He's not only zealously committed to the Palestinian cause, but he's also radically insecure about his own physical appearance. One of the journeys within the film focuses on Carlos' body. He's often seen nude or wearing an open shirt, and the contrast between his physical form from beginning to end is quite startling. He goes from near perfect physical perfection to overweight, bloated and dealing with an embarrassing testicular ailment which ironically ultimately leads the French equivalent of the CIA to track down Carlos immediately after a routine medical procedure.

His physical appearance matches the trajectory of his effectiveness as a terrorist throughout his career. His early successes and rapid rise to power does illicit a certain element of awe. He's a natural leader--courageous, intelligent, frightening and magnetic. Perhaps his most dramatic accomplishment (if you will) as a terrorist occurs when he holds the oil ministers of OPEC hostage at their conference in Vienna. He leads a group of German militants dedicated to the Palestinian cause, and their ultimate purpose in this mission is to kill one of the ministers. Carlos' superior Wadie Haddad, played by Ahmad Kaabour, is furious with Carlos because he ultimately decides to negotiate a way out of the situation by gaining money and escape instead of killing the minister. They cut ties, and from this point on, Carols freelances his services to whatever country will pay him the most.

Carlos becomes a media sensation, and match that with his growing paranoia of getting caught, and he begins to feel the pressure to succeed. He goes behind the Iron Curtain, working between Budapest and East Berlin along with his friend from the remaining revolutionary cells Johannes Weinrich (Alexander Scheer) and his wife Magdalena Kopp (Nara Von Waldstatten). Eventually Magdalena leaves Johannes for Carlos, and because of the chain of command, Johannes can do nothing but let this happen without complaint.

He carries out attacks to destabilize Europe while living in Budapest and protected by Syria. As the world begins to change and communism crumbles, Carlos and Magdalena must escape to the Sudan, the only country that will have him. Now a fat man well past his prime, Carlos is forced to go into hiding because of intelligence agencies of several countries desiring his capture and arrest. As his power and his health atrophy, his cover begins to atrophy as well, and with French intelligence hunting him, there's only so long he'll be able to maintain his freedom.

As you can see, there's certainly enough for an immensely entertaining five and half hour film. There are dozens and dozens of significant characters, and the dialogue helps put every mission and every attack into perspective. It's important to pay close attention so as not to get lost in a barrage of names, faces, locations and dates. The sequential history of the life of Carlos is important, but the real treats in Carlos are the heft of the film making and the glory of the performances.

Assayas shot all over the world, and many languages are employed based on the real life languages spoken by the people showcased. A surprising amount of the film is in English as that became the universal diplomatic tongue of the twentieth century. The reenactments of the attacks in the cities in particular are especially impressive. The scale in which Assayas made this film is awe inspiring.

Of course, with such an epic, perhaps the most fundamental key to success is the casting of the multi-lingual lead role, and without a doubt, Edgar Ramirez not only rises to the challenge, but he provides an electricity that emanates from the screen every single moment he appears. There's so much to the man Carlos. In some ways, he's a born leader with strategic intelligence perhaps unmatched by anyone else in his generation. Nonetheless, he's the sort of person who's willing to end innocent lives in order to promote a cause. He's not the sort of person that's trying to deceive people by pretending to be just another member of society when he's not terrorizing. Carlos wears his intentions on his sleeve, and he's willing to give up everything for his cause. Ultimately, he does give up everything, and when this happens, it feels like a logical inevitability. He's lived such a life that a dramatic capture is the only worthy consistent coda. Ramirez's gravitas provides the lifeblood of a grand labor of love by a director with so much ambition. The is no performance in 2010 that I've seen that comes close to Edgar Ramirez as Carlos. It's one of the best performances in all film.

There are way too many supporting characters to mention too many other performances specifically, but one standout is Ahmad Kaabour as Wadie Haddad, the leader of the revolutionary cell that gave Carlos his start. Though there are gritty, grounded moments, the film isn't shot in a documentary-like style. Instead, Assayas directs with a deliberate cinematic blueprint, and the script has heightened dialogue meant to romanticize the life of the man. Kaabour knows this, and as such, he gives a bombastic turn as a man with so much clout that every word he speaks evokes the terror of the audience as well as Carlos. Even though he's only in about 100 minutes of the film, Kaabour leaves a lasting impression, and that's certainly an accomplishment.

Carlos isn't perfect, which is not surprising considering its length and ambition. There are a few performances that don't work, and there are a few sex scenes in particular that feel gratuitous. Also, there's a sense that the film could have been edited down by about an hour or so without losing any of Assayas' epic scope or historical precision. Especially towards the end, there are perhaps a few too many scenes of Carlos looking strained and in pain with musical accompaniment that slows overall momentum which is admittedly enthralling without fail until part three. There's a two and a half hour version available On Demand, and I imagine that most who do see Carlos will ultimately check out that version. I can see how this material would work almost as well with an abbreviated running time. The only thing that I can't imagine replicated perfectly is Assayas' epic zeal to tell the tale of one man's extreme zealousness.

As such, I recommend that people check out Assayas' original vision. I think the film would stand up just as well if viewed in three separate sittings. Make room in your schedules for this one. It's bloody and disturbing, but so is terrorism itself. Assayas and Ramirez do not judge Carlos one way or the other. That's up to the viewer. Instead, they give us one of the great cinematic character studies that I've seen. Sure, making it to the end of Carlos in one sitting was an accomplishment, but the quality of the storytelling made it so much easier. I would have gladly stayed for another two hours if I had to.