Men on Film

what's to say?

2012-01-24T20:55:00.003-05:00

i think at this point there are a number of conclusions one can make after seeing this morning's oscar nominations announcement.

1. this three year experiment must be brought to an end, bringing the best picture category back to a five nominee slate. when the change was originally introduced, it was presented as a way to honor more of each year's most deserving work. what has clearly happened over and over again is that the same brilliant filmmaking that was ignored before the change is continuing to get ignored. instead, the best picture category has simply made more room for mediocre-but-oscar-baity material and the works championed by powerful hollywood producers. after three years of >5 nominees, we still have powerful works like drive and melancholia left out, but have a growing list of dubious and all but already forgotten best picture nominees like district 9, the kids are all right, and now—

2. extremely loud and incredibly close. seriously. i can't say so definitively, but this will have to go down as one of if not the all time worst reviewed best picture nominee in history. even the 44 percent of the film's reviews rotten tomatoes is claiming as positive are at best tepid. all this nomination shows is that producer scott rudin and directed stephen daldry are becoming matched only by the weinsteins in their power over the oscar voting community.

3. i am finally willing to openly accede to the argument that has been made over and over again over the past several years: the academy is simply out of touch. it was so easy for them to just hand over a best pic nomination to steven spielberg, as well as two nominations to his films' scorer john williams, despite the fact that they produced bland, unoriginal and self-derivative work, while completely ignoring edgier and far more deserving films like drive, shame and we need to talk about kevin. i guess one can hope that we might be finally reaching a point where it is actually cooler to be snubbed by oscar rather than recognized by it. i'm sure that's how tilda and michael feel at least.

4. the best original song category needs to be put out of its misery. this has been patently obvious for years now. the songs nominated in this category are almost invariably terrible, contributing little to the films they are featured in. it is difficult even to remember the winners in this category over the past decade. now this year we have a category with just two nominees, one of which nobody who has seen the film even remembers. We need to switch over to a new category that recognizes excellence in film music more generally. this will be a category to honor works like black swan, inglorious basterds, magnolia, drive and others that superbly use music to tell their story, but not necessarily in the form of a score.

5. and finally, the documentary category. there are no words. year after year the academy simply refuses to even nominate the year's best works in this genre, let alone give it the ultimate prize. i don't know who is orchestrating the debacle that is the year's best documentary feature, but let's just fire her and be done with it.

oscar nominations tomorrow

2012-01-23T21:22:00.004-05:00

in a lot of ways, the oscar nominations announcement is really a lot more exciting than the actual ceremony. by the time we get to the end of february, most everything is pretty sewn up, and the chances of anything unexpected or even eventful happening at the actual awards ceremony is pretty slim. but when you're sitting there watching the nominations announcement, you feel for a moment that anything could happen. i mean, sure, after the fifteen minute broadcast is over, you're pretty much left with a slate of nominees that is exactly what you expected to see. but at least for the moment, there is the potential that something interesting could occur.

this year, (and i hate to give the academy credit for doing something right, but) things seem even more exciting, as the rules have changed, allowing for anywhere between five and ten nominees. if we had a guaranteed slate of ten films nominated for the top award, one could pretty much script out which films that would be, but the nebulous number of nominees leaves things sort of up in the air. this coupled with the fact that the nominees will not be presented in alphabetical order, promises to make things a little exciting tomorrow morning.

in addition, i anticipate that the manner in which the best pic field is chosen could result in some surprises at least in that category. that is, since the academy essentially chooses best picture nominees based on how many number one votes the films receive, the final slate could differ slightly from the top five and ten lists already compiled by guilds and critics groups that use a more straightforward method of vote tabulation. for the academy awards, what matters is how many voters think a particular film is the best. it doesn't matter if a thousand voters agree that a movie is one of the top five best of 2011, if none of them mark it down as the absolute best, it won't get a nomination.

this leads me to the one out-of-the-blue prediction i am making regarding the nominations announcement. the help. everyone seems to agree that this one is a shoe in for a nomination. i'm going to say nuh-uh. sure, a lot of people, including me, really enjoyed this film. but is it really going to get a lot of first place votes? on a guaranteed ten nominee slate, the help would definitely be on there, but i honestly don't think enough academy members will put this movie in the top position on their ballots to net it a mention.

when you're making your best pic predictions, you have to think what are the movies that have a strong following. Even if the majority of the voters leave one film off the list altogether, if a strong core constituency thinks it is number one, it will still make the cut. so what films fall into that category? first, you have the artist, the girl with the dragon tattoo, hugo, and the descendants. those are all in. i suspect that midnight in paris, war horse, and moneyball will also get enough number one votes to make the cut. and, going somewhat out on a limb, i am going to say that the tree of life rounds out a slate of eight nominees, as, despite the fact that it has missed out on almost all the guilds, there are definitely those out there who will put it in their number one slot.

this leaves the also-rans: the help and tinker tailor soldier spy. they will get some votes, certainly, but i don't suspect either one to get enough number ones to secure a nomination this year.

In other categories, best supporting actor is one of the strangest acting categories i can remember in years. frankly, none of the expected front runners are all that great, and it is hard even to imagine who should be there instead. i'd like to see armie hammer there, as i thought he was great in j. edgar, but i think it is unlikely. same for philip seymour hoffman who was the bright spot for me in moneyball, and gave a nomination worthy performance in ides of march, but he won't make the cut. i didn't care at all for jonah hill in moneyball (far outshined by hoffman in a much smaller role), and i don't buy that the academy will go for him either. similarly, i can't imagine extremely loud and incredibly close's max von sydow or warrior's nick nolte (did anyone even see this movie?) making the list. i am going to bet on christopher plummer (beginners), albert brooks (drive), kenneth branagh (my week with marilyn), ben kingsley (hugo) and brad pitt (tree of life) making up the nominees. pitt is probably my out on a limb pick, but i have been thinking he might be a double nominee for a while now. it was nice to see guy lodge at in contention had the same thought, including him in his final nominations.

in the best actress race, the at best underwhelming rooney mara is a shoe in for dragon tattoo, despite many thinking of her as an underdog. many assume this will be at the expense of glenn close, but it is probably more likely to knock tilda swinton out of the nominees. how great would it be to see kirsten dunst shock everyone by getting nominated for melancholia though? hers will definitely go down as my single favorite performance of the year by any actor.

the supporting actress nominees are pretty wrapped up, and as mystified as i am that bridesmaids has been uttered at all in awards conversations, it looks like melissa mccarthy is in. check one for loud, stereotyped, scatological humor in awful, unfunny "comedies." if only the academy would change their rules barring an actor from being nominated twice in the same category (sorry jessica chastain).

best actor is another one where i really think there could be a surprise. remember a couple years ago when tommy lee jones got a surprise nomination for in the valley of elah after pulling off a string of awards worthy performances? i just don't think the academy will be able to deny nominated ryan gosling for something, after he turned in three top tier performances in two years. i think he is in for ides of march. it should be for drive, but i think march is more likely. so who's out? probably michael fassbender. his movie is not very academy friendly, and despite the fact that he too has given a number of great performances this year, he is still pretty new to the scene, and maybe doesn't seem to deserve it as much at this point as gosling does. dicaprio is in too, despite many who think he might miss the cut.

the director category is another weird one, as it is mostly going to be populated with filmmakers popular with the academy, rather than those who truly deserve to be there. the exceptions are michael hazanavicius and alexander payne. but i don't think that too many could say with a straight face that expected nominees woody allen, david fincher and martin scorsese made better movies this year than should-be nominees terrence malick, lars von trier and nicholas winding refn.

overall, i would love for there to be just one or two surprises. dunst showing up in the best actress category, or for that matter, melancholia showing up anywhere would be awesome. I'd love to see a stronger than expected showing for the tree of life, and would especially be excited for a well deserved director nod for malick. it would also be a welcome surprise to see ryan gosling nominated for drive. finally, one can hope that dragon tattoo sees a low showing and that there are no nominations for mara, mccarthy and hill.

The Help a film full of unsung stars

2011-11-09T20:13:00.002-05:00

In Contention's Guy Lodge once again hits the nail on the head in this very late rumination on The Help. Although I don't know why he waited this long to finally see and write about the film, he is one of the first reviewers I have seen to cite Jessica Chastain's performance as perhaps the film's best. I couldn't agree more.

The Help is no doubt a rather populist film, much more accessible than some of the year's other earlier releases now jockeying for awards attention (see: Meek's Cutoff, Drive, The Tree of Life). And I am of the opinion that there isn't necessarily anything wrong with that. Much like with the overly-eviscerated recent best picture nominee, The Blind Side, The Help is able to take source material that too easily could have become a Lifetime-movie-for-women and elevated it to a smart, well crafted and eminently watchable film. And much of the success of the film has to be credited to its astonishing cast.

If The Help is practically assured one accolade this awards season, it has to be the SAG best ensemble prize. Every performance in this film is nuanced and finely crafted, and they all fit together so compatibly. That is, Emma Stone gives an excellent performance, but it is the equally excellent work done by Allison Janney as her mother that really makes her work shine. In this way, it seems to me that no single performer in this movie is really any more deserving of awards attention than any other.

However, from the very beginning, critics have pointed out two of the film's actors as the cream of the crop: Viola Davis and Octavia Spencer. Davis no doubt gives an incredible performance as the film's lead and deserves the Oscar she seems destined to receive for the role. However, in terms of supporting performances, I am not sure I would pick Spencer's as the film's best.

Once again, I think all of the film's actors performed ably, but the one that really affected me the most was that of Jessica Chastain as the town outcast Celia Foote. Chastain's performance was just more multifaceted, a little deeper, and frankly more affecting than Spencer's sassy maid Minnie Jackson. In leaving the movie, the one character from the film that stuck with me days afterwards was Chastain's.

The good news is that Spencer and Chastain are likely to each find themselves on the best supporting actress slate come this February. However, Chastain's nod is likely to come for what for me is her much less interesting turn in The Tree of Life. Still, I will be happy to see her get some attention regardless. T

red band trailer for drive

2011-07-27T23:23:00.002-04:00

the festival circuit reviews (like this one) for nicholas winding refn's drive have been nothing short of fawning, and my interest was definitely piqued months ago when the film debuted at cannes. it wasn't until this week, however, that we got our first look at the film. now that i've finally gotten to see a trailer for the movie, i think it's safe to say that this movie is going to be awesome. i don't think that there is another movie coming out this year that i am looking forward to more than this one. ryan gosling is definitely due for an oscar nom, after his unconscionable snub last year, and it looks like he is definitely in the running again this year. assuming he has some decent dramatic scenes to work with here (in addition the action) i think we'll definitely be seeing him in the running come january. watch the trailer and see for yourself.

thought of the day

2011-05-19T15:51:00.002-04:00

"It strikes me that von Trier’s thoughts are far more complex than his off-the-cuff fumbling with the English language is equipped to express. But how can anyone confuse the human capacity to feel a grain of sympathy for a Nazi with being a Nazi sympathizer? There’s important nuance there, and a lot of people are missing it."

from ryan adams at awards daily

titanic in 3D april 6, 2012

2011-05-19T10:22:00.003-04:00

james cameron announced today that his 3D reissue of titanic will be hitting screens on april 6, 2012, the 100 year anniversary of the day the ship set sail for the first and last time. on the one hand, i feel a little nauseated at the thought that one of the most iconic films of all time and one of my personal favorites is being reimagined in any respect. but on the other hand, WE GET TO SEE TITANIC ON THE BIG SCREEN AGAIN *YEA*! why can't they just show the original sans 3D? oh well.

new trailer: the help

2011-04-19T22:47:00.003-04:00

the new trailer for upcoming awards season hopeful the help was released this week, and i am a little bit surprised. reading imdb synopses can really confuse you, because i was expecting this to be a sort of drama. the trailer makes it look like a light dramedy in the vein of the julie & julia or vintage rob reiner maybe. in any case it definitely looks decent and i stick by my earlier prediction that viola davis and octavia spenser are sure to be supporting actress contenders.

a plea for m. night shyamalan

2011-04-19T22:29:00.002-04:00

okay, okay, i give the people behind this website some credit for their creativity in attempting to raise money to send m. night shyamalan to the nyu film school AND i am certainly sympathetic to the over 500people who have thus far donated money as part of this effort. however, i must plead with anyone reading this, PLEASE DO NOT DONATE MONEY TO SEND "FILM"MAKER M. NIGHT SHYAMALAN BACK TO FILM SCHOOL. first of all, i do not support any public effort that may enable this man to continue making movies. and secondly, i don't really think that he could get into nyu even if he wanted to. instead, i plead in the reverse that the public should band together in agreement that we will no longer give this man any means to continue in his artistic pursuits. this means, we all must stop renting, purchasing, and attending screenings of his movies, even if we are doing it ironically. no good can come out of furthering this man's career.

although he is certainly not the only one in his boat, i am so irritated with this handful of big budget filmmakers (read, shyamalan, bay, emmerich, et al.) who continue to get investors to donate buckets of cash to the trash they are putting out there, while so many smaller films go viewer-less and certainly in want of funds. it would be in everyone's best interest if we took that money we were going to spend to send shyamalan back to film school and spent it to go see kelly reichardt's upcoming low budget indie work meek's cutoff.

yea for comeuppance!

2011-04-13T23:15:00.002-04:00

sasha stone at awards daily posted this short documentary today, and everyone should watch it whether or not they are into film simply because it is extremely entertaining. the overwhelming message behind this film is "don't treat people like dirt or it will come back to haunt you." and who doesn't like a story where bad people face some serious comeuppance.

the story is: some guy named bhindi was running this very successful scam by holding faux film festivals all over the world. the scam was that he accepted all films submitted to his festivals, but charged filmmakers 30 dollars for each acceptance. then, he gets a local school or small theater or whatever to donate space. he then shows all of the accepted films basically on a loop in small classrooms or closets or whatever is available with no schedules. that is, unlike a real film festival with "screenings," there is no schedule or anything at these festivals and bhindi just shows the films whenever and wherever he can in order to technically fulfull his end of the bargain. on top of that, there is absolutely no money spent on promoting these festivals, and thus there is no audience present outside of the few filmmakers that show up. then, on top of all of this, bhindi tops off his scheme by holding a black tie awards reception at the end of the festival which, you guessed it, forces filmmakers to pony up additional fees. the whole thing is essentially a fairly low tech version of those "who's who in american high schools" books, this time in film festival form.

now the comeuppance: two filmmakers from california recently attended bhindi's swansea international film festival in wales in order to promote a documentary they had filmed. they were of course shocked upon arrival to realize that there was no schedule of when the films were to be shown, so they couldn't invite anyone to their film's screening. they are simply given an estimate of when the screening might take place, and the time happens to be opposite the time when the festival is holding a party at which all the filmmakers are expected to be in attendance. the documentarians politely bring their concerns to bhindi's attention. his response is to rudely accuse them of being poor filmmakers who have an inability to attract viewers to their poor work.

unfortunately for bhindi these filmmakers turned out to not be so inept after all. in fact they proved their talents by making this short documentary about the absolute failure that is swansea. the film has garnered a significant audience, especially among those who were previously involved in the festival. all of the celebrities affiliated with the festival, the media involved, the local government and the groups that donated facilities dropped out. the scam has garnered national media attention in wales, and bhindi's operation is more or less squashed.

the lesson to be learned: if you're fucking people over the least you can do is try and be nice about it. i guess this lesson seems pretty commonsensical to us in the u.s., but then again we have congress.

melancholia trailer

2011-04-08T09:40:00.004-04:00

just yesterday i was thinking how boring the movie universe had been lately, and today i wake up to the trailer for lars von trier's melancholia.

maybe it's just the score playing over the trailer but this seems like it could be different than anything he has done before-- von trier's experiment in melodrama maybe? in any case, it looks like he might have gotten the kirsten dunst to deliver the best performance of her career. time will tell.

review: jane eyre

2011-03-30T22:37:00.003-04:00

jane eyre is an ambitious book to adapt to the screen, so it's interesting to note that, according to imdb, it has been adapted no less than 20 times. the book itself is something like 600 pages long and is broken down into five or six large sections demarcated by the title character's travels in life. because of that, bronte's book lends itself particularly well to a miniseries, a collection of films or even a four or five hour gone-with-the-wind-esque epic work. however, it is clearly a difficult task to cram all of the events and characters from such an ambitious literary work into a simple, sleek two hour drama.

watching the latest jane eyre adaption, i imagine that director cary fukunaga and especially screenwriter moira buffini are tremendous admirers of the victorian novel. this is especially evident in the attention that was paid to not excising any major character, setting or storyline from the novel in this film. however, it seems to me that maybe this could have been a better film if it had been written and directed by people who weren't too attached to the source material.

the bulk of the problems i had with jane eyre appear immediately as the film begins and are most evident throughout the first third of the two hour run time. for some reason fukunaga chose to begin the film somewhere in the middle of the novel's storyline as jane arrives at the home of the rivers family. then it jumps back and forth between this scene, jane's pained childhood at home with her aunt and her time at lowood school. in the novel, these represent the first three major sections of text, representing the first three stops on jane's journeys, and this is maybe a quarter to a third of the novel. however, in the film, fukunaga crams these events into maybe 15 or 20 minutes. this entire section of the film is overly complicated, confusing (perhaps especially to viewers who read the book and trying to follow it on screen), and strangely evocative of a "last week on jane eyre. . ." tv series intro.

after jane arrives at thornfield and her storyline with mr. rochester begins, the film immediately straightens itself out and morphs into a more linear, easily discernible narrative. after the film arrives at this point, i could follow what was going on and began to really enjoy what the director was putting out. michael fassbender absolutely embodied mr. rochester, and i couldn't imagine anyone performing the role better than him. and i quite liked mia wasikowska as the tortured, melancholic and overly pale victorian heroine. all in all this was a movie with a lot of good qualities and one that i enjoyed despite its numerous flaws.

still, i would argue that this could have been a much better movie if the filmmakers had been willing to take a chance and tinker with the source material a little bit. given how much better the movie got once jane arrived at thornfield, why couldn't fukunaga just cut the earlier material out and make the entire film revolve solely around the relationship between jane and mr. rochester? this would have yielded a much better, much less cluttered narrative. yeah, maybe some hardcore bronte-philes would have been irritated by the revision, but at least the film would have been able to mark itself off as unique from the twenty earlier adaptations of the book (and the three or four others that are bound to be made in the next decade).

thank you darren aronofsky.

2011-03-28T15:21:00.002-04:00

let's get one thing clear. i couldn't care less how much natalie portman danced the lead role in black swan and how much was danced by her body double. she didn't win any awards because of her dancing. (honestly, there isn't really even that much dancing in this film if you think about it). that being said, i can't stand the idea that there could be a looming asterisk over her best acting oscar. enter mr. aronofsky who released the following clearly researched and irrefutable statement on portman's dancing:

“Here is the reality. I had my editor count shots. There are 139 dance shots in the film. 111 are Natalie Portman untouched. 28 are her dance double Sarah Lane. If you do the math that’s 80% Natalie Portman. What about duration? The shots that feature the double are wide shots and rarely play for longer than one second. There are two complicated longer dance sequences that we used face replacement. Even so, if we were judging by time over 90% would be Natalie Portman.

And to be clear Natalie did dance on pointe in pointe shoes. If you look at the final shot of the opening prologue, which lasts 85 seconds, and was danced completely by Natalie, she exits the scene on pointe. That is completely her without any digital magic. I am responding to this to put this to rest and to defend my actor. Natalie sweated long and hard to deliver a great physical and emotional performance. And I don’t want anyone to think that’s not her they are watching. It is.”

and now we can officially put this minor drama to rest.

30 years of glbt cinema

2011-03-25T17:34:00.003-04:00

yesterday sasha stone at awardsdaily posted a very extensive poll asking readers to rate their favorite examples of glbt cinema over the past thirty years. stone was able to come up with no less than 170 films for readers to choose from. no surprise which film came in first, brokeback mountain, nor is it really a surprise that the top 25 is more or less full of more mainstream oscars-ey fare mostly released in the past 10 or 12 years. given that the glbt films that i admire are largely more indie-leaning i had to resist the urge to get angry that awardsdaily readers couldn't come up with any better examples of queer cinema than black swan (#6), american beauty (#7) and the talented mr. ripley (#9). there's nothing wrong with any of these films. in fact, each one is among my favorites. still, i wouldn't characterize any of them as prime examples of "glbt cinema."

after considering the poll a little further, however, i guess it makes sense that there isn't a lot of what i would call truly queer filmmaking and storytelling or, for that matter, films with provocative queer characters on the list. the truth of the matter is: most queer films kinda suck. for a variety of reasons there just haven't been a lot of really good queer films in the past thirty years. sure there have been plenty of decent movies with gay characters and even prominent gay storylines, but very few of them actually work to plumb sexualities or challenge the dominating heteronormativity of hollywood filmmaking. and the few examples of work that i actually do admire as queer cinema is often pretty obscure, as it's hard to find a mainstream audience for movies that work to challenge the viewers' understanding of their own sexual being. so if filmgoers really do need to turn to marginally gay films like philadelphia or chasing amy to fill a "best-of" list for the genre, i suppose they can't be blamed. what needs to be blamed is an industry that really hasn't yet begun to engage with sexuality (or gender for that matter) in the same ways that it has long dealt with race and class.

of course there is a growing list of glbt films, some even prominent-if-plucked-from-obscurity-by-the-awards-gods, and it seems that now we can expect that at least one gay character is going to be considered for an oscar nomination each year. the problem is that i find the vast majority of glbt cinema falls into two problematic categories.

on the one hand we have the inauthentic films. in my mind, the worst offender in this regard is brokeback mountain, a film about two purportedly gay cowboys whom i never once for a moment believed to be gay. to a somewhat lesser extent i felt the same way about this year's the kids are all right. milk is one more case of a film with gay characters that never really showed a glimpse of what it's like to be gay. the problem as i see it is that it isn't enough to simply insert glbt characters into a script to make a queer film; to do that one actually needs to toy with the conceptions of filmmaking and storytelling themselves. in brokeback mountain i see two men who sleep together, but that is the extent of the gay content in this film. and the truth is that there is more to being gay than sleeping with members of the same sex and getting persecuted for it.

great queer film actually thinks queer. that is, there is a deeper effort by the filmmakers behind these superior works to challenge conventional depictions of sexualities including conventional depictions of homosexualities. probably my favorite glbt movie is the british coming of age/coming out story beautiful thing. in beautiful thing, director hettie macdonald assembles an almost nonsensical cast of characters, through each one of them attempting to illustrate the nonconformity of the everyday that is characteristic of living in an urban working class british neighborhood. in this setting, main character jamie doesn't struggle with coming out of the closet or with getting people to challenge their prejudices but rather with illuminating the quotidian strangeness around him and illustrating that his difference fits into the larger pattern of difference in his neighborhood. in the end, beautiful thing, always sort of lyrical and unexpectedly (for its content) happy, culminates in an unapologetically joyous movie-musical-type ending. what macdonald was able to do here was queer the very conception of the "coming out" movie. the typical scenes of tortured personal anguish are, if not gone entirely, transformed in a way that shows the variability of the experience itself. everything about the film from its chronology, to its soundtrack to the characterization of the mother character is unexpectedly fresh and provocative. this is one example of a film that, to me, is purely and authentically representative of gay experience.

whereas i take issue with the vast majority of mainstream glbt films for their inauthentic depictions of what it feels like to be gay, i also take issue with the vast majority of more subcultural glbt films directed at a largely gay-identified audience for another reason entirely: their inability to escape queer stereotypes. in movies about gay men in particular all characters are either sex-obsessed hot young gay men, sex-obsessed aging men lusting after hot young gay men, and the sassy effeminate friends of hot young gay men. granted there are a lot of movies that fall into this category that i enjoy (trick, the broken hearts club), but i would hardly call them great glbt films (they're more like guilty pleasures). the bigger problem for me emerges when movies like last year's a single man garners some measure of prestige. a single man, albeit beautifully crafted and well acted, operates entirely off a stereotype that is neither unexamined in glbt cinema nor in need of revisiting. all we get from this movie is one more example of old gay men who can't age gracefully and can't help admiring the sweaty nubile young adult bodies around them. a single man, which i was really looking forward to last year, particularly disappointed me, because here was an open opportunity to do a really smart and engaging character study of a queer character, and what we got was another tired stereotype. it just dumbfounds me how every year there are so many deeply memorable new movie characters of every variety, but when it comes to gay characters they have to fit into a few very narrow molds.

where are the great gay characters in film? strangely, i think that if you are looking for really well drawn examples of queer characters in film you need to avoid movies on the glbt-interest shelf and dig a little deeper through the mostly supporting screen roles in not-necessarily gay themed movies. that being said, my favorite gay character in film is kevin spacey's depiction of jim williams in eastwood's vastly underrated midnight in the garden of good and evil. i think i like this character in a lot of ways because, like every character in this film, he defies any sort of compartmentalization. jim williams shows me that gay characters on screen can be interesting. the film largely centers on issues concerning jim's sexuality, yet this movie never once even remotely ventures into "gay-movie"(tm) territory. it is just a movie about a deeply troubled, deeply complicated man. and his sexuality contributes to these complications. midnight in the garden of good and evil isn't a movie about a gay man; it's a movie about a man who is many things, one of which is gay. i wish more filmmakers would just allow gay characters to develop organically in the way eastwood does with jim williams. instead, the vast majority of gay characters will always and only ever be gay characters.

i don't know how sasha stone went about collecting her list of 170 gay films to include in her ambitious poll. and i admit that this was a very nice attempt to gather a list of titles that might not have been previously available. however, in the end i argue that if you are seeking out the absolute best in queer cinema, you might be advised to look past any movie that is apt to slap a sticker on the dvd cover identifying it as a "glbt" film. the truly best queer films are those that in no way identify themselves as queer but which strive to make the viewer consider her or his heteronormative conceptions of society, filmmaking and/or their own sexualities. when watching kelly reichardt's haunting wendy and lucy, robert rodriguez' uber-violent from dusk till dawn or arthur penn's classic bonnie and clyde, your first reaction might not be to classify any of these as glbt films. ostensibly at least there aren't any gay characters in any of them. however, i would characterize each of these films as examples of great queer cinema, as they each strive to queer conventionality and illuminate certain seemingly inalienable aspects of the human condition as mutable, temporary or somehow questionable. that is what really great glbt movies accomplish: they make the viewer question. in the end, that might be the only qualification necessary to make a film a glbt film. forget the requisite drag queen.

2011 oscar predictions: year in advance

2011-03-24T21:47:00.003-04:00

i've never attempted to do such a thing as a) it's a particularly ridiculous thing to do; b) we don't even know for sure what's going to be released this year (how many people were predicting tree of life to be an awards contender in march of last year?); and c) i am pretty much prediction-ed out at this time of year. still, a lot of the first predictions for 2011 have started trickling out lately, and i suppose it will be pretty fun to look back on this post in a year and see if i got anywhere close. so, that being said, and please take this with a gigantic grain of salt, this is what i could see happening next february:

supporting actor:
the nominees- vincent cassell (dangerous method), daniel craig (girl with the dragon tattoo), paul dano (meek's cutoff), john c. reilly (we need to talk about kevin) and christopher plummer (the girl with the dragon tattoo)
the winner- daniel craig. i'm not sure if he will be going lead or supporting for this, but i think it will be in his best interest to go supporting. i could see christopher plummer winning in this category as well if he is any good (in dragon tattoo or his other film, beginners).

supporting actress:
the nominees- jessica chastain (tree of life), viola davis (the help), vanessa redgrave (coriolanus), saorsie ronan (hanna) and octavia spencer (the help)
the winner- jessica chastain. i don't know if she has even been in a movie up until this point, but she has a couple high profile roles this year, and everyone is expecting her to be a scene stealer (in tree of life, particularly). i think she is going to be in a tough race against vanessa redgrave, however, who already has solid rave reviews for her role in coriolanus.

actor:
the nominees- george clooney (the descendants), ralph fiennes (coriolanus), jeremy irvine (war horse), viggo mortensen (dangerous method), brad pitt (tree of life)
the winner- brad pitt. i think academy voters are likely to see him as "due" and if this movie actually turns out to be good and if he is any good in it at all, i think this is going to be his statue to lose. of course, there is definitely the possibility that either george clooney or viggo mortensen gives a performance that is just so sensational that it can't be denied.

actress:
the nominees- glenn close (albert nobbs), rooney mara (girl with the dragon tattoo), freida pinto (miral), meryl streep (the iron lady) and tilda swinton (we need to talk about kevin)
the winner- meryl streep. after losing her much deserved oscar last year to sandra bullock, i think that the next time she is nominated she will win in an absolute landslide. she is waaay overdue for another one, and she is bound to give a fantastic turn as margaret thatcher. that being said- i expect this movie to kind of suck, so you never know. glenn close could be hot on her heels, but something tells me her star has dimmed now that she is a tv actress. she would need to be amazing.

director:
the nominees- david cronenberg (dangerous method), david fincher (girl with the dragon tattoo), terrence malick (tree of life), julian schnabel (miral) and steven spielberg (war horse)
the winner- spielberg. i definitely have this early sinking feeling that the director race is really going to irritate me this year. there is bound to be some amazing direction on the horizon, but i can see this coming down to a spielberg/fincher race, and i am definitely not a fan of either one. spielberg's been absent for a couple years, and i can see the academy falling over themselves to give him another one.

best picture:
the nominees- the conspirator, coriolanus, dangerous method, the girl with the dragon tattoo, the help, hugo cabret, miral, the muppets, the tree of life, war horse
the winner- war horse. it's gonna suck. period. i realize that i sound like i'm closed minded to spielberg's upcoming "opus," and honestly i'm not. if it's a great movie, i will say that it's a great movie. but face it. it's gonna suck. and yes, i did put the muppets on my best picture list. there is bound to be a surprise, and with the pixar slot seemingly up for grabs this year, i am going out on a limb on this one. if, in a year, the muppets gets nominated for an oscar i can say that i was the first person to have predicted it.

looking forward: 2011

2011-03-23T20:10:00.005-04:00

after a year at the movies that i consider as one of the best in recent memory, it is certainly going to be difficult for 2011 to live up to the bar that is set. this is coupled by the fact that i am particularly underwhelmed by some of the directors (spielberg, fincher) that are sure to dominate next year's awards season as well as by the nostalgic childhood theme that seems to be prevalent in this year's crop of films. somewhat strangely a great deal of this year's most prominent coming attractions are either about childhood or feature children prominently (the tree of life, hanna, hugo cabret, war horse, extremely loud and incredibly close, the adventures of tintin). and the few movies that don't seem to be about kids are biopics, which is probably my least favorite film genre (the iron lady, the dangerous method, j. edgar). that being said, there are at least a handful of films i am eagerly anticipating this year:

1. london boulevard (dir. william monahan). this is the movie i am most excited about this year, despite the fact that the few reviews it has gotten thus far are less than stellar. the trailer definitely evokes colin farrell's previous work in bruges, which i loved. and the film marks the directorial debut of departed screenwriter william monahan. throw in keira knightley, undoubtedly the best working actress under 30, and how could this fail? unfortunately there's no u.s. release date yet, but it's already been out in europe so it can't be that long til we see it here.

2. jane eyre (dir. cary fukunaga). i am a sucker for victorian lit dramas in general, and although there have already been a handful of jane eyre adaptations, i am excited for the this version which seems to really pull from some of the more gothic, even supernatural elements of the story. also, this marks the return of my beloved dame judi dench to the screen after a miserable year spent without her (she's in no less than 3! big movies coming out this year). jane eyre's already playing in new york and l.a. and should be everywhere in a couple weeks.

3. meek's cutoff (dir. kelly reichardt). i absolutely love reichardt's vastly underrated debut film wendy and lucy and couldn't be more excited about the follow up which has already gotten rave reviews on the festival circuit. i don't know if this film will be received any more prominently than reichardt's previous work but maybe the recent attention shined on star michelle williams will bring this film into this year's awards conversation (à la winter's bone). the good news is that this is an early release as well. it'll be out some time in april.

4. mildred pierce (dir. todd haynes). haynes' hotly anticipated mini-series adaptation of the oscar winning film starts this sunday. the whole project sounds so bizarre (why is todd haynes directing a tv show?) but given the fact that a few of what i consider to be the best "films" of the past decade (angels in america, grey gardens and tom hooper's john adams) all came from hbo, i guess it isn't hard at all to imagine that this will be one of 2011's best.

5. red state (dir. kevin smith). although i generally like kevin smith's work (mallrats is a personal fave), this probably wouldn't be something that would be at the top of my list to see, except for the fact that it has been getting stupendous reviews by those that have seen it so far, with many calling it smith's best work to date. that, plus the fact that i am a slasher movie slut, are definitely going to get me out to see this. coming in october.

6. j. edgar (dir. clint eastwood). i'm not entirely convinced that this is actually going to be released in 2011, but everyone is anticipating it coming out at the end of this year, and eastwood is known for making movies pretty quickly, so i am hoping to see this one by year's end. once again, i'm not a fan of biopics, but eastwood has yet to make a movie that i don't like, and i have no reason to expect that he would now. here's hoping that critics turn around on him and start putting him on the awards map again.

7. hanna (dir. joe wright). as much as i missed dame judi last year, it seems like it's been a really long time since we've seen much of cate blanchett at all. so i am psyched that she has a high profile film coming out this year. joe wright is on the fast track to becoming one of my favorite filmmakers, and i am very excited to see what he comes up with. this one could definitely be an awards contender even though it would be an early entrant into the race with an april release date.

8. the ides of march (dir. george clooney). george clooney's previous directing attempt, good night and good luck is one of my least favorite films of all time. i find it to be pompous, self important and preachy. that being said, his follow up seems to be much more up my alley, a suspenseful political drama with a great cast. here's hoping it's more michael clayton and less syriana. out in october.

9. the descendants (dir. alexander payne). george clooney is having a big year in 2011, but i think that if he gets oscar attention it is most likely to be for his performance in alexander payne's long awaited follow up to sideways. this script about an aging man trying to reconnect with his family seems made for a best actor nomination. i will be really disappointed if this doesn't end up being one of the favorite films of the year.

10. melancholia (dir. lars von trier). and then there's lars von trier and his upcoming sci-fi drama. this is going to be out in europe this summer, which means that we should be getting it here in the states sometime in. . . march of 2012? i don't know. that seems to be the record with his movies, but i am praying we get to see it sooner. this movie sounds really different from previous work that we've seen from the danish auteur, and i can't wait even to see a trailer just to get an idea of what this is going to look like. no doubt, it will be incredible.

the king's speech getting re-cut

2011-03-08T15:36:00.002-05:00

well, despite tom hooper going on record as saying he does not support re-cutting the king's speech and the subsequent release of a "tamer" pg-13 version of the oscar winner, the studio is set to go ahead with the whole debacle anyway. this is such a shame and just goes to show that when it comes to making movies, even ones good enough to win the best picture oscar, the quality of the film is far far less important than how much money it makes.

now let's be honest. does anyone really think that a whole new crop of movie fans are going to be flocking to see this film not that it contains fewer f-words? no matter how you re-cut the film, it isn't somehow magically going to be transformed into a family friendly kid-pleaser. it is a dry adult movie. at the same time, the film is pretty tame in its original incarnation, and if i was responsible for a young adolescent or even a child who wanted to see the film, i don't think i would have any problem with her watching it.

in any case, let's hope that while they are doing this language-directed re-cut, they can also do something about all that pesky gay porn set design.

king's speech wins in worst oscars ever

2011-03-05T22:21:00.002-05:00

alright, alright, so i was wrong.

up until the very last moment, i thought the social network was a lock. even when tom hooper won best director, i thought there was going to be an unexpected director/picture split. seeing the king's speech win best picture was a good oscar moment, not because i thought it was the best film of the year, but because it beat out an overrated competitor that most certainly wasn't even close. that being said, this nice oscar moment emerged out of the inky abyss that was the worst. oscars. ever.

what an absolute debacle. first of all we have two hosts that, despite their various talents, just shouldn't have been on that stage. james franco couldn't have seemed any more bored and unprepared. honestly, there is absolutely no excuse for the way he kept looking up at the ceiling, seemingly to say- gawd i can't believe i'm doing this and i apologize. if he were embarrassed by the material with which he was presented, then he should have said HEY i'm not doing this crap- i'll write something better. instead he seemed to show up at the last minute without any preparation whatsoever and without any intention of putting an ounce of effort into the event. i was embarrassed for him, but not because of the awful material that was written for him. rather, i was embarrassed that he agreed to work with the material at all.

on the other hand, we have anne hathaway, who clearly could have used a few of franco's slacker pills. she just seemed like she was trying way too hard. once again, you can't necessarily blame her for giving her all towards delivering absolutely dreadful material. however, i think people have generally been way too kind to her. SHE NEVER SHOULD HAVE AGREED TO DO THIS CRAP MATERIAL TO BEGIN WITH. i think it shows a lack of integrity on the part of both of these performers that they didn't stop this sinking ship before the water crested the fifth bulkhead. plus, someone needs to tell hathaway that even if people only watched the oscars for the fashion, watching her change outfits seven times is not entertainment. give it up.

still, clearly one can not place all of the blame for this year's oscar disaster on the shoulders of its two misguided-if-hopefully-well-intentioned hosts. every year i find the academy awards ceremony to be one of the worst produced, directed and written shows on television. this year was no exception. i absolutely HATED almost every aspect of this year's ceremony. from the dreadful best song performances to the completely bizarre presentation of the best picture contenders i was really dumbfounded by how horrible they managed to make this show. it's almost as if they were endeavoring to suck any ounce of potential entertainment out of three hours of tv. at least last year there were glimmers of satisfactory entertainment (thanks largely to hosts steve martin and alec baldwin) but this year it is really impossible to choose a single thing that didn't completely suck.

the oscars are never going to be watchable television (let's face it) but please dear gawd someone has to show these people a tape of the sag or bafta awards. it is possible to film a ceremony honoring the best of a year at the movies without it being a complete embarrassment. the best tip i think i could give: next year, try spending a little less money and putting a little more thought into the reason for the show- publicizing and getting some support for well done film.

that's all i'm gonna say about it. now, on to 2011.

final pre-show thoughts

2011-02-27T20:05:00.002-05:00

25 minutes to go. honestly, i am kinda more exhausted than usual with the buildup to this year's oscars, and i'm more or less ready for this to be over. here is what i would like to happen:

1. darren aronofsky miraculously walks away with the best director award

2. the social network loses best score. (bonus: a.r. rahmann surprises with the win for 127 hours)

3. dogtooth wins best foreign language film. or, at the very least, incendies loses.

4. best picture: anything but the social network

now, that being said, here's what's going to happen

1. the king's speech wins just four awards for actor, screenplay art direction and costume design

2. the social network wins screenplay, cinematography, editing, score, sound and picture (6 total)

3. hailee steinfeld wins best supporting actress (i'm getting more and more sure of this) the only award for true grit.

4. the show itself will suck painfully.

let's see how my predictions work out.

best picture showcase today

2011-02-26T08:15:00.003-05:00

going to the movies all day. going to give inception one more chance. going to be annoyed by the social network's score in surround sound. going to try to limit john to one large popped corn.

oscar predictions. . .

2011-02-25T20:26:00.004-05:00

it's really just smoke and mirrors, but somehow, what once everyone expected to be the simple reading of long-anticipated names at this sunday's oscars, has suddenly become something a little bit more dramatic. i give credit for this to sasha stone and other social network diehards who a) wanted to make this awards season a little more interesting and b) wanted to make their chosen movie into an underdog in a well-played attempt to garner even more support for the film, while at the same time creating a nice back story for when it finally goes home on sunday with the year's biggest film award (à la last year's similar hurt locker faux underdog drama). that being said, for the first time in a few years we are going into an oscar ceremony with several major categories that are not entirely foregone conclusions-- most notable the races for picture, director, supporting actress, documentary, foreign language film and adapted screenplay. here are my final predictions:

supporting actor:
will win. . . christian bale is one of those actors who has been delivering fine perfomances for years and is finally getting his due, for one performance as much as for his entire career. however, unusual in these sorts of oscar scenarios, bale actually will win for the best work he has ever done. there is an outside chance that geoffrey rush could upset here, but it isn't going to happen.
should win. . . christian bale not only gave the best performance in this category but perhaps the single best performance of the year. bale isn't my favorite actor, and his tabloid fodder personal life gets on everyone's nerves, but i have to give the man his due.
my five. . . christian bale, john hawkes, sam rockwell (conviction), bill murray (get low) and pete postlethwaite (the town)

supporting actress:
will win. . . um, hailee steinfeld? honestly, i wouldn't be surprised if any of the five nominated women win this category. first of all, the oscar voters tend to make off the wall choices in this category perhaps more than any other, which makes me think jacki weaver has a shot. at the same time, they also like to nominated women here for the larger body of work they have done in their career, which leads me to think helena bonham carter has a shot. then there is melissa leo who seemed to be a lock until she revealed some unsavory elements of her personality, so i think she is most likely out. everyone loves amy adams, and she gives some of the best work she has ever done in the fighter, so she definitely has a shot. in the end i am going with steinfeld who i think might possibly have a slight leg up.
should win. . . at the same time, i can't really decide who my favorite in the category is either. i like hailee steinfeld, but her performance is clearly true grit's lead. i like melissa leo's performance in the fighter, but i can't say that i am looking forward to seeing her on the podium. i think if i had a vote, it would go to jacki weaver for her haunting work in animal kingdom.
my five. . . jacki weaver, melissa leo, amy adams, dale dickey (winter's bone) and keira knightley (never let me go)

actor:
will win. . . colin firth. this year's best actor race is the most sewn up one of the year at this point. i am not exactly sure why his performance is the single thing that everyone seems able to agree on this year, as it doesn't excite me nearly as much as it seems to excite everyone else, but i don't have any problem with him winning for his fine performance. still, i wouldn't completely rule out a shocker upset by jesse eisenberg if the social network has the mini sweep i expect.
should win. . . jeff bridges is nothing short of outstanding in true grit. it really is a shame that he won best actor last year for a far inferior performance, because his work in true grit is really the oscar-worthy one. my favorite acting performance of the year, hands down.
my five. . . jeff bridges, colin firth, ryan gosling (blue valentine), robert duvall (get low), leonardo dicaprio (shutter island)

actress:
will win. . . natalie portman has all the support in this category this year. there is the distant outside possibility of an annette bening upset, but it just isn't going to happen. it's portman's year.
should win. . . natalie portman. i want to see bening win an oscar as much as anyone, and it really does seem that this could be her last shot (i hope not), but natalie portman was simply, undeniably better in her much better role in her much better film. what portman shows in black swan is that she is a truly fearless actress, willing to take huge risks in the hope of yielding extraordinary results. i never thought so until seeing black swan, but i really do think she has the potential to be the next julianne moore or nicole kidman.
my five. . . natalie portman, nicole kidman, michelle williams, jennifer lawrence and hailee steinfeld

original screenplay:
will win. . . this is one of the few awards i expect the king's speech to take home on saturday, along with actor and maybe one technical award.
should win. . . along with supporting actress, this is one of the two hardest categories for me to pick a favorite this year. i love black swan, but i have to say that the melodramatic screenplay is probably a slightly weak element of this film. if i had a vote, it would go to david michod for his screenplay for animal kingdom, simply because he managed to artistically elevate a genre that has really been done almost to death. runner up for me, chris provenzano for get low
my five. . . animal kingdom, get low, black swan, hereafter and biutiful

adapted screenplay:
will win. . . aaron sorkin has snowed everyone with his trite, overwrought screenplay for the social network. i hope he takes it home and goes back to writing for television shows.
should win. . . last year the coen brothers produced the year's best writing for the screen with their clever, intricate screenplay for a serious man. this year they have produced the year's best screenwriting with their work on true grit. they have pretty much proven themselves to be the best writers working in hollywood today. my runner up, alex garland's screenplay for never let me go.
my five. . . true grit, never let me go, shutter island, winter's bone, rabbit hole

director:
will win. . . david fincher, who i will say flat out right now is absolutely one of the worst working filmmakers, will win the oscar for a film that, is completely flawed from a directorial level (fake breath anyone?) that it will go down as one of the worst best picture winners of all time.
should win. . . darren aronofsky is one of my favorite directors, and he has put out some of the best work he has ever done this year. he has taken tremendous risks in making black swan, and the result is a brilliant, studied look at sexuality, female identity, art and celebrity. it isn't a seamless work of filmmaking, but nothing that takes so many risks could or should be perfect.
my five. . . darren aronofsky, the coen brothers, tom hooper, clint eastwood (hereafter) and mark romanek (never let me go)

cinematography:
will win. . . this is going to be one of those years where the social network wins nearly every award it is nominated for (think lotr:rotk) and voters simply see the film listed on their ballots and put a check next to it without even reading the category they are voting on. hence, its bizarre, unjustified win here.
should win. . . i was really taken by the interesting camera work on 127 hours. however, i also thought there were some spectacular shots in black swan, and i think my single favorite camera shot of the year was that one at the end of the ghost writer. still 127 hours gets my vote here.
my five. . . 127 hours, black swan, the ghost writer, true grit and shutter island.

art direction:
will win. . . this will probably be the third of the king's speech's three wins on sunday (along with actor and original screenplay), in part because the social network couldn't pull off a nomination here.
should win. . . maybe i don't understand exactly what constitutes good art direction, but i don't get at all why black swan wasn't nominated here. it should win the category. the king's speech would be my runner up.
my five. . . black swan, the king's speech, true grit, never let me go and the ghost writer

score:
will win. . . *sigh* other than mike leigh's nauseating screenplay nod for another year, the one nomination that irritates me more than any other is the one for the social network's score. yes it is going to win. no competition.
should win. . . i am torn between two this year, but i have to ultimately go with a.r. rahmann's film-sustaining score for 127 hours. the best thing about the movie. runner up, rachel portman's score for never let me go.
my five. . . 127 hours, never let me go, black swan, hereafter, winter's bone

best picture:
will win. . . i don't care what sasha stone says, the social network has and has always had this one in the bag.
should win. . . there were quite a few great movies this year and quite a few other that at least contained elements or moments of greatness. in a very competitive year, black swan stands out above the rest.
my five (using the power of positive thinking to bring the category back to its rightful number). . . black swan, never let me go, animal kingdom, true grit and winter's bone

my top 10 of 2010

2011-02-23T13:48:00.003-05:00

last year, the first one in which the academy decided to have ten best picture nominees, was incredibly difficult for me to create a top ten list, because i simply didn't think there were ten films deserving of spot on such a list. this year was exactly the opposite. so many terrific films were released this year, and i really had a hard time narrowing down the field. i really hit a wall when it came to comparing well done mainstream fare (e.g. the king's speech) to exceptional, if somewhat experimental, indie work (e.g. blue valentine). in the end, there were quite a few honorable mentions this year, and i am not sure that this list precisely summarizes the best work of the year, but at the very least here are ten exceptional films that i really enjoyed this year:

10. blue valentine. . . this is not a perfect film. i had a lot of difficulty understanding the actions of a cast of characters who consistently behaved irrationally. dean and cindy are so epicly bad for one another, that i just can't understand why they are making any effort at all to stay together. however, the fact that this movie made me think so much, combined with the exceptional acting of michelle williams and ryan gosling, made this movie one of the year's best.

9. hereafter. . . clint eastwood simply can't make a bad movie. unfortunately, and quite confusingly (to me at least), it has become fashionable of late to dump on his work. this is really a shame, since this is probably eastwood's best film since million dollar baby. i think a lot of the bad reviews of this movie stem from the fact that many critics missed the central point of the film. too many people came to this movie looking for a spooky thriller about a man who can speak to the dead, when what eastwood created was a pensive drama about the daily connections humans make with one another in society. (added bonus- the introductory tsunami scene showed that eastwood can master special effects as well. who knew?)

8. rabbit hole. . . john cameron mitchell really came out of nowhere with this wrenching drama about parents dealing with the death of their son. a fan of the directors' two previous films, i never would have expected his third to look anything like this-- so polished, quietly introspective and carefully crafted. knowing that this was a passion project for nicole kidman, one has to wonder how much of a collaborative effort this was between the film's director and star. maybe it's time for kidman to step behind the camera?

7. get low. . . this film really came out of nowhere for me. having read a few reviews of the film, i expected a pretentious, somewhat stodgy drowsy religious drama. what i got was a smart, funny, relatable film punctuated by three masterful performances. casting bill murray as the funeral home director was an inspired move. no other actor could have delivered this character's lines in such a hilariously dry way. and robert duvall really only missed out on a best actor nomination, because he disappears so wholly into his character that you forget you are watching acting. a consistently great work all around.

6. shutter island. . . i held out hope until the very last moment that scorsese's latest would pull out a best picture nomination. lesser work of his (the aviator) has garnered far more praise. unfortunately, for reasons which are beyond comprehension, the film's march release date dumped it in an awards season black hole that made it all but impossible that it would be noticed come voting time. that being said, the theme of diving into our own subconscious to uncover the true reality of our existence was a popular one this year, and this was the single best effort to engage it.

5. winter's bone. . . there is nothing flashy about this film- just simple, well done storytelling. debra granik's film is perhaps one of the year's most watchable. this drama about a teenage girl in the missouri ozarks searching for her drug manufacturer father unfolds gradually, always keeping the viewer glued to the movie's twists and turns. one of the best surprises of this year's oscar nominations was john hawkes supporting actor nod. but jennifer lawrence and dale dickey are equally deserving of the awards attention they have received this year. i can't wait to see more work from these actors as well from granik herself.

4. true grit. . . the screenplay for true grit is something like a tone poem. it is a lyrical work that keeps the viewer interested as much in the language of the film as in the story itself. it's hard to imagine any other screenwriters capable of such deft cinematic artistry. this is really a very simple story, much less ambitious than some other recent westerns of note. but it is the careful writing, superb acting and studied direction that makes this movie stand out as probably the best result of the recent renaissance of the genre. i for one am somewhat shocked that the academy took so warmly to this film, but more than that i am surprised that it was so successful at the box office, as this is really one of the year's smartest movies.

3. animal kingdom. . . on the one hand, we have ben affleck's the town, a masculine fantasy of elite white boy gangsters who somewhat miraculously manage to stump an entire city worth of law enforcement officers, all the while making themselves irresistable to the opposite sex. on the other hand, we have animal kingdom, a realistic portrait of some very flawed individuals, struggling against local law enforcement with varying degrees of success. in the town, the bad(ass) guys win (with almost no competition). in animal kingdom, nobody wins. there are no superheroes, just real people on both sides of the law. and no matter how invincible the gangsters in the film think they are, the director shows how the real mastermind behind their efforts is the little middle-aged woman at home they they call mom. without a doubt, animal kingdom is the far better film in this comparison, and one of the year's absolute best.

2. never let me go. . . there are these shots in never let me go that just sort of seem to go on for far too long-- where we are looking at a character just sitting, thinking, walking, listening to a song, etc. what mark romanek has done is crafted a movie that not only impresses but enables the audience to ponder mortality. he leaves these moments throughout this film where the viewer is drawn into the characters' pensiveness, where the lack of action for a moment allows us to take a second to think about what is going on, to imagine what these characters are experiencing. without a doubt, one of the year's superp, if understated, directorial accomplishments.

1. black swan. . . about halfway through this movie, i actually said under my breath that i was completely over darren aronofsky. after watching his last movie, the wrestler, i started to wonder if maybe this may doesn't respect women too much. then, watching this film, i began to be assured of that fact. however, there was a moment somewhere in the film's second act where a lightbulb went off and i really understood what this movie was about. aronofsky isn't attempting to exploit womens' sexuality in this work, but rather he is plumbing that exploitation. he is showing how the hypersexualization of women in contemporary art has created this situation in which successful women in this field are compelled without choice to sell sex. this is a fascinating film about women, sexuality, art and society. also, it is beautifully crafted. the best film of the year.

the good thing about bad movies

2011-02-22T19:44:00.003-05:00

even though i wish less were made, i am thankful for bad movies, because they make us appreciate the good ones a little more. at the same time, i am also thankful for bad movies, because they provide fodder for hilarious skewerings by reviewers like entertainment weekly's lisa schwarzbaum, who, shall we say, was not a fan of this weekend's new release i am number four. her indignant review of the movie, which can be read here, totally cracked me up.

i think it was in contention's guy lodge who, in listing his least favorite movies of the year, admitted that he wasn't including a lot of wretched mainstream fare in his list, because he couldn't bring himself to sit through them. i more or less fall into this category as well. but i forget that film critics working for major publications actually are pressed to sit through these works, so i guess it makes sense that after a while you might just get plain angry that this stuff keeps getting made. anyways, at least it seems that schwarzbaum was able to amuse herself writing this piece.

my beef with the faux documentary trend

2011-02-18T22:00:00.004-05:00

this year three separate acclaimed documentaries have been accused in various ways of being unreal. i finally got around to watching one of them, banksy's oscar-nominated exit through the gift shop, last night, and i have to say i was extremely underwhelmed with the work as a documentary. i think the major problem for me with this movie emerged almost instantly as the film started rolling, as it seemed utterly impossible to me that anyone could possibly watch this movie and believe it were really happening. here's the (somewhat complicated problem) with the film, as best i can explain it:

the viewers of this film are told that we are watching the gradual unfolding of a film made by accidental documentarian-cum-street artist thierry guetta. in the beginning of the movie, guetta is just haphazardly filming street artists at work with no intention of using the film to make a documentary. it is only later that he actually decides to turn his work into a documentary about street art. NOW, why then is someone filming guetta filming street artists in the beginning if there is no intention of making a documentary at this point? later, after banksy is critical of guetta's filmmaking he ditches the camera and goes out to create a sort of ramshackle street art bazarre in an abandoned television studio. meanwhile, banksy stays behind, allegedly unaware of what guetta is up to, while he finishes the documentary himself. okay, then who is the one filming guetta while he is on this new mission? and how is it possible that banksy is surprised at the ultimate scale of guetta's "show?" it's allegedly HIS movie, so how could he not have known? how could he not have been the one filming? i mean, i think you absolutely HAVE to view this movie as the fictional work of some third party filmmaker who basically created the character of thierry guetta/mr. brainwash and either got someone to play the character of banksy or possibly got the real artist to portray himself. exit through the gift shop is simply/confusingly a mockumentary about the making of a documentary. that DOES NOT make it a documentary.

strangely i had a lot of the same problems with exit through the gift shop that i had with another of 2010's critically lauded documentaries: catfish. granted, i did actually really enjoy catfish and found it to be a much more entertaining work than gift shop, but i watched both films in complete disbelief from their beginnings. in catfish, viewers are told at the outset that the schulman brothers are making a documentary about nev's facebook friendship with a michigan family. it is extremely unlikely that the filmmakers would have wasted their energy on such a boring piece of subject matter. then, surprise, everything suddenly gets very interesting. either this was just an absolutely serendipitous turn of events for these young filmmakers or at least some aspects of the "documentary" were contrived.

now, why does any of this matter? i mean, is it really important to differentiate true documentary filmmaking from the faux variety? i would argue that even though the singular act of faking parts of a purported documentary does not automatically ruin it (and might sometimes, as in the case of catfish, elevate it) doing so and not revealing it could be ultimately damaging to the larger field of documentary filmmaking. that is, i think filmmakers like schulman brothers and the true unnamed director behind gift shop are treading a slippery slope by contributing to a growing culture of skepticism among viewers of documentaries. whereas there was once a time when documentaries were really respected for their ability to expose in a literally visual way certain sociopolitical truths that might only have existed up to that point on the black and white pages of newspapers, from here on out any film that seems too good, too revealing, too probing, too unbelievable to be true will automatically be questioned by its viewers as potentially made up. this will create problems for future documentarians who will have to choose whether or not to include footage in their work that might evoke skepticism from viewers but which are in fact simply brilliant and revealing pieces of filmmaking. i hope that this isn't necessarily the case, but i predict a shift, albeit perhaps a subtle one, in the kinds of documentaries that are released in the coming years. at the very least, i predict a shift in the way i watch documentaries.

2010: a groundbreaking year for oral sex on film

2011-02-17T20:26:00.004-05:00

i remember a time when those seeking out a good oral sex scene really had to go out of their way to sift through some of the indy-er, more esoteric work out there like john cameron mitchell's shortbus and vincent gallo's the brown bunny. and, even then, the sex depicted almost always focused on the servicing of the male genitalia. in 2010, this all changed. for the first time in film history, afficionados of cinematic mouth love, and in particular sex acts of the cunnilingual variety, have had a veritable slate of movies to choose from.

strangely enough, having watched a collection of memorable oral sex scenes throughout the year, i hadn't put it together that this subcategory of genital stimulation has actually been a prominent 2010 film theme until just a few days ago while watching dogtooth, the greek nominee in the best foreign language film category. in a lot of ways the act of oral sex is the central metaphor in this allegory about protecting our children's innocence in the face of a too-rapidly maturating society. the basic message of this film is that in protecting ourselves from perceived societal dangers, we run the risk of creating socially unviable adults. in dogtooth, this message is ultimately conveyed by the siblings' inability to properly eat vagina. the father of the family introduces christina, an outsider, to the household, with the intention that she will sexually satisfy his son. unfortunately for everyone, it becomes apparent that the son is so cloistered that he really has a complete inability to find enjoyment in sex. when he simply refuses to orally pleasure christina, she tricks his younger sister into eating her out instead. however, she also finds the act more or less incomprehensible and, later, when trying to replicate the act with others, manages to put her tongue everywhere BUT on another person's genitals. the point of all of this: if you totally isolate a person from discussion and practice of sexuality from birth, you are left with an individual that can't properly experience sexual pleasure later in life and, especially unfortunate for christina, can't get another person off with their mouth whether they want to or not.

of course even though dogtooth may represent the most studious effort by a filmmaker this year to plumb the social significance of cunnilingus it is far from the most renowned. that honor obviously goes to darren aronofsky for the slurp-tastic ecstasy-fueled meeting of natalie portman and mila kunis. this is probably one of the most talked about movie scenes of 2010, and many probably sought out the film solely due to word of mouth surrounding the hot lesbian xxx action. but in the long run, i think a lot of people really missed the point of the scene. on the one hand, there are those that were simply titillated by seeing mila kunis snout deep in snatch. on the other hand, there are those that see the scene as aronofsky's juxtaposition of sexuality and creative thrust. however, i think both of these schools of thought are missing the educational content of the scene. i can't imagine that anyone watching this movie didn't learn a thing of two about orally pleasing a woman from watching mila kunis' studied work in this field. for one thing, there's a whole lot more lip smacking involved in good pussy eating than i would have imagined. who knew?

when it comes to the recent groundbreaking efforts of filmmakers and actors alike to bring lesbian cunnilingus in all its glory to the silver screen, you'd be hard pressed to find a more dedicated artiste than julianne moore. moore appeared in not one but two films in 2010 which featured same sex vaginal spelunking. in the more popular of the two, the oscar-nominated the kids are all right, moore represents the tongue in the equation, orally pleasing annette bening while the two enjoy some good old fashioned man porn. however, being the dedicated actor that julianne moore is, she simply wasn't satisfied stopping at a single act of cinematic oral love. she simply had to show that she also had the ability to believably receive the favor as well. hence her participation in chloe, where she gets brought to orgasm by the lovely lips of a lovely psychotic prostitute played by amanda seyfried. it's really hard to say which of these two performances that i enjoyed more, but i for one am simply happy that julianne moore chose to dedicate her talent to a righteous cause.

still, not all of the oral sex seen at multiplexes this year involved multiple women. there was at least one well done male-on-female vag licking scene as executed by ryan gosling and michelle williams in blue valentine. the scene where gosling works on williams in the futuristic blue hotel room was perhaps the most controversial oral sex scene filmed this year, seeing as it almost netted the film a bizarrely unjustified nc-17 rating. the rating would have been bizarrely unjustified simply because the scene was so agonizingly banal compared to the above-cited scenes of lesbian cunnlingus. gosling's drunken efforts to pleasure williams with his mouth were so awkward, unsexy and uninformed, he left me wanting to show him kunis' scene in black swan. maybe he would have taken away some helpful pointers. needless to say, in a year like 2010, one simply full of movies about oral pleasure, after watching blue valentine, and no matter how much you like ryan gosling, you gotta think that you are much better off being eaten out by a woman.

what were you thinking, melissa leo?

2011-02-11T21:49:00.003-05:00

okay, imagine that you are an oscar nominee in the only acting category that isn't completely sewn up at this point. you have won the golden globe and sag award and are definitely the one to beat for the big prize, only a couple weeks away. what do you do? i know-- take a couple incredibly tacky photos of yourself, paste the mysterious word "consider" on them and send them out to a bunch of online publications. umm, yeah. . .

i really want to defend melissa leo for her absolutely bizarre self-funded oscar campaign, but i am finding it difficult. these photos show such a complete lack of taste, tact and common sense, that i really wonder about her as an acting professional. i mean, there is no doubt that her performance in the fighter is outstanding, but all of a sudden there is a kernel of doubt as to whether or not this is the kind of person we want to award with an oscar.

obviously oscar voters shouldn't be voting for actors that they like, but rather they should be focusing on what performances are most deserving. unfortunately, this just isn't entirely realistic. the problem for me is that the best supporting actress lineup is really competitive this year, and there are several ladies that i would like to see win this category. on the one hand, i really want to see melissa leo win an oscar (even though i'd like to see her win it for frozen river) but at the same time i really want to see amy adams and helena bonham carter win one as well. my point is that when there are several deserving performances and several actresses voters would like to see win, doing something completely reckless like leo has done can be the thing that tips the scales in another actor's favor.

frankly, i don't know exactly what i want to happen here at this point. i had been in leo's camp for a while, as i do legitimately admire her performance, but also her larger body of work. however, now i am thinking that any of these five nominated ladies could possibly win the category and i would probably be satisfied regardless of who wins. i mean, hailee steinfeld is definitely the lead actress in true grit, but she is fantastic, she is 14, and wouldn't it be cool to see her take home the statue?

shut up sasha stone.

2011-02-10T20:37:00.002-05:00

i preface the following by stating that i really love sasha stone, and her site awardsdaily is my favorite oscar blog. i also enjoy her other self-titled and non-film themed blog. i find her writing generally witty and entertaining and sometimes insightful. and overall i think she has good taste in movies. that being said. . .

shut up sasha stone.

we get it. you like the social network. but the way you have droned on over the past few weeks regarding the movie's oscar chances when pitted against the king's speech is unbecoming, immature and strange. here's a recap:

january 30 "in a year of grand and visionary cinema, it will go down with a conventional winner taking probably all of the top awards"

january 30 "the king's speech set to sweep oscars"

january 31 "the oscar race is over: the king's speech will be named best film of 2010"

january 31 "harvey Weinstein is, was and will always be a powerful dude. this oscar coup de gras will go down as one of the greats, no doubt about it."

january 31 "it wasn’t until i actually saw him speak that i realized what an ace up their sleeve the king’s speech campaign had in screenwriter david seidler."

february 1 "the oscars are going social network-y. no, not in the way that you think."

i'll stop there, even though stone certainly hasn't. this is just a handful of posts she has written over the past couple weeks lamenting the fact that the social network didn't win the academy award and cynically and facetiously applauding harvey weinstein for engineering a win by a far inferior work. several things are wrong with this:

1. the oscars aren't happening for another two weeks. sure, the king's speech won the pga, dga and sag awards. but the social network has won literally dozens and dozens of critics (and industry) awards as well. the oscar race is FAR from over. i still very strongly feel that the social network is far out ahead in this race and will win in a landslide. i actually think the king's speech brief surge is in the social network's favor as a lot of oscar voters are probably slightly more apt to vote for a movie they see as in danger of not pulling off the win. i don't get why stone is SO convinced that the oscar race is over at this point. calm down and wait for the ballots to be counted.

2. there is nothing wrong with the king's speech. it is a fine movie, and everyone has been saying so for months. it's only now that the movie is collecting a few notches in the win column (at the expense of another) that people are clamoring over one another to tear it apart as an inferior and old fashioned film that nobody will remember in a few months except as a blight on the history of the academy awards. i don't care how much you love the social network, you can't deny that the king's speech is a fine movie as well.

now, i admit that there is little chance that i will convince stone of the veracity of either of the above statements. still, there is a third fact of which she and everyone in her cohort absolutely must be reminded.

3. it's the oscars and the best film of the year (almost) never wins! i suppose the math goes something like: 5% best picture winners great; 90% best picture winners fine; 5% best picture winners terrible. everytime i get irritated by best picture winners i just can't get behind (i.e. the hurt locker) losing out to what i see as outstanding, groundbreaking, artistically and/or technically visionary work (i.e. avatar) i just remind myself that forrest fucking gump won best picture and pulp fiction didn't. simple as that.

let's all take a pill and realize that it's basically just a big fun game, that everyone has their own taste, and that, in the end, not winning the oscar doesn't make a film any less important, entertaining or influential.

sag award reaction

2011-01-31T20:25:00.002-05:00

well, one thing that i am willing to admit after last night's sag awards is that we now officially have four frontrunners in the acting races. this has been becoming more and more evident recently, but after last night i think we can finally hand over oscars to christian bale, colin firth and natalie portman. melissa leo is certainly in the lead for the best supporting actress award as well, but something tells me this one is a little less sewn up. (i can envision an alan arkin or tilda swinton type scenario here in which hailee steinfeld walks away with the best supporting actress award if the academy feels that they just have to give true grit something). that being said, this year has been a little bit exceptional in that i really support all of these four eventual award winners. natalie portman gives my favorite lead actress performance in black swan and, even though colin firth probably isn't my favorite, one certainly could never say he is undeserving. i can't stand christian bale in general, but he is almost unrecognizable as dickey eklund in the fighter. the best supporting actress category is causing me some consternation, as nothing would make me happier than seeing melissa leo walk away an oscar winner (how much do i LOVE frozen river?) but i could say the same thing about amy adams (how much do i LOVE. . . well, everything amy adams has ever been in). still, i am strangely drawn to hailee steinfeld and am almost maybe possibly hoping that she upsets. (ARGH! i can't decide).

now, one thing that i am NOT willing to admit after last night's sag awards is that the king's speech is now the front runner in the oscar race. mark my words, there is an elaborate blogger-led oscar campaign strategy underway to make the social network SOMEHOW seem like an underdog in desperate need of votes. when all is said and done, the social network IS the eventual best picture winner, and it will win in an absolute LANDSLIDE. this is unfortunate, clearly, and the king's speech is a far superior film in every possible way. but it is going to happen. and i am already getting irritated by the coming post-oscars morning headlines declaring the social network's "upset" win. blech.

tom hooper wins dga

2011-01-30T21:07:00.003-05:00

it wasn't quite as much of a surprise as it could have been that tom hooper took home the dga award this weekend, considering the king's speech had just won the pga award a week previous. a lot of bloggers were predicting this, and it was seeming an increasing possibility to me as well. i have to say that i think the king's speech is without a doubt one of the most brilliantly directed movies of the year. every movement in this film is so carefully planned out, and the performances are clearly led by an artful guiding hand. so i am more than pleased that hooper and this film have gotten some attention from the guilds.

still, in the long run, it doesn't matter.

over at awards daily they followed up the dga announcement with the headline "the king's speech set to sweep oscars." oscar bloggers and critics pretty much all over the internet have switched their best picture frontrunner to the king's speech. i'm not sure, but i think there may be two reasons for this (neither of which has to do with the king's speech legitimately gaining the upper hand in the race):

1. (less likely) critics have actually been momentarily blinded by the few accolades handed to the king's speech into forgetting the DOZENS of awards and top rankings that the social network has received.

2. (more likely) critics are freaking bored with the social network awards season sweep and are trying to stir up drama where there is none. by the same token, there may be a few diehard social network supporters out there that are trying to make it seem like this film really NEEDS votes from the academy members, thus eschewing the faint possibility that the film loses best picture by accident.

let's face it, nothing is stopping the social network. this despite the undeniable fact (which nobody seems to want to stop and acknowledge, even though i am sure there are many many others who would agree) that this movie really isn't that good. yes, we'd all like to see this oscar season be a little more interesting. but face it guys, it just isn't happening.

oscar nominations are out and. . .

2011-01-29T22:43:00.002-05:00

all in all, i'd have to say not bad.

thankfully my prediction that true grit would be largely shut out went unrealized. in fact the film ranks second in total nominations AND the coen brothers almost out of nowhere walked away with a best director nod. way to go! (p.s. look who DIDN'T get a best director nomination? double plus!)

on the other hand, my prediction that winter's bone would do very well came true. congrats to jennifer lawrence and john hawkes. it would have been super cool if dale dickey could have pulled off the best supporting actress nomination as well, but i am more than satisfied with the love the academy has shown this movie.

i held out some hope til the very end that shutter island wouldn't be ignored when the nominations came out, and of course i was wrong. but i don't think anyone expected it would walk away without a SINGLE nomination. i don't get that at all. i also don't get hailee steinfeld being nominated as a supporting actress rather than as a lead, but i am happy for her regardless and will still champion her to win the category.

congrats to jacki weaver as well for her well deserved best supporting actress nomination for animal kingdom. this is an amazing movie and should have received much more awards attention, but weaver is one of the best things about the film, so if it were going to be nominated anywhere, it was in this category.

in general, i have very few major complaints about the nominations, other than the unavoidable if unfortunate attention shown to the social network. i wish jeremy renner hadn't gotten that supporting actor nomination. there was so much better work that went unrewarded (sam rockwell in conviction, most notably), and his performance simply isn't very memorable. i would have rather seen pete postlethwaite nominated here, personally. at least the town missed out in the best picture category, however.

my least favorite nomination of the year has to be the best original screenplay nod for mike leigh's another year. i can't begin to tell you how much i loathe this film, ESPECIALLY leigh's bizarrely, epicly dull writing. will someone PLEASE explain to me why this movie doesn't blow chunks?

no ryan gosling for blue valentine? the category was just too stacked i guess, and they decided to nominated javier bardem instead. this was just a really competitive year in the acting categories in general. other notable performances went unrewarded as well: barbara hershey in black swan, diane wiest and aaron eckhart in rabbit hole, hilary swank and sam rockwell in conviction, mark wahlberg in the fighter, matt damon in hereafter and true grit, julianne moore in the kids are alright.

i have to say i am pretty satisfied with the best picture lineup in general. are the best films of the year on it? of course not, but there is enough entertaining material there that will make this year's best picture showcase pretty fun (as long as i can manage to go whichever day they aren't showing inception-- *yawn*)

oscar nominations tomorrow

2011-01-24T22:42:00.002-05:00

i'm torn. on the one hand, i can't remember another year that yielded as many fantastic films and unforgettable performances as this one. it's almost impossible to narrow down this year's best actress and best supporting actress categories down to five. and there are definitely films that i loved this year that won't make it in my top ten. the past few years at the movies have been a little bit underwhelming i feel, so i am thankful that this year has been such a good one.

unfortunately, none of the year's work that i most admire will win academy awards. that may not be entirely true, but the awards circuit this year has been absolutely dominated by two films that i CAN'T STAND made by two filmmakers that i REVILE. this more or less happens to me with at least one or two films every year, but this year i feel even more irritated by the love being shown to inception and the social network when there is so much better filmmaking being done elsewhere that isn't going to be rewarded at all (or perhaps only meagerly).

that being said, my intuition is telling me that there are still some surprises to look forward to when the academy award nominations are announced. of course i think that the films and performances that are going to be nominated are largely those being predicted right now, but i also think there are absolutely going to be at least one or two major surprises, especially in the best picture category.

what's/who's getting nominations?

*winter's bone for best picture* i think it's absolutely ludicrous that people are saying this film will be #11. i don't know what films are missing out in this category, but i think winter's bone is definitely IN.

*shutter island for best picture* i am going out on a limb with this one, but something tells me that if there is a major surprise to be had tomorrow morning, this is going to be it.

*hailee steinfeld for best actress* yes, she has gotten a lot of attention as a supporting actress, but this category fraud is clear to all, and i expect her to actually be nominated in the actress category a la kate winslet.

*julianne moore for best actress* i say she makes it in along with bening

*pete postlethwaite for best supporting actor* okay, this probably isn't going to happen, but it might, and it would be deserved.

what's/who's not?

*true grit, across the board* i say it gets a single major nomination for best actress and is shut out everywhere else. i also predict luke screams at the television and maybe throws something.

*127 hours for best picture* it's a blah movie and i don't see it getting a lot of number one votes.

*ryan gosling and michelle williams* their performances are maybe too good for the oscars. i say they both get snubbed and neither one really gives a damn. because, in my head, they're cool like that.

*rabbit hole, across the board, including nicole kidman* the academy, like the entire entertainment industry, has had it out for nicole kidman in recent years, and i don't know that they are ready to bring her back to the party yet.

what would make me happy?

1. please, dear gawd, absolutely under no circumstances should any positive attention be shown to mike leigh's entirely and undeniably abysmal another year. this includes the laughably overwrought performance of lesley manville.

2. jacki weaver gets nominated as best supporting actress for animal kingdom. there are so many excellent elements in this film, and i would really be ecstatic if it garnered an inexplicable original screenplay nod, but since i think best supporting actress is the only place animal kingdom is likely to get noticed, i would be satisfied with that.

3. barbara hershey gets nominated for best supporting actress instead of mila kunis. i have nothing against kunis' performance, but hershey is better.

4. the coen brothers take one of the director slots (away from IDEALLY christopher nolan but more REALISTICALLY, david o russell). this isn't happening, but i would like it.

5. no nominations for jeremy renner (best supporting actor) or the town (best picture). a mediocre performance in a mediocre film that absolutely pales in comparison to the similarly themed animal kingdom

two new trailers this week. . .

2010-09-30T21:18:00.003-04:00

the first one is for the king's speech which debuted at and won the audience award at toronto last week. this is expected to be the frontrunner for this year's academy awards and it looks incredible. I think it is gonna be virtually impossible for colin firth not to walk away with the best actor trophy, but all three leads are looking at nominations. can't wait til it opens on thanksgiving weekend.

the second is for the new coen brother's movie, true grit. haven't seen the original, because john wayne movies get on my nerves, but i love everything the coen brothers do, and this looks fantastic (sort of along the lines of no country). i love westerns, and am thankful that for the past five years or so at least one good new one seems to get released every year. hope this remake is as good as as 3:10 to yuma was.

r.i.p. gloria stuart

2010-09-28T21:27:00.003-04:00

it has always been fashionable to hand out oscars and oscar nominations to actors who everyone thinks might die soon. there is this inescapable trend of awarding careers before it's too late, and there isn't anything necessarily wrong with that. i was a little annoyed by alan arkin, for example, beating eddie murphy and jackie earle haley for for the best supporting actor award in 2007, but i admit it was kind of nice seeing paul newman getting his last career-capping nomination for road to perdition. nobody really thought christopher plummer gave the best supporting performance in 2009's the last station, but everyone was happy to finally see him get nominated.

that being said, gloria stuart was an amazing performer who without a doubt gave the best performace by a supporting actress in 1997 as the elder rose in titanic. unfortunately she lost to crackpot kim basinger in a tiny downer of a movie that nobody watches anymore, but stuart's performance will be watched and loved forever. gloria stuart may be the oldest oscar nominee, but she is also among the more deserving. she will be missed.

honorary oscar recipients announced

2010-08-25T14:11:00.002-04:00

well it's been a long time since my last post, but i had to take a minute to say WAY TO GO to the academy for awarding eli wallach with an honorary oscar this year. (not too happy about their decision to give the thalberg to francis ford coppola, but que será). love love love eli wallach. congrats!

http://www.awardsdaily.com/2010/08/academy-honors-brownlow-coppola-godard-wallach/#more-26000

oscar predictions. . .

2010-03-05T15:09:00.004-05:00

seem to be a superfluous exercise at this point, but here they are anyways.

supporting actor:
will win. . . christoph waltz. this doesn't really make much sense to me, as i think his performance was pretty over-the-top, but people seem to like it i guess.
should win. . . stanley tucci, but not for the lovely bones. he is definitely the male actor of the year with two acclaimed performances, and he should be winning his first oscar for the better of the two, his terrific performance as paul child in julie & julia.
my five. . . stanley tucci, nicholas hoult (a single man), steven lang (avatar), matt damon and alfred molina (an education)

supporting actress:
will win. . . mo'nique. it's not a perfect performance, but an affecting one definitely. at times, she can be a little over the top and definitely at times, you can tell that she's acting, but it's okay. she still gives the best acting performance of the year.
should win. . . mo'nique, although in a weaker year for the category, rosamund pike's performance in an education would be oscar-worthy as well. her performance is the complete opposite of mo'nique's, but almost as great.
my five. . . mo'nique, rosamund pike, julianne moore (a single man), marion cotillard (nine) and penelope cruz (nine).

actor:
will win. . . jeff bridges. this isn't the greatest performance of his career, but he has done consistently good work, and i am happy to see him finally get rewarded.
should win. . . jeff bridges. i consider this the weakest of the acting categories, even though bridges definitely does good work in crazy heart. i still don't see his performance as THAT much better than daniel day lewis in nine or morgan freeman in invictus.
my five. . . jeff bridges, daniel day lewis, morgan freeman, joseph gordon levitt (500 days of summer) and jeremy renner (the hurt locker)

actress:
will win. . . sandra bullock. i love sandra bullock. i love the blind side. i think she is good in the blind side. with that being said, PLEASE don't give the oscar to sandra bullock. as an actress she isn't even in the same league as any of the other women in this category. she just doesn't deserve it.
should win. . . meryl. she gave two great performances this year, and should finally win her third oscar for her role as julia child in julie & julia. i know she is constantly being recognized, and the other ladies deserve some love too, but this is the oscars and we should be rewarding the most worthy *immediately breaks down in fits of laughter*
my five. . . meryl streep, hilary swank (amelia), saorsie ronin (the lovely bones), drew barrymore (grey gardens), jessica lange (grey gardens)

director:
will win. . . kathryn bigelow, the hurt locker. so this year has given us a onslaught of good, acclaimed films by women, people of color and the gays. it seems like it's finally time to award this statue to someone other than a white man. that being said. . .
should win. . . james cameron, avatar. when cameron loses this award i think it will undoubtedly go down in history as one of the single greatest mistakes the academy has ever made. avatar is a masterpiece of directing. criticize the acting. criticize the screenplay. criticize the music. but you cannot criticize the direction. this is the best achievement in film direction in the last ten years (at least)
my five. . . (and again i'd really like to put some women and gays in here, but) james cameron, lars von trier (antichrist), clint eastwood (invictus), joel and ethan coen (a serious man) and quentin tarantino (inglourious basterds)

original screenplay:
will win. . . mark boal, the hurt locker. there are a lot of nice things about this movie, but the screenplay isn't one of them. it's an action movie, and there isn't even a whole lot of dialogue. this is a huge bandwagon mistake.
should win. . . joel and ethan coen, a serious man. i can't honestly say that i loved this movie, but it is definitely the best written film of the year. an immensely clever, superbly crafted screenplay. i would LOVE to see an upset here.
my five. . . the coen brothers, james cameron, quentin tarantino, lars von trier, scott neustadter and michael weber (500 days of summer)

adapted screenplay:
will win. . . jason reitman and sheldon turner, up in the air. ho hum. who really cares. it's an okay screenplay and an okay film, but in a year nobody will even remember it.
should win. . . of four of the five that i've seen, i don't think any of the nominated screenplays are oscar-worthy (i haven't yet seen in the loop). that being said, i am going WAY out on a limb here to argue that the year's true greatest adapted screenplay, is that written by michael sucsy and patricia rozema for grey gardens. i've chosen to just ignore that it isn't eligible for academy awards. it is a superbly written work. there's nothing more to say.
my five. . . michael sucsy and patricia rozema, anthony peckham (invictus), jason reitman and sheldon turner (up in the air), christopher hampton (cheri) and michael tolkin and anthony minghella (nine).

picture:
will win. . . the hurt locker, although i would love to see an upset. not a bad movie, but waaaay overrated.
should win. . . avatar is unequivocally the greatest movie of the year.
my five (i am sick of the ten. there aren't ten best picture-worthy movies this year. get over it). . . avatar, capitalism: a love story, grey gardens, invictus and (500) days of summer.

2009 top 10

2010-03-04T11:08:00.002-05:00

i can't remember ever struggling to come up with a year-end top 10 films list as much as i have this year. so many disappointments. it is really unfortunate that the academy decided this was the year to expand the best picture nominees to ten. one can imagine someone ten years down the line imdb-ing this year's oscars and being totally dumbfounded that district 9 got a friggin best pic nomination. in any case, here are the ten movies this year that stood out above the rest for me.

10. inglourious basterds. . . in a stronger year, this one probably would have just missed out. i find it unpleasantly campy at times, and some of the acting (particularly brad pitt and christoph waltz) gets under my skin. however, it is provocative, well-written and entertaining. and i can see this one growing on me over time.

9. the blind side. . . for some reason, i can't say that i was ecstatic seeing this film nominated for best picture (i guess because it made it in over nine and invictus) but i definitely enjoyed watching this movie more than almost any other this year. the blind side really elevated what could have been sappy, melodramatic source material. as it is, this is an intelligent film about issues of race, class and family. and sandra bullock is terrific.

8. food inc. . . this isn't the first time a documentarian has taken on the food that u.s.-americans eat, but food inc. does something entirely new with that material. i think of myself as pretty well informed about this subject matter, but i learned so much from watching this film, particularly regarding the corporate nature of farming and producing food. the scenes surrounding monsanto's control of soybean production are particularly staggering and infuriating.

7. away we go. . . sam mendes follows up the darkly brilliant revolutionary road with this much less serious dramedy tracing the travels of young couple searching for a place to make a home for their upcoming child. besides being one of the funniest films of the year, mendes does a terrific job here, as usual, of subtly developing his characters, especially the female ones. kate winslet is so lucky to be married to this man, who seems to understand women oh so well.

6. nine. . . the whipping boy of the awards season is so much better than it is given credit for being. first of all, it is hard to deny that nine has the best ensemble cast of the year. one can feasibly imagine 6 acting nominations coming out of this film. also, the music is fantastic, especially fergie's "be italian." she is really a revelation. but it is the creative way in which the real filmmaker takes us inside the psyche of a troubled fictional filmmaker that makes this movie truly stand out.

5. (500) days of summer. . . it's possible that any movie starring joseph gordon levitt would have been on this list (i love him) but (500) days of summer is one of the year's best movies based on merit alone. it's one of those films that is so good you wonder how you will ever be able to look at these actors again without thinking of the characters they played here. (i worry that i might forever hate zooey deschanel.) oh well, autumn is better for him anyway.

4. invictus. . . clint eastwood continues his late-in-life surge as this country's greatest filmmaker. unfortunately, this film is much too quiet, subtle and understated to be fully appreciated in the current moment of widespread affection for huge, sensory-overwhelming movies. where this movie did get notice was in the acting categories, which is a shame, because i think the acting is a slightly weak element in a film that is elevated by its incredible direction.

3. grey gardens. . . who makes decisions about what movies get released on tv and which ones go to the theaters? they really dropped the ball on this one. it is unthinkable that, had this been a cinema-release, one wouldn't find at least drew barrymore or jessica lange nominated in the best actress category this year. an absolutely beautiful, charming and well-acted film that i could watch over and over again.

2. capitalism: a love story. . . as i wrote yesterday, michael moore achieved something truly spectacular this year, not only directing his best film to date, but also performing the best excavation of the current moment of national malaise in a year when SO many filmmakers have tried (and failed) to do just that.

1. avatar. . . i believe this to be the only true masterpiece of film fiction produced this year. strangely, fortunately, it is also one of the greatest film masterpieces of all time, destined to live on forever, admired as a true game changer in 21st century movie-making. it isn't as good as titanic, but in a lot of ways it seems unfair and unwise to compare the two. if huge blockbuster films exhibited just a modicum of the attention to detail james cameron pays to his work, maybe i would be drawn to the theaters to watch these movies more often. never happen.

boo-hoo, saying goodbye to the films of 2009.

2010-03-02T21:23:00.003-05:00

i certainly wouldn't be the first person at the end of this year's awards season to reflect on the films of 2009 as largely strung together on the single thread that is 21st Century U.S.-American melancholia. let's face it, over the past few years, the vast majority of well-reviewed and oscar-nominated films have been major downers. but this year, the theme of widespread malaise (if not outright millenarianism) has virtually exploded on the big screen. if you look back on the past year at the movies you will be confronted over and over again with themes of fear, mourning, hopelessness and general sadness. still, even though i admit to not being the first person to make this now-commonplace observation, i think perhaps i am in fact the first person to offer another, related reflection on the films of 2009. i argue that what many people have characterized as filmic representations of ennui is in fact an epidemic of filmmaker pouting. after decades of illusions of u.s.-american righteousness and infallibility, things have dramatically devolved for the people of this country. and one result of this, among the u.s. public at large, has been the simultaneous reactions of self-pitying, blaming and decrying "i-told-you-so." over the past year, these reactions have finally crept full-force into the film industry.

in general, this has been an extremely weak year at the movies, full of major and minor disappointments. i think the last year that was as week as this one was 2006 (when crash was virtually the only thing produced worth seeing). the problem that i have encountered over and over again this year has been that every time i go to the movies i leave feeling at least mildly disgusted by the ways that the filmmakers use their art to pout and whine and make themselves appear self-righteous. for me, there is a clear difference between movies that insightfully probe personal and national ennui (think sideways or election) and movies that exist only to make you feel bad about yourself and your situation in life.

case in point. precious, for me, is an utter failure as a film, due to the out-of-touch ineptitude of director lee daniels (even though it may have worked originally as a novel.) the problem is that daniels sucked every ounce of thoughtfulness and every drop of genuine intellectual content out of the source material, in favor of saturating each second of his movie with the most disgusting, depressing and downright nauseating pieces possible. i can't imagine that anyone has left this movie feeling anything other than hopelessness for humanity. my argument is that if daniels really felt any compassion for these characters--if he really connected in a personal way to these events, he wouldn't have been able to put this material on screen. and if he had related to the material and still made the movie, it would have been a different and better movie based on characters that ultimately bore resemblance to actual humans. i am not saying that these characters might not exist somewhere, but there has to be more depth to them than what daniels provides. in short, precious is a film made by a man pouting about the conditions of a people he doesn't really know and doesn't ever take the time to get to know.

precious is without a doubt the paradigm of this epidemic of self-pitying and generally heartless filmmaking that has saturated the cinemas over the past year, but it isn't the only example. one of the movies i was looking forward to this year, carlos cuaron's rudo y cursi, basically consisted of a director senselessly making fun of two dysfunctional, ranchero, football playing brothers (gael garcia bernal and diego luna) rather than making an attempt to connect the audience with their problems. 2012 was essentially roland emmerich's pointing his self-righteous finger at a cast of characters so loathsome that you pray they ultimately crash their savior ship into a glacier at the film's predictable climax. up in the air wasn't a bad movie necessarily, but the screenwriters ultimately missed a great opportunity to seriously reflect on a national crisis in favor of focusing on one whiny out-of-touch, overprivileged white guy's non-problems. and the unbelievably shallow it's complicated almost literally made me gag on its unending deconstruction of the midlife crisis of a woman so uninteresting that i come to the conclusion it can only be a self-pitying memoir of the filmmaker, nancy meyers. the hurt locker, a serious man, an education, nine, crazy heart, a single man, district 9, antichrist-- each of the movies, in one way or another, led me to the same ultimate reaction: why should i care?

this doesn't mean that there wasn't at least one film this year that did a respectable job of actually engaging the theme of malaise, rather than just wallowing in it. in perhaps 2009's biggest surprise (to me anyways) michael moore's capitalism: a love story poignantly, at times beautifully, probed the national sadness pervading the current moment. at first, the title of this film seems to refer to the u.s. love affair with free market economics, when in fact i see this movie as a love story between moore (and perhaps a large part of the nation) and the nation of the past that cherished its workers, its citizens and a spirit of mutual support. moore uses recent changes in auto manufacturing over the past few decades as a metaphor for larger changes that have occurred in this country as capitalism has taken on new forms. the result is a brilliant and uncharacteristically (for this particular filmmaker) romantic study of the working class u.s.-american citizenry. this is one of the few films i have seen this year that actually brought me to tears--such a welcome respite from leaving the theater furious that the director just didn't and doesn't get it.

so, with that i say goodbye to 2009-on-screen, a little disappointed that we still don't have a solid film canon reflecting the trials and tribulations of the past decade. and i pray that in ten or twenty years we don't look back at films like precious or up in the air to get a glimpse into the psyche of a nation. trust me. it isn't in there.

Best of the decade, part 2

2010-01-29T13:36:00.002-05:00

best filmmakers:

5. michael moore (fahrenheit 9/11, sicko, capitalism: a love story). this decade, for the first time in history, people went to the movies. . . to see documentaries.

4. pedro almodovar (talk to her, bad education, volver). for someone who comes out with a new movie practically every other year, you'd expect there to be a bad one in there somewhere, but he hasn't really struck out yet.

3. joel and ethan coen (no country for old men, burn after reading, a serious man). like a lot of great filmmakers, they won their directing oscar for the wrong movie, but this has still been a great decade for them.

2. lars von trier (dancer in the dark, dogville, manderlay, antichrist). i have to admit i didn't quite get his latest offering, but does anyone ever totally GET a lars von trier film?

1. clint eastwood (mystic river, million dollar baby, letters from iwo jima, changeling, gran torino, invictus). i don't think that anyone could ever deny that as far as filmmakers go, this decade has belonged to eastwood. here's hoping he doesn't slow down any time soon.

best actors:

5. nicole kidman (moulin rouge, the others, dogville, cold mountain, margot at the wedding, australia, nine). sure she has had some bad films, but few have had as many good ones, and nobody takes as many chances as kidman.

4. leonardo dicaprio (gangs of new york, catch me if you can, the departed, blood diamond, revolutionary road). his turn in rev road cemented him in my mind as the greatest young actor working in hollywood today.

3. kate winslet (iris, eternal sunshine of the spotless mind, finding neverland, little children, revolutionary road, the reader). won her oscar for the wrong film, but at least she won one.

2. cate blanchett (the shipping news, babel, notes on a scandal, i'm not there, elizabeth: the golden age, the curious case of benjamin button). the last year has seemed pretty much empty without her. she is oscar worthy in every single one of her roles.

1. judi dench (chocolat, iris, the shipping news, mrs. henderson presents, notes on a scandal, nine). this has definitely been a decade nominated by british and australian actresses, the three cited above as well as helen mirren, keira knightly and others. judi dench is the best of the bunch.

best performances:

5. bill murray and scarlett johannson, lost in translation (2003). the most effecting on-screen pairing of the decade.

4. bjork, dancer in the dark (2000). in my opinion, the most egregious academy awards snub in recent memory. bjork literally takes your breath away in this very difficult role.

3. ellen burstyn, requiem for a dream (2000). helms some of the most haunting on screen moments of the decade, walking the streets of new york in "the red dress."

2. marion cotillard, la vie en rose (2007). with the exception of crash's victory over bareback, my favorite oscar win of the decade has to be cotillard's very deserving victory for her turn as edith piaf. it seems that biopics are the thing to do the past few years if you want an oscar, and frankly i hate them. cotillard's turn is a rare exception.

1. daniel day lewis, there will be blood (2007). if he acted in a couple more films, i would have to list him as the best actor of the decade. every one of his three performances over the past ten years has been exceptional. but his turn in this film is one of the great male performances of all time, and one that will definitely be admired for a long time to come.

Best of the decade, part 1

2010-01-28T18:29:00.004-05:00

after reading through a thousand blogger's oscar predictions that are all virtually identical barring the occasional disagreement over whether to include julianne moore or diana kruger in the supporting actress category, i have really enjoyed reading a lot of critics best-of-the-decade lists. the reason is that they are all almost entirely disparate. of course there are a few films that crop up over and over again, but i think it is cool seeing films like steven spielberg's war of the worlds and synechdoche new york listed among the best. it just shows how despite this magical critical consensus that seems to form at the end of each year, people really do like all different kinds of films for all different reasons. as someone who counts west side story and twister as two of my top ten favorite movies of all time, i believe this is a fact that needs to be better understood if film awards are ever to get out of their current funk. that being said, here is my entirely singular list of the best films and performances of the decade:

best films:

**it kills me to limit the list to ten. honorable mentions go to cold mountain (2003)--how could this amazing movie possibly not be one of the decade's ten best?--erin brockovich (2000), frida (2002), best in show (2000) and bad education (2004)**

10. there will be blood (2007). this film perhaps more than any other expresses the spiritual, social, cultural emptiness of the 2000s. perhaps the only film made this decade that will undoubtedly survive (and continue to be relevant) into perpetuity.

9. slumdog millionaire (2008). the movie i wanted to hate from the beginning, but turned out to be one of my all time favorites. great movies, even about difficult subjects, can still be eminently watchable (hear that, lee daniels?)

8. moulin rouge (2001). this decade has certainly seen a revival of the musical genre, and this film is both partly responsible for that resurgence and the best movie musical to emerge from it.

7. lost in translation (2003). other than perhaps horror movies, the film genre that probably dominated the decade was the romantic comedy. lost in translation is definitely the best thing to come out of this genre in the last ten years, although to describe it as a rom-com would undoubtedly be a misrepresentation of a film that really defies categorization. also the best movie made by a woman this decade.

6. sideways (2004). the scene where virginia madsen describes to paul giamatti why she likes wine gets my vote as the best film scene of the decade.

5. avatar (2009). james cameron defies popular perceptions of what a movie can be. the greatest directorial accomplishment of the decade comes to theaters in its final days.

4. dancer in the dark (2000). the film that brought me to lars von trier. it's amazing to me how the filmmaker with the greatest understanding of the soul of this country has never even stepped foot here.

3. dogville (2003). von trier takes chances on screen that nobody else is willing to take, and he is brilliant enough to know that they will work. who could have possibly imagined that a two and a half hour film that takes place entirely on an empty soundstage would be so completely engaging?

2. requiem for a dream (2000). the film that brought me to darren aronofsky and brought me back to jennifer connelly. probably the best film ever made in the bloated drug-addiction genre.

1. amores perros (2000). i have been happy to see this often forgotten movie crop up on a few critics' decade top ten lists. one of the best films ever made. period.

john hughes is gone

2009-08-06T17:40:00.002-04:00

gawd today sucks. i just got home from an completely terrible day at work. and i click on the computer and am immediately faced with some incredibly sad news. one of my all time favorite film makers has died. john hughes is responsible for quite a few of my favorite films: breakfast club, sixteen candles, pretty in pink, vacation (et al.), the great outdoors and planes trains and automobiles. although he has been retired for at least a decade now, i always sort of thought he would do some sort of comeback film eventually which would launch him into a renewed critical spotlight. i guess that will never happen. life bites.

and the title for best poster of the year goes to

2009-07-22T13:05:00.003-04:00

love love love the poster for the upcoming disney movie prince of persia. i never really gave this movie a second thought, but my curiosity is definitely piqued. i honestly don't even know what the movie is about, but if jake gyllenhaal looks like this in it, i'll be there.

two trailers, two reactions

2009-06-30T21:39:00.002-04:00

a lot of trailers for fall movies seem to be trickling out these days, and here are two big ones. first, amelia always seemed like a contrived concept for a movie from the beginning to me. i mean, i personally think biopics are played out and pretty much always end up being way too formulaic (see: milk). plus, hilary swank as amelia earhart? way too predictable. that being said, after seeing the trailer this week, i am actually getting excited. i love the way the dialogue sounds in this trailer. it sort of has an authentic vintage feel to it, which leads me to hope that maybe this is actually going to be a well written script. and as predicatble as swank's casting may be, she does look fantastic in it. of course, she's gonna have to be truly awesome to get any awards attention (critics are gonna be gunning for her) but i don't think it's out of the question.

on the other hand, i just caught the trailer for soderbergh's the informant over at awards daily. this is definitely a movie i have been looking forward to all year, since i generally like soderbergh's movies, and i love matt damon. plus the story seemed to be reminiscent of the insider. but this trailer looks just awful. first of all, who knew this was gonna be a comedy? i just assumed it was going to be a sort of thriller, but the trailer makes it look like a poor version of charlie wilson's war. i really hope the movie turns out to be a lot better than it is looking right now, but at this point, the trailer makes the film look completely unfunny. the acting seems questionable. and what's up with the stupid exclamation point they tacked on to the title? i hate exclamation points.

now where are the theatrical trailers for invictus, avatar, nine, and green zone?

BRILLIANT review of antichrist

2009-06-27T16:59:00.003-04:00

i just read this fucking amazing movie review of antichrist on in contention, written by guy lodge. i don't think i've ever read one of his reviews before, but i will definitely look them out in the future. i wish i could write like this. this is absolutely the best reflection not only on antichrist, but on any of von trier's work that i've ever read. . . and by a u.s.-american no less. i can't say that i have ever seen any critic in this country "get" von trier before. i love how lodge begins this review by reflecting on the possibility that maybe von trier actually is the greatest living filmmaker. of course, making such a statement definitively would be silly, but i think it is really a shame that u.s. critics haven't ever truly warmed up to his brilliance. in my opinion, von trier is the greatest film maker working today, and i always feel frustrated when his movies are released in the u.s. to mediocre-at-best reviews and audiences of dozens. i have been looking forward to antichrist for almost a year now, and after reading lodge's review i absolutely can't wait. you just have to read this.

this is the gayest thing you will see today.

2009-06-10T16:26:00.002-04:00

mickey rourke in the iron man sequel. um. okay. i guess if you're into leather daddy porn. . .

congrats charlotte gainsbourg

2009-05-24T15:24:00.003-04:00

after all the drama surrounding lars von trier's antichrist this week at cannes, charlotte gainsbourg was announced as the winner of the best actress prize today. so far i've been disappointed by two big movies i was looking forward to this year, angels & demons and earth, but i am getting more and more excited about antichrist every day. any movie that is able to piss people off this much has to be worth seeing. maybe this will be the movie that will finally get von trier some (limited) mass appeal. right now it seems only die hard fans follow his work, but it is only a matter of time til he makes a movie that is seen in the u.s. by more than 40 ot 50 people. if you haven't heard about the movie and why people detested it so vehemently when it first screened this week, check out this post at awards daily. as one would expect from von trier, it sounds like antichrist is going to be really difficult to watch, but i am sure it will be brilliant. and now that gainsbourg has won this prize, i think it gives the film a little needed caché. i mean, despite the vitriol being spewed at it, if the acting is this good, how bad could it be? check out complete list of cannes award winners here.

this could be the worst trailer i have ever seen.

2009-05-18T21:17:00.004-04:00

remember when michael bay made that film version of wuthering heights with the cyborg heathcliff and the bloodthirsty ghost of linden feasting on catherine's blood? and remember joe eszterhas' all lesbian great expectations set in the brothels of victorian london? oh wait, those don't exist. but thankfully we do have guy ritchie's new sherlock holmes. to say arthur conan doyle is rolling in his grave would be an unnecessary cliche, but i do believe that this could go down in history as the single most egregious filmic interpretation of beloved literature ever, as well as one of the most inaccurate portrayals of a particular period of history that have ever been depicted in a movie. in short, guy ritchie is an utterly untalented hack that in no way deserves to have a role in the film industry outside of maybe gay porn boom mic operator. watch the trailer only if you are in the mood to feel nauseous.

p.s. what's up with that explosion at the end? is that an outtake from the new terminator movie, or is this one of those good old fashioned victorian missile attacks i've heard so much about?

it's angels & demons day!

2009-05-15T15:34:00.002-04:00

[replace rex manning w/ angels & demons]

the day we've been anticipating for years is finally here. angels & fuckin demons y'all! my post-show thoughts are forthcoming.

wtf?!?

2009-05-15T10:03:00.002-04:00

oh. my. gawd. if this is for real, it is absolutely the best em-effing thing you will hear all day. from imdb:

--Hopkings to feast as Hannibal again--

"Anthony Hopkins is teaming up with director Sir Ridley Scott to bring his most infamous villain Hannibal Lecter back to the big screen.

The actor will reprise his cannibalistic serial killer for the fourth time in a second sequel to the 1991 hit film The Silence of the Lambs, for which he won a Best Actor Oscar.

Hopkins also appeared in 2001's Hannibal before starring in the 2002 prequel Red Dragon.

And actress Cate Blanchett has been tipped to take over the role of Clarice Starling after Jodie Foster pulled out to direct Claire Danes in the forthcoming Flora Plum.

A spokesperson for film-makers Universal says, "Hopkins and Scott are both very committed. We like what we've got, and the revised script is really, really good."

not only is anthony hopkins reprising his role as hannibal lector, BUT cate blanchett is playing clarice starling?!? if this is true i will fucking melt into the carpet. please be for real!

on dvd: the reader

2009-04-17T14:31:00.002-04:00

the reader is one of those movies that has really grown on me. the first time i saw it, i thought it was a fine movie, but not necessarily extraordinary. but then when i watched it again, knowing the twist from the beginning, i definitely felt like i could appreciate it more, especially the really nuanced performances of kate winslet and ralph fiennes. it definitely wouldn't have been the same film without the deeply, disturbingly sympathetic performance that kate winslet gives here. still, it is a little depressing that kate won her oscar for this role. in fact, i don't even think it was among her four career bests. those would be:

#4. Sylvia Davies in Finding Neverland
#3. Sarah Pierce in Little Children
#2. April Wheeler in Revolutionary Road
#1. Rose Dewitt Bukater in Titanic

I guess I would put her performance in the reader in the fifth spot. in any case, i can't help but be amused by the old clip of kate from ricky gervais' extras that i posted above. i hope that her oscar win isn't forever accompanied by an asterisk reading "this oscar obligatorily awarded for perfomance in holocaust film"

trailer: rudo y cursi

2009-04-16T12:11:00.002-04:00

rudo y cursi is supposed to be out in limited release on may 8. hopefully it will be in dc then or at least soon after, but i've been waiting for this one for at least a year now, so i am not holding my breath. it has been like forever since gael had his last starring role in a movie (i think the last one was science of sleep). i've enjoyed some of his supporting stuff, like babel and blindness, but i am definitely looking forward to this one, which seems more mexican and thus more in the vein of his best work. check out the trailer here.

antichrist trailer!!!!!

2009-04-15T11:55:00.002-04:00

i've been looking at the imdb page pretty much every week waiting for the trailer to the new lars von trier film. and awards daily finally posted it this morning. maybe i'm still just excited that i finally got to see a little bit of the film, but this trailer looks absolutely amazing. it literally gave me chills. i can't wait to see this movie (if it's ever released in the u.s., which is always in question when it comes to lars von trier's work). check it out here.

10 movies to look forward to this year (plus 40 more)

2009-03-28T19:40:00.003-04:00

yeah, that's right. i tried to narrow it down more, but i just couldn't so here are the top 10 movies i am most looking forward to this year plus 40 more that may or may not be worth my time. of course most of these films don't even have trailers yet, so who really knows what they will look like when they are done. gawd knows there have been many films lately that looked good on paper, but ended up being absolutely ridiculous on screen (paging miracle at st. anna). in any case, moreso than in any other year i can remember. i have a pretty good guess what my fave movie is gonna be this year. . .

1. angels & demons- three years ago i was one of 14 people worldwide who loved ron howard's the da vinci code. now i have seen it a dozen times and i still can't figure out why people thought it was so terrible. in fact it was my fave movie of 2006. now the prequel is coming out may 15. the book is awesome and the movie will be too.

but there are at least a few more movies coming out this year that could potentially achieve high levels of general bodaciousness, including

2. nine- this year's dreamgirls. definitely the most hyped movie of the year, 9 months in advance of its release. it is definitely the one to beat at this point, but it also has the most to lose. a musical starring a lot of awesome people including nicole kidman, dame judi and daniel day louis.

3. inglourious basterds- this is one of the few movies on the list that i have actually seen the trailer for, and it looks awesome. granted, quentin tarantino can be sort of hit or miss, but i think he is due for something great. and plus the trailer has just a hint of pulp fiction going on, which is a good sign.

4. julie & julia- amy adams is quickly rising on my list of favorite actresses, and this is definitely one of the films i am most looking forward to this year. if you've seen the pictures of meryl streep as julia child, the resemblance is sooo eerie. i can't wait to hear how meryl effects julia's voice and mannerisms. this is going to be hilarious.

5. the informant- like amy adams, matt damon has definitely emerged as one of my four or five favorite actors this year. i've been going through pretty much everything he's done this year, and i definitely like his action-y stuff the most. this soderbergh-directed political thriller about a government investigation of big agro-business seems right up my alley.

6. biutiful- iñárritu's first film since babel a few years ago. honestly, i don't know too much about the film other than the brief imdb summary ("a man involved in illegal dealing is confronted by his childhood friend, who is now a policeman") but it's iñárritu, so odds are it will be fantastic.

7. rudo y cursi- a football movie reuniting gael and diego luna. it's already been seen at sundance and was, i believe, released in mexico last year. according to imdb it's finally coming to the u.s. in may. i hope they're right. i've been waiting for this one for a year now.

8. the boat that rocked- the trailer is already out for this one, and it looks great. i think bill nighy is an odds on favorite for an oscar nomination. this looks like a trippy film about a hippie radio station trying to outwit the authorities. the weird thing is that it is being released in the uk like next weekend, but it isn't coming to the u.s. til late august. i don't quite get the delay.

9. antichrist- finally, another lars von trier movie is supposed to be release this year. he has been working on this one for a while, and it sounds like one his more ambitious projects. it's supposed to be a horror/thriller thing (a la his europa trilogy) where a couple camping in the woods meets a satanic force or something like that. i am doubtful that i will actually get to see this in 2009 (his stuff is always released in the u.s. dead last if at all), but if it actually does come out this year i will be a happy boy.

10. earth- of the top 10, this is definitely the movie that is most likely to fail. this is a much hyped feature length version of the bbc documentary planet earth. if they include new footage, tell new stories and keep the adult candor it could be incredible on the big screen. if it is just clips of the dvds i have on my shelf pieced together and/or dumbed down i will be really disappointed. it's coming out on april 22.

but there are lots of other movies coming out this year that definitely look like they have potential. here's 40 of them (haha). . .

in addition to the informant, there are a few other movies coming out this year that fall into the political/juridical/spy thriller genre. (11) state of play stars russel crowe as an investigative reporter following a story about the murder of congressman's mistress. (12) killing pablo is the story of the assassination of colombian drug kingpin pablo escobar. and (13) the taking of pelham 1 2 3 is a remake of an old 70s movie about a new york hostage crisis.

there are also quite a few movies coming out this year about the wars in iraq and afghanistan. granted the track record for these kinds of movies has been pretty grim with the exception of in the valley of elah, but maybe this year will be the one where that turns around. (14) the hurt locker is about a bomb squad in iraq, and the female director kathryn bigelow has been getting oscar buzz which is always a plus. (15) green zone reunites matt damon with paul greengrass (bourne trilogy) about cia agents searching for weapons of mass destruction. and (16) men who stare at goats is about a secret paranormal force in the iraq war.

a bunch of action movies this year, like inglourious basterds, also have period drama elements. the most anticipated of these are (17) public enemies, a johnny depp movie about the government pursuit of john dillinger and (18) shutter island, a martin scorsese/leo dicaprio film about the hunt for a murderer in the 1950s.

there are a bunch of other period dramas coming out in 2009 too. (19) cheri has my attention because people are talking about it being michelle pfeiffer finally getting her oscar. it's a romantic drama set in 1920s paris. (20) love ranch is a helen mirren-helmed look at the funding of the nevada brothel the bunny ranch in the 1970s. and (21) the young victoria focuses on the early years of the reign of queen victoria, played by emily blunt.

julie and julia and the young victoria aren't the only biopics i'm looking forward to this year. (22) amelia is the story of the life of amelia earhart played, perhaps too predictably, by hilary swank. (23) the human factor (or, depending on who you listen to, mandela) is the story of the life of nelson mandela, played, perhaps too predictably, by morgan freeman (but directed by clint eastwood, which is a definite plus). (24) the mercenary: love and honor is the story of catherine the great played, perhaps too predictably, by angelina jolie. (25) coco avant chanel is the story of coco chanel, played, perhaps too predictably but it's good to see her anyway, by audrey tatou. and (26) toussaint is the story of revolutionary haitian slave toussaint l'ouverture. i'm not sure who's playing the lead, but i am sure it will be a predictable choice.

nine isn't the only musical i'm looking forward to in 2009. the remake of (27) fame is coming out this year, and it's bound to suck, but i'll probably see it anyway.

strangely enough there are a bunch of movies coming out this year with apocalyptic, science fiction-y themes. lars von trier's antichrist is one. but another that i am really looking forward to is (28) avatar, the long, long awaited james cameron movie about an futuristic extraterrestrial war. i really hope it's good. then there's (29) 2012, a big budget blockbuster type movie about the end of the world with no realistic scientific content whatsoever by roland emmerich, maker of the day after tomorrow and other big budget blockbuster type movies with no realistic scientific. content whatsoever. and there's (30) 9 (what's with the numerical titles?) an animated film about a post-apocalyptic planet and (31) the road, an adaptation of a novel about a post-apocalyptic planet. it's been in the works so long, and it's been built up so much, that it is pretty much bound to fail though.

in addition to the road and angels & demons there are a few other popular novels coming to the big screen soon. (32) dirt music sounds particularly good. it stars russell crowe as a crusty alcoholic australian (do you think he can pull it off?) (33) need, also based on a novel, stars nicole kidman as a new york therapist whose husband is having an affair.

there are a few spanish language movies coming out this year that sound good. rudo y cursi is one. (34) almodovar's los abrazos rotos is another. it stars penelope cruz in yet another role (maybe one too many) in a quirky almodovar dramedy. (35) pedro páramo is another gael film about a mexican ghost town.

dark comedies have been becoming more and more popular lately, and there's a few potentially good ones coming out this year. i just saw the trailer for sam mendes' new film (36) away we go, and i actually think the trailer is pretty terrible, but it's sam mendes so i still hold out hope. (37) a serious man is a coen brothers flick about a failed marriage of a quirky midwestern couple. and (38) serious moonlight is an adrienne shelley-penned movie (i loved waitress) about a woman's revenge on her husband who's having an affair. it has meg ryan. *yea*

there are a few weird fantasy/literary/experimental-sounding flicks coming out this year that could definitely go either way for me. (39) the imaginarium of dr. parnassus is by terry gilliam so you know it's gonna be weird. it's also heath ledger's last film. (40) cirque du freak stars salma hayek as a bearded lady-slash-vampire. enough said. and (41) the tempest could be a normal retelling of the shakespeare play, but it's by julie taymor so it's bound to be bizarre.

last year there were two award winning independent films about immigration issues, the visitor and frozen river, and this year a couple more are coming out. (42) crossing over, already out in limited release, has been described as crash-lite, only focusing specifically on race and immigration. (43) mammoth sounds sort of like babel. it consists of parallel stories about a wealthy new york couple and the family of their filipina maid. and it stars gael (he has three movies coming out this year, *yea!*).

strangely enough, husband and wife paul bettany and jennifer connelly are starring in two films together this year. (44) creation is a story of the life of charles darwin and his wife emma. and (45) american pastoral is the story of a couple living after wwii and fighting with their politically rebellious daughter played by evan rachel wood.

one of my fave actresses, julianne moore has a couple films coming out this year. (46) a single man is the first film directed by fashion photographer tom ford. it's about a man dealing with the death of his long time wife. (47) chloe is about a woman trying to catch her adulterous husband in the act.

then there's (48) seventeen again, the first big non-musical film for my boyfriend zac efron (49) rage, an experimental british film about murder in the fashion industry, has gotten terrible reviews, but it stars judi dench smoking a cigarette which intrigues me for some reason. and (50) happy tears could finally get parker posey some awards attention as one of two sisters (demi moore's the other) dealing with the imminent passing of their father.

*deep breath* did i forget anything?

final reflections

2009-02-22T18:59:00.002-05:00

best of the year- slumdog of course, but also kate winslet in revolutionary road. i think it was watching her in the reader again yesterday that really made me reflect on just how good she was in the other film. like marion cotillard last year or adriana barraza the year before, i will definitely remember kate's as the best performance this year.

worst of the year- i know that the razzies were handed out yesterday and they gave the worst pic award to mike myers the love guru, but i can't even imagine that it could even compare to spike lee's hysterically bad miracle at st. anna. the funny thing is that i was really looking forward to this movie. i actually do recommend it though, because i think it is worth watching just because it is just that bad that you have to see it for yourself. at one point there is an entire scene in which an italian peasant girl hangs up laundry topless. i'm not kidding. and could someone please explain to me how this village doesn't even have any food because of the nazi blockade, but yet the lusty rochelle rochelle wannabe seems to have an endless supply of makeup and seems to have time to wash and blowdry her long wavy black hair every morning?

worst of the year, runner up- (and i have to admit that i like her music, but) paris hilton is just unconscionably bad in repo: the genetic opera. i mean, really, really bad.

most prolific- kate winslet gave two great performance, but clint eastwood managed to do it all. he reminds me of one of those old vaudeville guys with a harmonica and a drum and a banjo or whatever.

most inexplicable nomination- i'm tempted to say robert downey jr.'s best supporting actor nod for tropic thunder, but people liked it so i guess to each his own. but i really don't understand philip seymour hoffman's best supporting actor nomination, since this is very obviously a leading role. and while we're at it, there's dev patel's best supporting sag nomination and kate winslet's recognition as supporting in the reader. people really seem to have been playing around with the categories this year

what would make me happy- no montages. amy adams wins best supporting actress. slumdog wins in all eight categories in which it's nominated.

my oscar predictions

2009-02-20T20:08:00.004-05:00

i've been reading everyone's oscar predictions this week as they've been posted on the blogs, and i don't think i can remember a year in which everyone seems to agree as much as they do this year. there are really only a couple races that people are still debating. and my predictions will pretty much follow suit. here they are.

supporting actor:
will win. . . heath ledger (not that he doesn't deserve it)
should win. . . for me, this is the weakest of the four acting races. there are a lot of good performances, but nothing that stands out as heads above the rest. that being said, i think i will go with the flow and endorse ledger for the win. still, i did have to think long and hard about whether or not to pick him or brad pitt in burn after reading. that comes in a close second for me.
my five. . . heath ledger, michael shannon, brad pitt (burn after reading), ralph fiennes (the reader) and david gulpilil (australia)

supporting actress:
will win. . . this is the one race this year on which i am going to venture out on a limb. remember last year when tilda swinton won for michael clayton? it seemed that the movie was nominated for so much and they needed to give it something. that's why i don't think penelope cruz will win this one. i have a feeling it will go to one of the actresses from doubt or benjamin button. i am going to predict taraji p. henson winning this, since i think that the academy will want to give button something. it isn't my favorite performance of the year, but henson is a fine actress, and i'm happy for her.
should win. . . of all the nominated actresses in the category, i would vote for amy adams. but the person who should win the category is debra winger, from rachel getting married. i went back and forth between her and rosemarie dewitt, but it's winger's much smaller but much eminently devastating performance that stood out for me.
my five. . . debra winger, amy adams, viola davis, rosemarie dewitt (rachel getting married), kathy bates (revolutionary road)

best actor:
will win. . . mickey rourke, probably. it's obviously between him and sean penn, but seeing as how penn just won a couple years ago for mystic river, i think the voters will go for rourke. how much am i not looking forward to hearing his loopy acceptance speech. hopefully he won't use the word "fag" too much.
should win. . . frankly, rourke is playing himself. and penn is fine, but this isn't even in the same league as his best performances. unfortunately, none of the top three male performances of the year are even nominated in this category. the academy really dropped the ball on this one. it is REALLY close for me, but i am going to pick clint eastwood in gran torino as my favorite actor of the year. leonardo dicaprio and philip seymour hoffman are close on his heels though.
my five. . . clint eastwood, sean penn, richard jenkins, leonardo dicaprio (revolutionary road) and philip seymour hoffman (doubt)

best actress:
will win. . . please dear God it has to be kate winslet. there are lots of grumblings out there of an upset (melissa leo maybe?) but i just don't think it's going to happen. winslet gave two of the best performances of the year (in any category) and i expect her to win here for the lesser of the two.
should win. . . winslet, but for revolutionary road. if i had to pick a single performance as the best of the year (a la marion cotillard last year) it would be this one. i wonder if the reason that she got nominated for the reader and not this other movie is just because of the order in which the ballots were counted. my feeling is that if you added up all of the votes, winslet would have placed first AND second, and maybe she would have ultimately come out on top for rev road. honestly, i haven't heard a single person saying that her performance in the reader was the better of the two.
my five. . . kate winslet (revolutionary road), kate winslet (the reader), meryl streep, angelina jolie and cate blanchett (curious case of benjamin button)

director:
will win. . . danny boyle. there really isn't any other possibility here. honestly, it is really time for him to finally get this recognition, and everyone is ready to give it to him. even if there was some cataclysm and slumdog missed out elsewhere, boyle will nevertheless win this.
should win. . . danny boyle, no contest. not only did i love this movie, but the direction is fucking fantastic in and of itself. it is interestingly cast, shot beautifully, and the narration is pieced together so creatively. i can't wait to see what he does next.
my five. . . danny boyle, clint eastwood (gran torino), jonathan demme (rachel getting married), sam mendes (revolutionary road) and baz luhrman (australia)

original screenplay:
will win. . . sooo sooo unfortunately, dustin lance black's screenplay for milk will win here. this is a travesty. milk really could have been a fine movie if it had been written better, but as is i think this is just a remarkably bad piece of writing. it is so predictable, so cliched, so un-interesting and so passionless. basically black took bits and pieces from all of these other biopics and in a weekend pieced them together into this boring boring boring film about a really interesting person. if milk hadn't been saved by fine acting it would have been a total wash. in short. i HATE this screenplay.
should win. . . of the nominated five, i would pick courtney hunt's screeplay for frozen river. not only is it a great, well written work, but i am always happy to see women nominated in the major categories, since they so rarely get there. however, the best screenplay award should really go to another women, jenny lumet, for her fascinating script for rachel getting married.
my five. . . jenny lumet, thomas mccarthy (the visitor), clint eastwood (gran torino), baz luhrman (australia) and joel & ethan coen (burn after reading)

adapted screenplay:
will win. . . simon beaufoy is probably going to win here for his screenplay for slumdog, but something tells me that it isn't a landslide. for me, of all the parts of this movie it is probably the screenplay that is most fallible, although it is still fantastic. if the movie is going to be beaten anywhere, it might be here. and i have a feeling they could reward david hare for the reader, if anything is bound to sneak in. they might want to reward the reader somewhere, and it could definitely be here.
should win. . . i pick beaufoy's screenplay, but, like i said, it isn't a landslide for me. there are definitely some great adapted screenplays out there this year. i would probably choose as a very close runner up justin haythe's script for revolutionary road. the two films couldn't be any more different and each is fantastically written in its own way
my five. . . simon beaufoy, john patrick shanley (doubt), david hare, justin haythe and howard rodman (savage grace)

picture:
will win. . . slumdog. i realize the bloggers are just trying to make things interesting, but no- there will not be a benjamin button upset. no- there will not be a reader upset. no- mickey rourke will not get drunk and burn the place down before they give out the final award (hopefully). everyone loves this movie. everyone is voting for it. it's slumdog all the way.
should win. . . SLUMDOG *yea*
my five. . . slumdog millionaire, revolutionary road, burn after reading, gran torino and rachel getting married

other categories:
cinematography. . . slumdog could very will win in every category in which it's nominated. it will probably win here as well. my pic would be the amazing camera work in australia, with roger deakins work for revolutionary road coming in a close second.
editing. . . this is one of the places that i think slumdog is really breaking new ground. it is so fascinating how the editors pieced this work together, going back and forward through time and really making the scenes fit together like this beautiful jigsaw puzzle. slumdog will and should win here.
song. . . it would really be a shame if the slumdog songs cancelled eachother out and the lame peter gabriel song from wall-e won instead. that seems to happen like every year. i am predicting slumdog's jai ho will win, and it deserves it, but the best song of the year unfortunately didn't get a nomination. that would be bruce springsteen's "the wrestler." i would put jaime cullum's "gran torino" in the number two spot.
score. . . a.r. rahman's score from slumdog is really fun and creative and there is no doubt it's winning this one (are we sensing a pattern here?) for me though it's the score to revolutionary road that really blew the others out of the pack and got totally SCREWED out of a nomination (like pretty much everything from rev road). like the score to atonement last year, i love the way the music in this movie really works to tell the story. this is unbelievable work. the film wouldn't be the same without it.
makeup. . . i'm not sure, but i sort of think that the makeup for benjamin button and the reader was a little bit overdone. it wasn't my fave. i guess if i had to pick a favorite, i might choose the dark knight for this one, but button will win in the end i think.
art direction. . . people are generally predicting that benjamin button will win the art direction award this year, but for me there is absolutely nothing transcendent about this movie, and this category is no different. i am going to go out on a limb and pick revolutionary road to win this one. no doubt it deserves it.
costumes. . . i haven't seen the duchess, but that seems to be the film that is favored to win for best costume, with benjamin button nipping at its heels. i would pick australia as my favorite. like atonement's green dress last year, nicole kidman's red dress in the ball scene in this movie is definitely the single best outfit of the year (so gorgeous). freida pinto's yellow number with the scarf in slumdog was pretty hot too though.

2008 top 10

2009-02-19T20:26:00.002-05:00

it was pretty easy to choose like my five or six favorite movies this year, but getting down to like number nine and ten, i really did struggle with what movies to include. There were definitely a few films that i wish i could have fit in, but they really just barely missed out for me. (sorry, frozen river). so here goes it.

10. changeling. . . i am very glad that clint eastwood has tended to make his films in twos lately, even though it means i will have to go a few years to get more of him. this is probably the lesser of his two films this year, but still an excellent and highly underrated work. it didn't hurt this movie that it reminds me a lot of one of my all time favorite flicks, silence of the lambs, that is if it were made as a period piece. i really think that angelina jolie gives the best performance of her career in this, and john malkovich isn't bad himself. and the compelling story just makes this exciting and engaging to watch.

9. the visitor. . . of the two immigration-ey movies that came out this year, i think that the visitor is the better one, although only by a nose. i read one time in this really terrible review that someone found this film to be racist, but i couldn't disagree more. i think what is remarkable about this work is the masterful and subtle ways it manages to treat the subject of race. this is no small feat considering that this could very easily have been a super simplistic piece about some old white dude learning everything he needs to know from some poor black folk. i really think that you could only accuse this movie of falling into this trap if you only read the description. once you see the actual work, you see that it is a lot more intelligent than that. in short, this is probably the best social-criticism-type film i saw this year (yes, including the reader).

8. doubt. . . one of the best ensemble casts of the year. i think that a lot of the criticism of this movie has come from people who really liked the play, and since i have none of these expectations going into it, i couldn't relate to the problems that other reviewers had with it (e.g. some had problems with streep's portrayal of sister aloysius). for me, i keep going back and forth on what the best thing about this movie is. i am sort of equally awed by philip seymour hoffman's bravado performance and amy adams much more subtle one. both are fantastic. the other thing i thought that john patrick shanley did really well in directing this film was to create a really excellent sense of space. that is, in watching this movie i felt like i had a really strong understanding of the place and time in which these events were taking place. i love that.

7. australia. . . okay, so australia probably isn't baz luhrman's best work (that would obviously be moulin rouge) but there is plenty of excellent stuff going on here. one of the worst oversights of the entire oscar nomination ballot this year i think is this film being left off of the list for best cinematography. sometimes i think that the people voting on cinematography don't really know what it is. the fire scene in this movie where the rovers are trying to corral the cattle is just effing fantastic. for me, this was the single best shot scene of the year. i think i also liked this movie, because i really had a good time watching it. i mean, this year i really did gravitate to movies that weren't total downers. and just because a movie is fun to watch doesn't mean that it isn't well made.

6. rachel getting married. . . this is definitely one of those films that sticks with you long after you've seen it (and an obvious exception to my "i like movies that make me feel good" rule). not much happens in rachel getting married, but it's hard to take your eyes off the screen. the masterful thing about this movie is really the way in which the story is told. events sort of unfurl in a nonlinear way. everything builds on what happens before it, and you can never get a really good grip on what's going on if you don't consider it in context. and in the end, there is so much that is left unsaid, that it really gives you a lot to think about (i mean, what the hell WAS the deal with kym's mother anyway? this definitely jonathan demme's best work since silence of the lambs.

5. prince caspian. . . for some reason, i really took to this movie and obviously take it a lot more seriously than anyone else. it is really a rare treat when a sequel outperforms its predecessor, especially when the book that the predecessor is based on is a far-superior work. it was really watching this film on dvd that convinced me that it deserves a place among the best films of the year. like a lot of movies lately, prince caspian has a really dark tone to it and is overall more violent, more adult, more contemplative than the lion, the witch, and the wardrobe. the christian elements are much more pronounced as well. at the very least i am surprised that nobody seemed to consider this film's special effects for awards recognition. if you are going to compare the effects in prince caspian to those in the dark knight, for example, for me there is really no competition.

4. gran torino. . . clint eastwood is amazing. period. i mean this is an old man we're talking about. (this film proves that). and what was he up to this year? let's see he wrote one movie, directed two, starred in one, wrote scores and even fucking sang the song over the end credits in this one! but there was a lot to love about this movie, even beyond eastwood. the hmong actors did a really fantastic job i think, especially considering that they had largely never acted before. the story itself is really simple, but just so emotional, so compelling. this was a hard movie for me to watch, and it did affect me more than anything else i saw this year, but sometimes that is a good thing. i will definitely be watching this whenever i need a good cry.

3. burn after reading. . . i first saw this movie on dvd and i kind of liked it. then, like a week later i watched it again with john's mom and i was sort of surprised how much i was enjoying it considering i had just seen it a week ago. then i got back home and i was trying to think of a movie to watch and i was like, you know, i think i'd like to watch burn after reading again. in short, this was really a grower for me. but honestly i could watch it over and over again. this is the coen brothers the way i like them. burn after reading is just a fun, escapist sort of movie, but it is also well written, superbly acted, and just damn clever. brad pitt is fantastic. this is the movie he should be getting an oscar nomination for this year (not his turn as computerized forrest gump). with the possible exception of doubt, this is the best ensemble cast of the year. i hope the coens keep making comedies, because i really think it's what they do best.

2. revolutionary road. . . the travesty of the oscar season. why is revolutionary road nowhere to be found? this is a masterful work. sam mendes really must be shocked and dismayed that this movie didn't at least get a screenplay nomination. it makes absolutely no sense. this movie isn't for everyone. it is deep and introspective, full of intense characters, and dialogue where you really have to read between the lines to know what's going on. and obviously it is incredible sad, not the most fun time i had at the movies this year. i really think that all four principal actors in this movie gave like four of the best six or seven performances of the year. in a few years, i hope that people will look back and find this masterpiece and maybe it will have a sort of renaissance, finally getting the respect it deserves. maybe it's just a film ahead of its time.

1. slumdog millionaire. . . there's really not much left to say. far and away the best picture of the year. honestly, anyone that doesn't agree is just being contradictory for the sake of being contradictory. nobody really saw this film coming, and then it was just THERE, and i think a lot of people are still sort of shocked by just how good this movie is, without a doubt one of the best of the decade. i am struck by how many people (*ahem*oscarwatchpeople*ahem*) discount this film as a simple, feel good, happy movie that people have enjoyed because it doesn't make them think too much. in contrast, i think this is really one of the most intelligent works this year. the way that it treats global relationships in particular and the ways in which the U.S. and Europe are connected to the lives of these characters is done really masterfully. in fact, if you watch this movie and it doesn't make you think about globalization, world tourism, development economics, not to mention religion and class inequality, than you are really missing the point.

it's oscar week bitch

2009-02-15T22:27:00.002-05:00

yeah, that's right, even though you'd maybe never know it if i hadn't told you. it just seems that people are generally unenthused this year. sasha stone and the people at awardsdaily (nee oscarwatch) couldn't really care less about awards season this year, outside of their innane incessant childish whining about the dark knight being left off the docket (oh, and the occasional passive agressive swipe at slumdog) and at one of my favorite awards blogs, awardscircuit (nee oscar igloo) they are actually discussing american idol picks this week (!) honestly, nobody seems to care. and i sort of get it. i mean, there isn't a whole lot of excitement about an award that has all but been handed out already. slumdog has rightfully won almost every critic's award possible this year and will no doubt take home the prize on sunday. in all honesty this hasn't been a really great year for movies, and slumdog just simply stands out as lightyears ahead of anything else that has been released. sure there have been a few really good films this year, but nothing compares to boyle's utter and complete masterpiece. it is probably one of the best two or three movies of the decade. but i guess a lot of awards bloggers out there have just had a hard time mustering up a great deal of interest in an oscar year that doesn't seem to have room for too many surprises.

and about the dark knight. and i do hate myself for even discussing a subject that has already been discussed to death. i really did sort of like this movie. it had some excellent qualities no doubt. but there were plenty of good movies this year, most better than the batman flick, that just couldn't fit into the best picture roster. rev road, gran torino, doubt, frozen river, the visitor and lots of other movies could have potentially been best picture nominees, but there was only room for five. so yes, i understand your disappointment (sasha et al) that your favorite movie didn't make it but GET A GRIP. do we have to take it out on other movies, that were also deserving, at least equally, maybe moreso. i feel like i am having ang lee/annie proulx bareback upset redux (i.e. the worst show of bad sportsmanship EVER).

as far as i'm concerned, the dark knight snub (?) wasn't even the worst nominee dis this year. there are a number that stand out for me. maybe the biggest is clint eastwood being shut out for director, writer, scorer and especially actor for either of his two movies this year. another real disappointment (and this one i think people will look back on in a couple years with disbelief) was the lack of love for revolutionary road. no nominations for kate, leo or kathy bates? no best pic, director, score cinematography or screenplay nominations? (the score to this movie was particularly beautiful) but the worst mistake by the academy voters has to be leaving bruce springsteen's song from the wrestler out of the running. i mean, that was certainly the best thing about that entire film.

i was happy about a few things though. i am glad that amy adams got her best supporting actress nomination for doubt. i thought hers was the best performance of the film, and i had this idea in the back of my mind that it wasn't going to happen for her. and i am happy that kate winslet got nominated for her really strong performance in the reader. frankly, she is fantastic in this movie, although i personally prefer her turn in revolutionary road. i am sort of glad she didn't get double nominated actually, because hannah schmidt certainly wasn't a supporting character in that movie. and it was nice to see courtney hunt's screenplay from frozen river nominated, as well as melissa leo's great performance. i think the academy did a good job this year of recognizing at least a few of the more quiet, not-uber-campaigned films. so all in all, i think they did a fair job with the nominations, although they certainly could have made things a little more exciting i guess.

anyways, i guess i'm not as excited this year as i have been in the past, but i am looking forward to seeing slumdog take home the prize. my predictions and top ten will come later this week.

(p.s. six days til the best picture showcase. *yea*)

the wrestler

2009-02-14T22:51:00.002-05:00

so there is this scene in the middle of the wrestler where mickey rourke and marisa tomei are in this bar and they're talking about 80s hair band music, and rourke is like, 'man the 80s were awesome-- until cobain came and ruined it all' and tomei is like 'i know-- what's wrong with wanting to have a good time?' um, yeah mr. aronofsky, what exactly is wrong with wanting to have a good time?

no doubt darren aronofsky is one of the best filmmakers working today. i love all three of his previous offerings (requiem for a dream is one of my all time faves). and no doubt he isn't exactly known for his uplifting spielberg-esque fare. but i really think that the wrestler is his most depressing offering yet. the whole thing is an effing downer from the very first scene to the very last. and i maybe could have gotten past that and still enjoyed the movie if it didn't have so many other problems with it.

in short, and i realize i am in the minute minority on this one, i really think aronofsky dropped the ball on this one. i kept asking myself as i was watching the movie- why in the world did he make this? the whole story seems somewhat beneath him, and i really think that this is by far the least of his four films.

i am not a person who has to really like the subject matter to enjoy the movie. i loved hustle & flow even though i have absolutely no interest in rap music. and i love lots of boxing movies, even though i couldn't give a care when it comes to the actual fighting. but i have to say that the wrestling in this movie really turned me off. i just can't believe that anyone could take this stuff so seriously. rather than making a movie about how important this sport (? game? pageant?) is to those who take part in it, i think it would have made more sense for aronofsky to really problematize wrestling itself. what comes across on screen is a horrible display of violence, drug use and mysogyny, and it isn't one of those things where i can simply say to-each-his-own. the film that the wrestler most reminds me of is field of dreams. in both movies you watch these loopy guys go on and on about how important something is to them all the while watching in shock and trying to hold back laughter. in short, i just think wrestling is ridiculous, and this movie certainly did nothing to change my mind about that.

but really only about two thirds of this movie were about wrestling so, in theory, i could have enjoyed the other third, right? well no, because i was too busy during that 40 minutes seething with anger at what a horrible person mickey rourke's character is. he is just plain awful. when he has his heart attack and goes to visit his daughter, i was just cheering her on as she screamed at him. what an asshole! i mean he never did anything for her his entire life and then suddenly he has a crisis and needs something and this is when he decides to drive over to her place. and THEN what he does after she finally agrees to have dinner is even worse. basically he does terrible things throughout the movie, but it is what he did to his daughter that upset me most.

and i hate to say it, because mickey rourke wasn't terrible in this (although i intensely hate him as a person) but i really don't think there was a lot of acting going on here. come on people, the wrestler IS mickey rourke. (and how high do you think he was during the entire filming?)

still, the real problem with this movie, and i can't believe i haven't seen anyone commenting on this, has to do with the stripping scenes. there is just something strange and vaguely masculinist about the entire film, and the stripping scenes are the sprinkles on the icing on the cake. i can't BELIEVE that marisa tomei agreed to do this. i don't have a problem with female nudity, but there were parts of this i just couldn't bring myself to look at. the dancing is SO raunchy and SO unappealing, and they just make tomei look SO unsexy i just felt bad for her (the actress, not the character) the entire time. i really think it wouldn't have hurt the movie if aronofsky could have cut a little bit of the stripping out. in fact, i think he really owed it to the character of the stripper to try and treat her as more of a person and less of a spread-eagle-ass.

oscar nominations tomorrow

2009-01-21T21:38:00.002-05:00

the oscar nominations are only a few hours away, but the way people are predicting them it probably doesn't even make sense to watch, seeing as how there is little room for surprise at this point. still, something tells me that there is going to be at least one shock tomorrow morning, and i think it could be in the best picture race. slumdog, the dark knight and milk are pretty much assured nominations, but i still think the other two spots are a little more open than most people think. more than likely, the curious case of forrest gump will be nominated, but i do think that there is at least a small contingent of people that acknowledge it as the overhyped rip-off that it is. i think, and i realize i am largely alone on this one, that the film really at risk of being snubbed is frost/nixon. it seems that this movie is already starting to be forgotten, and even if it is good, i don't think there are enough academy members out there that are really seeing stars over it. yeah people like it, but there are other movies they like more. and i wouldn't be surprised if it were left off the list tomorrow in favor of wall-e which people seem to be flipping out over a lot more.

as far as the rest of the races go, i wouldn't be surprised if there were at least a few surprises in the acting awards as well. who's at risk of being left off? the best supporting actor noms seem to be down to ledger, robert downey jr., philip seymour hoffman, josh brolin and dev patel, but i think the last two men are vulnerable. it wouldn't be an absolute shock to see patel left off in favor of brad pitt from burn after reading or milk's james franco. the supporting actress awards are likely to go to the doubt ladies, penelope cruz, kate winslet and marisa tomei. but tomei could always be swapped for taraji p. henson. the actors are expected to be frank langella, rourke, penn, pitt and jenkins, and there isn't likely to be a surprise here, but i honestly think that langella could be at risk, maybe to be replaced by the overwhelmingly deserving clint eastwood. and the actresses will probably consist of winslet, streep, hathaway, sally hawkins and jolie. but jolie's spot is likely one of the most open in the acting races. it could easily go to melissa leo.

in an ideal world, here are three things i would love to happen tomorrow (varying widely in probability)

1. (likely)- amy adams for best supporting actress for doubt. out of nowhere she gives the best performance in the film i think, and i am worried she will be overlooked in favor off viola davis' more flashy screen appearance.

2. (less likely)- clint eastwood and leonardo dicaprio for best actor. these are probably two of the best performances overall given this year, and they are both in grave danger of being left off the slate.

3. (not gonna happen) curious case snubbed for best pic. revolutionary road in.

we'll see what happens. fingers crossed.

the curious case of benjamin button

2009-01-07T00:17:00.002-05:00

the good news about benjamin button is that it's entertaining. despite being more than two and a half hours long, it isn't boring. the story has many pieces to it that help keep it from dragging the way it might have had it been more expository. so it isn't entirely unenjoyable by any means.

the bad news about benjamin button, however, is plentiful. for me this film is entirely too derivative and has entirely too many problems to attract the kind of positive critical attention it has received. this film is a prime example of the power of campaigning. honestly, people were writing their positive reviews of this movie before they had even seen it. i remember in march reading about how good this movie was bound to be. and the problem is that critics have been blinded to button's major flaws.

first of all, the film is entirely too insistent on being clever. every detail of it from the title to the camera work, to the quirky acting and dialogue is very in-your-face-look-how-original-this-is. and quite honestly, it's not that original. no one could possibly see this film without comparing it to forrest gump. it's hard for me to say whether this is better or worse than gump, because the two films are so similar. in many ways they almost mirror one another (e.g. in the films' nearly identical methods of storytelling). and there are plenty of other movies this one seems derivative of as well. in short, this film isn't nearly as clever as it thinks it is, and in order to be really enjoyable, it needed to have stepped down off its high horse.

second, as was so irritating last year with juno, where the dialogue was so insistently hip, here the dialogue is equally insistently epigrammatic. pretty much every conversation in this film, every line of dialogue comes across as infinitely wise and like something one should stitch onto a pillow or tattoo across a chest. you never believe for a second that any of these conversations could actually be taking place. it's more likely that these conversations were merely cribbed from poor richard's almanac.

and just as the script of this movie is entirely too epigramatic, the story itself is similarly over-sentimental. every single action, every word, every glance, every expression in this film represents all these deep emotions that are always bubbling to the surface and threatening to just explode. and eventually it gets tiring watching that.

and what's up with all the symbolism? i mean a good book or a good film definitely has to employ symbolism if it is going to be adequately communicative, but here its hard to tell what isn't a symbol. i mean, even in just the last few frames, there is this extended sequence of all the symbols the film employs, from the hummingbird, to the dancer, to the diary, etc. the result for me is that these symbols become so watered down that they come to mean nothing. and i really think that this movie could have been a lot better if it had been made by a better director who could have censored this impulse for excess-- excessive sentimentality, excessive pedantry, excessive symbolism. this film definitely screams LESS IS MORE.

one other thing that really bothered me right from the beginning in this movie was how effected and unoriginal the narration was set up. it really couldn't have been any more hackneyed if it has ended in one of those it-was-only-a-dream moments. in order to enjoy the core of this film, one needs to suspend disbelief that somehow benjamin spent his entire life diligently writing in a diary (that we never see him carrying or writing in) and that it was just miraculously discovered moments before daisy's death, just in time for her to serendipitously impart the story of his life onto her daughter. honestly, it is just as effected as it sounds. and i could never suspend disbelief long enough to get into this peri-narrative.

in regards to the acting, the one truly bright spot in this movie is cate blanchett who completely and totally embodies her role as an aging new orleans matriarch, daisy. watching her in this role, it is one of those performances where you can't imagine anyone else playing this role. blanchett IS daisy. the same thing can not be said for brad pitt in the titular role. sure he is fine and everything, but one could imagine at least a dozen other actors playing this role just as good if not better than him. he is just much less interesting to watch than blanchett, and the parts of this movie that were most interesting to me were the ones that focused on her, especially as an older woman. unfortunately, as magical as cate blanchett is, even she can't save this curious case from the excesses of its director.

changeling and gran torino

2009-01-03T21:51:00.002-05:00

subtitled: clint eastwood is neat.

i think part of the reason it was so hard watching clint eastwood slowly pass away in gran torino was the fact that you look at this guy and you're like someday he really will die. and then where will we be? someday when eastwood stops making films, it will be a tremendous loss. first of all, the guy does everything. this year he directed AND wrote the score to changeling and directed, starred in and even sang the title song for gran torino. but second of all, and more importantly, everything he does is done well. he could conceivably be considered for oscar nominations for any of these five cinematic efforts.

it's perhaps interesting that eastwood would make these particular films in the same year, as i see both of them as sort of clever engagements with two popular and often cliched film genres. Changeling, for example, begins as a sort of quotidian kidnapped child saga, that immediately threatens to come across as a derivative silence of the lambs rip off. But Eastwood manages to rework the boundaries of this often told story, and instead what he creates is not only a compelling thriller but also an intelligent critique of state power. similarly, gran torino (and this should be obvious to anyone whose even seen the trailer) immediately presents itself as a return to eastwood as dirty harry bad-ass shoot-em-up. but anyone anticipating this will probably not be disappointed by the ways in which eastwood cleverly rewrites these older stories for the contemporary moment.

unlike two years ago when his letters from iwo jima was clearly a much better film than flags of our fathers, i find myself going back and forth as to whether i liked gran torino or changeling more. on the one hand, angelina jolie gives one of the best female performances of the year in changeling. it is particularly satisfying to watch her grow as a woman, to learn to stop acceding to her subordinate role and begin fighting for herself. on the other hand, though, clint eastwood certainly gives one of the finest male performances of the year as the star of gran torino. he too embodies a character that experiences tremendous growth in the course of the film, and it is in some ways satisfying to watch this as well (although less so, for obvious reasons to those who have seen the movie). in short, the acting is largely pretty impressive in both films (even among the hmong cast of gran torino, almost all of whom had never acted in a film before), so it is difficult to privilege one cast over the other.

however, i think it's equally difficult to determine which film is better in regards to either directing or writing. eastwood takes notable risks with his direction of both films, yielding interesting rewards in both cases. i especially love the way that he really captures the scene just in the ways he sets his films. after watching changeling, you feel like you have a really good sense of what it must have been like to live in 1920s-era los angeles. and i love the way almost the entirety of gran torino takes place in just a few spaces on this sparse and dilapidated street. he really captures the poverty, insecurity and fear that must be felt by a person living in this sort of situation. in regards to these films' writing, i also think both films were surprising and entertaining, while equally eloquent and intelligent, offering sage insights on race and religion (gran torino) and gender and power (changeling). in short, i think i'm going to have to call it a draw for now and reserve more definitive judgment for a later day.

still, i think it's relevant to note that although both films have received pretty solid if not ecstatic critical support, gran torino seems to have been met much more kindly than changeling was. and, considering both of these are pretty fine films in my estimation, this response seems to be more than a coincidence. it is obious to me that this is just one more example of the ways in which movies about and starring women are always approached much more harshly than those about and starring men. it seems that every year women have fewer and fewer starring opportunities in hollywood, and after this year, i don't think this is a trend that will be ending any time soon. in any case, i don't expect that angelina jolie will be making any more changelings or a mighty hearts any time soon. but i do anticipate lara croft tomb raider 3.

the dark knight

2008-12-30T21:50:00.004-05:00

honestly, i waited just about as long as i could to see this movie, which is sort of surprising, because i really enjoyed batman begins. granted, i'm no super hero movie afficionado (i think i've seen a grand total of three or four-- all batman) but i thought batman begins was a really good action movie, well acted and interestingly written. and i fully intended to go and watch the sequel in the theater. of course, then the hype began. and, as everyone who knows me knows, i am not one for joining crowds. i sort of run screaming away from them. so there was no way i was going to wait in line for a movie everyone was telling me to go see. still, i pretty much had to see it eventually, even though there was pretty much no way that it could live up its gargantuan buildup.

and of course it didn't. . . sort of. reading the entertainment weekly blog, i came across this slapdash, but on point review by mike bruno. basically he says that there was nothing wrong with this movie, but when he finally watched it, his expectations had been raised to such a dizzying degree that there was no way it could have been good enough to please him. quite honestly, the last time i can think of that a movie had this much public build-up was when titanic came out in 1997. the difference, however, is that titanic lived up to and probably exceeded the hype. the dark knight is, in contrast, a fine but dramatically dramatically dramatically overexposed and overrated film.

. . . that is, with one exception. heath ledger, i think, actually did live up to the hype for me. his performance really was exquisite. the weird thing is that i have seen him in several films, and he has never pulled off a performance like this before. i mean, where did this come from? how did he get so talented all of a sudden? and this wasn't one of those philip seymour hoffman as truman capote perfect person for the role kind of moments. i mean, he should have been the WRONG person for the role, but for some reason it worked. i absolutely think he deserves to be mentioned as one of the best performances of the year, and not just out of any need to memorialize him. he's just plain good.

on the other hand, there were quite a few things about this film that really could have been better. first of all, and most importantly, it is entirely too long. there are long, really boring sequences especially in the second half that really begged to be curtailed by a better director and editor. this should have been a punchier and more energized film. instead it verged on being too cerebral at points, and without a doubt too self-important. second, whereas i really liked christian bale in batman begins, here his performance is really overdramatic and frankly weird (especially when he is playing batman). once again, i think a better director would have reeled him in. and finally, as in batman begins where katie holmes is poorly used window dressing, once again, here, maggie gyllenhal, probably one of the best young working actresses is completely underutilized. i think in some ways the script actually makes her look bad. is there some reason these comic book guys can't write a decent part for a woman? and if they are going to continue writing these women as shallow and one dimensional, cast someone who can pull that kind of performance off.

in any case, i sort of liked the dark knight. i especially enjoyed the parts with heath ledger as the joker, and i would definitely consider him for a best supporting actor nomination. but if this film gets any more nominations, either for best pic, screenplay or director, it is without a doubt the result of a campaign of unparalleled strength.

milk

2008-12-29T21:05:00.003-05:00

without a doubt, milk is helmed by a terrific cast. there isn't a single cast member who doesn't perform ably. and without a doubt, this film tells a supremely interesting story, an incredibly important one for u.s.-american white middle class gay history. and without a doubt, harvey milk and his collaborators are extremely passionate about their work. so how come this movie turned out to be so incredibly dull? and how could a story as passionate as this one about people so devoutly committed to a cause come across on screen as so dispassionate?

now i certainly don't think milk is at all a bad movie, but i expected that i would enjoy it so much more than i did. the problem here doesn't lie in the acting. sean penn is really terrific, as one might expect. and the problem doesn't really lie in the screenwriting or directing. they are equally skilled (as one might expect). the problem for me lies in the fact that everything here is exactly what one might expect. there is nothing out of the ordinary, nothing surprising, nothing to help the story emerge out of utter tedium.

perhaps the real problem is that i just don't enjoy biopics all that much. i just find this sort of a movie so cliched and formulaic. it's almost as if when you watch these movies you can write it along in your head as the images come across on screen. (i.e. okay, here's the part where the person struggles with inner torment. here's the part where she/he decides to make a change. here's the part where she/he works hard to make something of her/himself. here's the part where she/he finally achieves what she/he set out to do. etc). i really think that a biopic of harvey milk, such an iconoclastic yet idioyncrantic figure needed to break out of this mold. in short, there could have been SUCH a much better movie made about this man, especially when so many talented people are involved in making it.

when milk reaches its dramatic denouement after the inevitable assassination i somehow knew that i was supposed to feel really emotional about what i was seeing, but somehow i couldn't bring myself to experience any emotion at all. similarly, after harvey finally wins an election, the cast responds with such deep excitement at the accomplishment; yet, somehow i find it difficult to believe that anyone cares that much. it's like, yeah they are going through the motions of caring, but does anyone here really care? when all is said and done, it's like, i think everyone would be more than happy to let this whole political thing go and return to the party scene at any moment. the entire course of events in this movie comes off as something of a whim.

and so, i am left at the end of this movie asking the question: why can't anyone make a movie about gay people that seems to show any real understanding of what it feels like to be gay, with the exception of "having a good time?" yes, we've seen a hundred movies about gay party boys (even some good ones), but this was an opportunity to show another side of gay men, and i honestly think it failed to do so. there is more to gay men than coming out (beautiful thing, get real, broken hearts club), getting laid (bareback mountain, trick) and partying (party monster, 54). somehow, someone needs to make a gay movie that shows a more human side of gay communities. and milk isn't it.

not that there aren't some good aspects of this film. emile hirsch is one of the standouts, perhaps the only actor who, for me, instills any depth of character into the role he is playing. sean penn is terrific in the lead role, although in some ways i still think maybe he could have been better. and josh brolin is sort of surprisingly good at playing a character as enigmatic as dan white. also, i think that gus van sant did a really good job of recreating 1970s san francisco. i definitely feel like i have a good sense of what it must have been like to live in this place at this time.

in fact, i really don't think that i can point out a single detail of this film that i would describe as bad. just disatisfying. one of the sort of strange things though is that james franco is getting critical attention over josh brolin and emile hirsch. franco is without a doubt the least capable actor playing the smallest and least interesting character in the film. there's very little acting going on here.

in the end, i have already seen quite a few really terrific movies this year, and milk is certainly nothing like slumdog millionaire or others that i have found so eminently exciting. but i guess if i were in the mood for a nice nap, i might think about watching it again.

slumdog millionaire

2008-12-16T22:52:00.003-05:00

slumdog millionaire was bound to take over the crown from little miss sunshine and juno as this year's most overrated film, but something went wrong. it's actually good. really good. unbelievably good.

i went to see this movie not knowing much about it, but fully expecting to be, at best, nonplussed. after all, essentially every single person who has seen it has liked it. i've really yet to read a single negative word written about it. any movie that is this well liked HAS to be a piece of garbage right? who wants to watch something that doesn't arouse at least a little bit of dissent? give me lars von trier and todd solondz any day. you can keep steven spielberg.

but i have to say, to my complete surprise, practically as soon as the movie began, i already knew i was going to like it. the editing, the cinematography, the music just jump off the screen, and by the time i saw the title i was hooked.

slumdog is without a doubt one of the best movies i have seen in years and probably the best love story that has been made since titanic. i hesitate to offer even so much a brief sketch of the movie's plot, since it seems to me part of my enjoyment came in not knowing what to expect or what i was watching. and also this is definitely a hard film to describe in a paragraph. it is about a lot of things. religion, u.s.-american tourism and development in the majority world, women's opportunities, organized crime and, most importantly, friendship. slumdog is hard to classify even in terms of genre. some moments are comedic, some dramatic some suspenseful. if it reminds me of any other movie, it might be requiem for a dream with just a bit of trainspotting thrown in. but even these comparisons are unworthy, since it is much more droll than the former, and more hopeful than the latter.

one of the true stars of this film for me is the editing. it is definitely one of the most cleverly strung together narrative sequences i can remember seeing. i think boyle (and his Indian "codirector") deserve a great deal of credit for their vision here, but this film would certainly never have come into its potential without the masterful way in which it was edited together. It is so fun waiting for the next scene, guessing what's going to happen next, being surprised at the ways these disparate scenes eventually all come together so perfectly.

another star is the score. a little bit of bollywood, a little bit of hip hop, a little bit of folk music all blend together here to form a really intriguing soundtrack that is SUCH a welcome respite from the awful music for juno that i had to listen to all through the awards season last year. it would be a shame if a song from slumdog ("o saya?") weren't oscar nominated.

one of the biggest treats for me in this movie was actually the end credits. i thought it was so clever how boyle seemed to be developing this entire movie out of a basic bollywood foundation, but transforming it into something amazingly, radically different. and then, in the end, he brings it all full circle with this playful bollywood finale, splicing the dancing cast members with brightly colored art. i really enjoyed that part.

if i have anything bad to say about slumdog, it's that i wish i hadn't watched it so early in the awards season. i can't imagine that anything else i have yet to see will be able to match this one. i won't disallow the possibility, but if anything better than this comes along, it would make 2008 one of the best movie years ever.

australia

2008-12-15T20:22:00.002-05:00

sometimes i can understand why people might be rooting for a movie to fail. for example, it doesn't surprise me at all everytime m. night shyamalan makes yet another gawdawful disaster and critics seem to silently cheer, since he is such a pompous and self important ass, and there is understandably some joy to be had in watching him receive some comeuppance. however, often times this sort of cheering on failure seems to arise out of nowhere. to be perfectly honest this seems to happen to movies that are helmed by women, that is, at least when women star in movies but not as busty violent femme fatals. Look at Angelina Jolie. Every time she legitimately tries to act in a movie (Changeling, A Mighty Heart) critics seem to pay little attention, whereas when she pulls her boobs up out of her tank top and kicks men in the face (Mr. and Mrs. Smith, Wanted) everyone cheers her on. In fact, a lot of movies starring women seem to get dissed before they are even out of the chute. It wouldn't surprise me if critics had written their witty put downs of Diane English's The Women before they even saw it this summer.

Enter Australia. For some reason, every time Nicole Kidman makes a movie, it is understood that it will be getting bad reviews. And I just had a feeling even before this movie came out that it was bound to get trampled. Unfortunately, this is one instance where it pays to look past or at least through critics' reviews and reserve comment for oneself.

Australia is by no means a perfect movie, but maybe it is enjoyable precisely because it is charmingly imperfect. The narrative is strung together in a sometimes awkward way, but this is emblematic of Baz Luhrmann's work in general I think. The biggest mistake might come in the featuring of the aboriginal boy Nullah as narrator and costar. At times, his colloquial narration and strange obliviousness do come across as bordering at annoying. However, he always seems to get by on cuteness at least. And there are times, especially towards the end of the film when Hugh Jackman is obviously overacting to a degree, but there is some enjoyment to be had in watching even this melodramatic performance.

Nicole Kidman, on the other hand, who seems to have taken the brunt of the negative attention regarding the movie (surprise surprise) is really quite wonderful here. I doubt that this role actually involves a great deal of acting for her, but she does nice work with it, not only playing the dramatic parts well, which isn't much of a surprise, but actually being more convincing with the comedic elements that I have ever seen her before.

For me the real triumphs in this movie are the cinematography (the filming of the stampede scene seems especially masterful) and David Gulpilil as aboriginal patriarch King George. I would never expect critics to pay much attention to this sort of understated role, but I think it is absolutely amazing how Gulpilil just fades into the scenery here. Never once did I believe he was actually acting in this movie. It seemed more like he was just part of the landscape where the filming was taking place.

Australia is really a beautiful saga, sort of evoking Cold Mountain or maybe Titanic, full of action and never boring. At over two and a half hours in length, I expected there to be some weak spots, but it trucked along so quickly with so much story, that it seems to go by in a flash. The characters are surprisingly few for a movie of this magnitude, but the good thing about that is that they are each very well developed and fun to follow. (Gawd how much did I want to throw a brick at Fletcher's face when he was threatening Lady Ashley at the farm). And the scenery is so beautiful that it is just one of those movies that would be fun to watch even if the story was nonexistent. In sum, this is really a fun movie to watch. And honestly, can we just agree that not every movie has to be a total downer to be quality?

We can also agree, however, that Australia was never going to be successful. After all, it stars a woman. A final tip for Kidman, incidentally my favorite working actress. If you want to revive your career, you are going to have to put on a corset, work on your kickboxing, and get cast as a sexy sidekick to like matt damon or george clooney. you need to work yourself into that steven soderbergh cool clique and out of the baz luhrmann, lars von trier artistic ghetto.

who the hell writes review summaries for imdb?

2008-09-26T09:20:00.003-04:00

i don't know who's getting paid to summarize movie reviews on imdb, but they should be fired. here is the summary i just read for that stupid ricky gervais movie ghost town. i will give whoever can make heads or tails of it either a nickle or a cookie. (hint: i think it was written in a state of extreme inebriation, so maybe getting drunk will help you uncode it). . .

"What did Ricky Gervais do to deserve such a schlocky foray into leading manhood? Look here for evidence that this rather-dated premise has zero signs of life or longevity. Greg Kinnear also deserves better roles than the aw-shucks types he tends to inhabit these days; the one time Bob Crane is this close to having a see-through career (and his upcoming Flash of Genius looks like a rainy day). Can we expect Téa and Ricky to form a clay bowl together?"

. . . and do i hear a collective "huh?"

doubt

2008-09-14T00:38:00.001-04:00

how good does philip seymour hoffman look in this trailer?

there is so much stuff coming out in the next couple months. i am so glad that the summer is over. happy fall movie opening weekend everyone.

a couple trailers

2008-08-27T14:04:00.003-04:00

trailers for fall awards season movies seem to be trickling out this week, so here are two.

first, if you can stay awake through the trailer for frost/nixon you are a better man than me. it is the new movie by stephen frears (the queen), and it has seemed dull to me since i first read the description on imdb: "a dramatic retelling of the post-Watergate television interviews between British talk-show host David Frost and former president Richard Nixon" *yawn yawn yawn yawn yawn* in any case, lots of movies don't sound too interesting on paper, but end up being really compelling. (think, sideways). i really don't think this is one of them. i just pray this doesn't get a best pic nom, so maybe i can avoid seeing it.

the second trailer is for spike lee's miracle at st. anna. this is definitely not a movie i was really looking forward to seeing. i didn't know it has joseph gordon levitt in it though, and i will see absolutely anything he is in, no matter how stupid it may be (think, stop-loss). in any case, this trailer is unbelievable. the movie looks absolutely amazing, and it is now on my i-can't-wait-til-it-comes-out list. i definitely think now that the trailer is out this movie is gonna be boosted to the top of critics' best pic contention lists.

burn after reading

2008-06-07T20:49:00.004-04:00

the trailer for the new coen brothers movie came out this week, and i am really pleasantly surprised by it. i don't mean to be blasphemous or anything, and no country was just fine and all, but this seems like a return to the coen brothers we know and love. it reminds me a lot of the big lebowski, with maybe a little bit of fargo (or at least frances mcdormand) and raising arizona thrown in for good measure. this one definitely goes up on my list from mild curiosity to can't-wait-til-it-comes-out. that's in september by the way.

taking sides: clint eastwood v spike lee

2008-06-07T19:44:00.002-04:00

point: at cannes last week, spike lee criticized clint eastwood for doing a disservice to black wwii vets, by not featuring them in either of his recent historical films flags of our fathers or letters from iwo jima. according to lee, black soldiers did indeed fight at iwo jima (and in other important battles), a fact he is apparently illustrating in his upcoming film miracle at st. anna.

counterpoint: eastwood responded, quite eloquently, that lee "should shut his face." he argues that it would have been inappropriate for him to have focused on black soldiers in either of his films. flags of our fathers focuses on the lives of several specific soldiers who raised the flag on iwo jima (all white) and letters from iwo jima, of course, focuses on the japanese.

rebuttal: lee responded, also eloquently, by calling eastwood "an angry old man." he offers to set up a meeting between eastwood and black soldiers who fought at iwo jima, so that the director can tell them that their contributions were meaningless.

no doubt, clint eastwood is a bit cantankerous, but spike lee is the one who picked this fight, and then he criticizes "the angry old man" for taking it personally. it sounds like both of these guys need to simmer down. but, more importantly, lee needs to take a few steps back from this and realize that he is taking his deep-seeded (albeit rightful) frustration regarding the removal of black history from the textbooks, and he is focusing this resentment in the wrong direction. if eastwood had somehow worked a storyline about african american soldiers into either of his movies, not only would it have been inappropriate, but he would have been attacked for dumbing down his work in favor of political correctness.

both eastwood and lee are great filmmakers, and letters from iwo jima is really an excellent movie. i am sure miracle at st. anna will be too. but come on spike, do you honestly think that clint eastwood believes that the contributions of black soldiers are insignificant? i totally support your anger and frustration at this situation, but express this through your work rather than taking it out on your colleagues.

a rant about jake gyllenhaal

2008-06-06T21:54:00.005-04:00

[anyone who knows me need not read the following, since this is a constant topic of bitching that you have no doubt heard from me before.]

reading the entertainment news section of imdb today as i do pretty much every morning i came across a short article about how the website afterelton.com (somehow associated with logo) published its annual list of the top 100 gay male icons, placing in the number one spot jake gyllenhaal. so i went to the website and read the list, and i was surprised to find that gyllenhaal is immediately proceeded by four openly gay actors.

what is wrong with this picture?

exactly why is jake gyllenhaal, an openly hetero actor whose biggest accomplishment in the field of homosexuality was being "brave" enough to play a queer in a movie three years ago, the biggest gay icon while actual gay actors including activist neil patrick harris are relegated to runner-up status? interestingly enough (and even more bizarre), afterelton's lesbian companion site afterellen.com published its list of girl-on-girl icons, giving the top spot to tina fey (?!?) ELLEN is number 17 (?!?!?!?!?)

this is absolutely one more example of the way "glbt" organizations including hrc, glaad and logo have, especially over the past few years, placed ACTUAL gay politics in the backseat behind hobnobbing with celebs. from my conversations with a good friend who actually worked for the hrc, i know that their offices spend a great deal more time and energy planning parties and cattily criticizing staff wardrobes than they do attempting to make this country a more equal place for queer people.

a couple years ago, the glaad media awards were in the spotlight, because they refused to give awards to programs on explicitly gay media (like logo), preferring to reward "mainstream" entertainment. they had some inane bs reasoning that i dont even remember behind this decision, but the truth is that they wanted to give awards to bigger celebrities so glaad members could get their pictures taken beside johnny depp or *jake gyllenhaal*

e.g. the vanguard award, according to wikipedia, "is presented annually at the Los Angeles GLAAD Media Awards to honor a member of the entertainment community who has made a significant difference in promoting equal rights for LGBT people." the past three winners include janet jackson (wtf?), jennifer aniston (WTF?) and charlize theron (WHAT THE FUCK???) if someone could PLEASE make the case that janet jackson or charlize theron are promoting equal rights for lgbt people (with a straight face) and that some glaad chair person isn't just a big "rhythm nation" fan or something, i would really appreciate it.

and this brings us to jake gyllenhaal, apparently our number one gay icon. honestly, i have nothing against jake gyllenhaal, and i love janet jackson, but i have to tell you, honoring them as somehow important to gay communities makes me sick. there are so many people out there that are doing great work to promote gay rights, to stop the spread of HIV, to make this country a better place for queer people. and none of them are being honored as "vanguards" or "icons."

ellen, i'm sorry the folks over at logo feel that you are only number 17 in importance of lesbians in entertainment, but thank you for the work that you do and have done. you are my icon. bitches.

women in film

2008-06-04T21:02:00.002-04:00

so i don't know if anyone's been reading awards daily's coverage of the state of women-driven films lately, but it's something about which i've been meaning to write. with the success of sex and the city this past weekend and the release of the trailer for diane english's the women this morning, it seems like a lot of people in the blogosphere have been thinking about the topic.

this whole issue really blew up back in october when that idiot president at warner issued a memo to his production staff saying that the company would not be making any more female-driven films. rather than attributing any of the blame for the failure of jodie foster's the brave one and nicole kidman's invasion on the (male) directors behind them, robinov decided that it was the female stars' fault.

right after that, several columnists started publishing info and stats they pieced together on the place of women in the film world. the writers at xkcd put together this interesting piece on women-driven films over the past five years. In 2007, none of the top 20 highest grossing films featured a female lead, and since 2004, only five top 20 movies were female-driven. Also, none of the top 20 biggest movies over the past 20 years and none of the top 20 movies on imdb have women at the helm.

women and hollywood, a really great entertainment blog i enjoy, followed this up with their own study on the issue. they write that in 2006 only 3 of the top FIFTY movies starred women and of the over 300 movies eligible for oscars, less than a dozen were female-driven. Of the last 150 movies nominated for best picture oscars, less than six had female leads, and only a quarter of all speaking roles in these films were women. The find also that women make up just 15 percent of all producers, directors, cinematographers and editors working on the top 250 highest-grossing films of all time are women. (it is hard not to notice this last statistic each year at oscar time. no woman has ever won a best director oscar, and only three women have even been nominated!)

still, despite what robinov thinks, there have been a lot of great movies starring women, even in the past couple years, and some of them *gasp* have even made money. besides sex and the city, there was the devil wears prada a couple years ago. and this year tina fey's baby mama won its weekend. a lot of my favorite movies are at least one half female driven: beaches, fried green tomatoes, steel magnolias, a league of their own, the end of the affair, far from heaven. . . these movies all made money and/or garnered critical success. the folks at awards daily have put together an even longer list of successful female-driven flicks.

so this leads to the question: should we just stop making movie starring women, because they aren't making enough money at the ticket counter, or should filmmakers maybe just try a little harder to make better films and write better parts. the answer should be obvious. how often are you watching a movie with a great (usually over 40) actress and you say to yourself, wow she is really great. why doesn't she do more? i think we say that a lot more about female rather than male actors. there just aren't many roles out there for (especially older) women. e.g. julianne moore. honestly, i think sometimes that she does crap like freedomland and the forgotten, because there just isn't anything else out there. the stats above prove this.

and now we have coming up the women. the cast looks incredible, but will anyone go see it? honestly i think a lot depends on whether or not it is any good. seeing the trailer, i have a bit of hesitation, but i am hopeful. as long as it doesn't devolve into some estrogeney festival of weeping and wailing about unfaithful husbands and pregnancy (honestly, is this all the women do?) then i think it has definite potential. in any case, i think it is time for film goers to really start rallying behind (good) female driven movies or else they just might stop making them altogether.

some movies to look forward to.

2008-05-25T19:05:00.011-04:00

so this french documentary that will never be nominated for a foreign film oscar won the palme d'or at cannes yesterday. it seems like a lot has been happening at the movies this week. the first two major movies of the year, prince caspian and the kingdom of the crystal skull, opened in theaters. i managed to see the former last weekend and it was awesome. hopefully i'll get to see the new indiana jones in the next couple days if i can drag john along after work some night. anyways, with cannes this week and those two movies and a lot of trailers for fall films starting to pop up on awards daily and other oscar blogs, it really seems that this past week or so has been the beginning of the 2008 film year. actually, prince caspian was my first time at the movies since the oscar showcase in february, so it looks like i am going to have to get out of hibernation and start seeing some new movies, rather than continuing to ruminate over dvds from last year's awards season. there are a lot of movies i am really looking forward to seeing this year.

first of all, awards daily posted the trailer for the remake of brideshead revisted that is coming out in july. it stars emma thompson (where has she been lately?) and definitely looks like an early frontrunner to be my favorite movie of the year. you can see the trailer here. if it has competition from anything though it is probably going to be the new julianne moore movie, savage grace. both movies are apparently about twisted families and weird sexual relationships. right up my alley. savage grace comes out in limited release next weekend and the trailer is here.

if you haven't seen the trailer for mamma mia! yet, go here, it looks like it could be incredible. i am so glad that camp musicals seem to be so popular all of a sudden. i have always wanted to see the musical, and i can't wait til it comes out in july. another movie that i am really looking forward to (don't laugh) is that crazy goth musical that darren lynn bousman made that was getting a lot of press when the trailer debuted last fall, repo! the genetic opera. i know it sounds potentially terrible, but it has sarah brightman and anthony head, both of whom i love, and it is a sort of rock opera, and it is by the guy who made saw, so it sounds like a good time whether or not it sucks. it is supposed to come out in early august, but it seems to get pushed back a lot, so who knows. i am keeping my fingers crossed.

and while, we're on the subject of musicals, i am not afraid to say it: hsm3. in theaters. october 24. who is going to go see it with me, so i don't look like totally creepy?

quite a few big movies that are going to be competing for awards this winter opened at cannes this weekend. the one i am looking forward to most is blindness. it stars (incredible, right?) julianne moore AND gael garcia bernal, my favorite actor and one of my favorite actresses. even though it's been sort of getting mixed reviews, the trailer looks great and i am sure i will like it regardless. then there is steven soderbergh's four hour che guevara biopic guerrilla/the argentine. granted, four hours of commentary on socialism doesn't necessarily seem like a party, but it is about latin america, so i am willing to give it a chance. also opening at cannes, the latest eastwood movie either called the changeling or the exchange, depending on who you ask and also charlie kaufman's synechdote, new york, undoubtedly the worst titled movie of the year. i haven't seen trailers yet, but i tend to like eastwood's and kaufman's work, so they sound promising.

well, i take that back. . . even though synechdote may be the worst movie title of the year, it has potential competition from quantum of solace, the bizarre moniker for the new james bond. it opens november 7, but according to imdb it is opening in bahrain on the fifth, so if you happen to be in that area, you can see it a couple days early. i am going to go out on a limb and say that this will be the first james bond movie to get a best picture oscar nomination. i think if it is any good at all, it will at the very least get some awards attention. critics seemed to like casino royale, and the academy has obviously been fond of macho shoot-em-up thrillers lately, so i don't know why none of the oscar blogs are making this prediction.

another prediction, but this time one that just about everyone is making, is that heath ledger will most likely be a posthumous best supporting actor for his turn as the joker in the dark knight. i think i may have seen like three superhero movies in my entire life, but they have all been batman, and i sort of liked batman begins, so this should be decent. it's opening in july, and you can see the trailer here.

but there is probably one movie that is going to plow through awards season this year, a la return of the king or, more fittingly, titanic. kate and leo are starring in sam mendes' revolutionary road, a period piece about 1950s suburbia. even though there isn't a trailer yet, everyone is saying it is going to be just about perfect. think best picture, best director, best actor, best actress, best supporting actress.

other movies looking for award attention include the curious case of benjamin button, a sort of time travelling fantasy movie or something (i really don't get it exactly) starring brad pitt and cate blanchett, australia, a gorgeous looking wwii drama starring nicole kidman (see the amazing trailer here), doubt, meryl streep and amy adams starring in the movie version of the pulitzer winning play, and milk, sean penn's harvey milk biopic (which is already getting on my nerves for people speculating on what a brave acting choice it was for penn and others to play a bunch of gays. . . GET OVER IT).

what else. . .

body of lies looks like it could be super entertaining. it's written by the same guy who wrote the departed and stars russell crowe and leonardo dicaprio as cia operatives searching for members of al qaeda in the middle east. the reader also looks to have potential. it is this wwii romance thing starring kate winslet and ralph fiennes, and it sounds a lot like the end of the affair, one of my all time favorites. and then there is the new coen brothers movie burn after reading. it is a sort of comedy starring all the cool kids (clooney and pitt and their friends) and is looking a lot like the big lebowski part 2, especially with the pictures of brad pitt in a bowling shirt on the imdb page.

there are also gonna be quite a few victorian-era movies this year, and i am a sucker for that crap. keira knightley is starring in the duchess. the teaser trailer looks really beautiful. emily blunt finally gets a starring role in young victoria, a movie about the romance between queen victoria and prince albert. the film version of plath's the bell jar could star nobody other than julia stiles. and there is also a movie called bronte about the lives of the bronte sisters that may or may not be out this year depending on who you ask.

last but not least, maybe the best cast of any movie coming out this year, meg ryan, candace bergen, bette midler, annette bening and just about every other actress in hollywood are appearing in the women, a remake of some old play coming out in september.

so that's it more or less. lots of brad and angelina, cate blanchett, kate and leo, ralph fiennes, meryl streep and julianne moore. at least a little bit of zac efron. yet more coen brothers. and just enough organ harvesting, child theft and mother-son romance. a lot to look forward to.

some final reflections before the big game

2008-02-24T18:26:00.002-05:00

so john and i once again survived the best picture showcase in woodbridge yesterday--all five nominated films in 12 hours. i had already seen all the movies, but i actually enjoyed watching them again. with the exception of juno i think i really enjoyed all the movies more the second time around. (still, i managed to discover about 30 more things to hate about juno). john's fave is still there will be blood, but i think i'll be rooting for atonement tonight, even though it doesn't have a whore's prayer in heaven of winning anything but best score. in any case, as the clock winds down, here are so final reflections on this year's nominated flicks.

1. it's official. "i'll drink your milkshake" has definitely ascended to the throne as this year's most memorable movie line, taking the place of last year's most notable quote from the most quotably movie, dame judi dench's "you are NOT young." still, michael clayton's "i am shiva the god of war" comes in a close second.

2. nothing would make me happier tonight than to see marion cotillard surprise julie christie and walk away with the vesr actress oscar. just because she speaks french, doesn't mean she is a bad person. honest.

3. actually, what would really make me happy tonight would be to see persepolis take the best animated movie award away from ratatouille, but we all know that there is NO fucking way that is going to happen, so i don't even dare to dream.

4. the worst movie this year was without a doubt the unintentionally funny gone baby gone. it is so awful beyond words. i am really glad it got largely ignored (except for the not too terrible amy ryan). still i am hoping she doesn't win if only because i fear an academy award will urge these people to make more movies, and they shouldn't. really they shouldn't. as a matter of fact, i wouldn't normally do this, but just in case you ever have the urge to watch this movie. . . morgan freeman stole the baby. there. i saved you two hours of your life.

5. still, i think i'd rather watch gone baby gone again then away from her. even though gone baby gone sucks, at least it is fun to laugh at. on the other hand, away from her could not be more boring if it tried. sorry sarah polley, but there is almost know way you are going to get me to watch another one of your movies, unless i am really in need of a nap.

6. i can't really pick out any single worst performance of the year, but it is easy to point out the worst casting: casey affleck is 32 years old. the coward robert ford is 19. sorry casey, i don't know what people are telling you, but you sure as fuck can't pass for 19. i don't understand why the people who cast this movie couldn't find an actor who was at least within a decade of the age of the character he was playing. (okay, granted he isn't that bad in the role, but you just kind of have to tell yourself he's playing a 30 year old. otherwise, you will be scratching your head all the way).

7. although marion cotillard definitely gave the best performance of the year, there were quite a few actors who gave really good performances in multiple movies. it seems like this is more the case this year than in past years i can remember. cate blanchett, obviously in the golden age and i'm not there. josh brolin in in the valley of elah, american gangster and no country. tommy lee jones in in the valley of elah and no country. michelle pfeiffer in hairspray and stardust. johnny depp in at world's end and sweeney todd. christian bale in 3:10 to yuma, recue dawn and i'm not there. but for me, the best all around performer of the year was russell crowe. i think that both of his performances in 3:10 to yuma and american gangster should have been nominated for oscars.

8. i really hope that guy who directs the oscars lays off the montages tonight although i imagine there is a fat chance of that happening.

alright, that's it for now. gotta go make our oscar watching dinner. guess what we're having for dessert. . .

my oscar predictions

2008-02-22T20:20:00.004-05:00

well it's been a pretty boring oscar year really, in spite of the will-it-or-won't-it-happen drama, and i don't expect there to be a whole lot of surprises on sunday. no country for old men will no doubt win almost all of the awards it's been nominated for. it was a fine movie, not my favorite at all, but i don't have any brokeback mountain level animosity towards it or anything. in any case, i am hoping for at least a few mild surprises, most notably in the best actress category. here's my predix:

supporting actor:
will win. . . javier bardem i don't think has lost a single award so far this season, so it would be an absolute shock if he didn't walk away a winner on sunday. it's a fine performance, but i will never understand how every year so much hype seems to surround performances and films that aren't really in any way spectacular. there are lots of performances that could and should challenge him.
should win. . . when i first saw into the wild back in the fall, i walked away just drained by hal holbrook's performance. it kinda irks me when so many people keep calling him the sentimental favorite, rather than focusing on the real reason he is nominated-- a fantastic performance. it is so good, it almost makes me afraid to watch the movie again. too freaking sad. (oh and one other note, i don't know how casey affleck got nominated in this category but he is without a doubt the lead in the assassination of jesse james)
my five. . . hal holbrook, javier bardem, russell crowe (3:10 to yuma), ben foster (3:10 to yuma) and john travolta (hairspray).

supporting actress:
will win. . . this is the only category besides maybe director that hasn't been set in stone for months now. on the one hand everyone seems to love cate blanchett and for a while she would have been the frontrunner, but there seems to be backlash. so that leaves the door open for amy ryan. for the life of me, i can't figure out why anyone liked gone baby gone (the worst i have seen all year), and her performance was really very small left a lot to be desired. tilda swinton seems to gaining speed also, and then there is the sag winner, ruby dee (who really was quite fantastic in american gangster). i think i am going to have to predict amy ryan even though ANYTHING else would make me happy.
should win. . . cate blanchett is one of those actresses that is so good in everything that she does, that i think academy members might assume (correctly) that she doesn't really need this award and give it to someone like ruby dee or amy ryan who would most likely appreciate it a lot more. still, her bob dylan was one of the year's best performances, and it should be rewarded.
my five. . . cate blanchett, ruby dee, saorsie ronan, romola garai (atonement) and michelle pfeiffer (hairspray)

actor:
will win. . . daniel day lewis will win this award, but something tells me it isn't as much of a lock as everyone presumes it is. once again, he may be falling into the cate blanchett trap of looking like he doesn't really need it. still, even though most people are saying that george clooney poses the biggest threat here, my gut tells me that johnny depp is giving him a run for his money. the academy really wants to give johnny depp an oscar, and every year he just barely seems to miss out. even though it may be a relatively close race, daniel day lewis can't lose.
should win. . . lewis is fantastic. that goes without saying. he is one of those actors that you really like watching on screen, but you probably wouldn't want to get close to in real life. he is just too intense. the only thing that bothers me just a little bit about lewis' performance is that it is somewhat reminiscent of bill the butcher in gangs of new york. but you know me, i love dramatic, scene chewing, huge performances, and that is what this one is.
my five. . . daniel day lewis, johnny depp, tommy lee jones, russell crowe (american gangster) and denzel washington (american gangster).

actress:
will win. . . whether or not this is a close race or not is really anyone's guess. i haven't necessarily been quiet about my confusion over julie christie's nomination here. #1 her role is SUPPORTING. #2 the movie, and her performance are as boring as sin. and #3 she just isn't that good in it. in the back of my mind i think a lot of people want to admit that she isn't spectacular in away from her, but they are afraid to step out of the pack. marion cotillard and ellen page aren't totally out of the picture yet, but it looks like it is christie's to lose.
should win. . . the only reason that marion cotillard won't win this award is that too many academy voters are afraid to watch movies with subtitles. as has become overwhelmingly evident this awards season, when it comes to foreign films, the academy is 100% helpless. cotillard's turn as edith piaf is no doubt the best performance of the year in any category. almost everyone that sees la vie en rose seems to agree on that. this is the one category i am really rooting for an upset.
my five. . . marion cotillard, cate blanchett, keira knightley (atonement), helena bonham carter (sweeney todd) and nikki blonsky (hairspray)

director:
will win. . . this category is a bit of a mystery. on the one hand, the coen brothers are widely assumed to be the best filmmakers of the year, and most people seem to be rooting for them to win. however, the academy has almost never awarded directing duos. so if they follow suit this year, the award is poised to be handed to the diving bell and the butterfly's julian schnabel. as much as i want to predict an upset here and see schnabel win the award, i think it is going to be a historic year for the coen brothers.
should win. . . of the five nominated directors i think i would be most pleased to see there will be blood's paul thomas anderson win this award. i really admire filmmakers that make bold, dramatic choices with their direction. even if there are a few mistakes made along the way, as long as the director took chances i can accept them. i really think the directing oscar should go to tim burton for sweeney todd. nobody but him could have made this movie. it is a great achievement in filmmaking.
my five. . . tim burton, paul thomas anderson, sean penn (into the wild), andrew dominik (the assassination of jesse james by the coward robert ford) and julie taymor (across the universe)

original screenplay:
will win. . . the worst thing about juno (and there are many many bad things to choose from) is the screenplay. it is dull, unfunny and at times almost incomprehensible. there are so many scenes that go nowhere. there are so many characters that should have been excised early in script development. yet for some reason that i will never be able to understand diablo cody will win her oscar this year and everyone will swoon and i will go to the kitchen for a cookie or something.
should win. . . to be completely honest i haven't yet seen any of the nominated screenplays except juno (although i am going to see michael clayton tomorrow). i can't imagine i would like lars and the real girl. it looks mind numbingly stupid. and i am almost certain i would hate ratatouille. so i guess i will be rooting for the savages. my pic for best original screenplay would have been paul haggis' flawless script for in the valley of elah.
my five. . . paul haggis, adrienne shelley (waitress), scott frank (the lookout), olivier dahan (la vie en rose) and matt groening et al. (the simpsons movie)

adapted screenplay:
will win. . . the consensus seems to be that the coen brother's script for no country will take this award along with the boatload of other awards the movie is destined to receive, but i sort of think that if the coens win best pic and best directors, the academy may throw a bone here to paul thomas anderson's blood. i still think the coen brothers will win, but i wouldn't be surprised to see a mild upset here.
should win. . . there are some excellent screenplays nominated in this category. there will be blood is a well written adaptation and i think that this category is where the film is most deserving of a win. atonement is also a great movie and i would be happy to see it win the category even though it has no chance. although i haven't seen it yet, the diving bell and the butterfly sounds like an excellent movie, and i am happy to see it get at least a little attention (for a foreign film). still, the greatest screen adaptation this year without a doubt was sean penn's masterful rewriting of john krakauer's incredible book into the wild.
my five. . . sean penn, paul thomas anderson, christopher hampton (atonement), halsted welles (3:10 to yuma) and marjane satrapi (persepolis)

picture:
will win. . . the ratings for the oscars have been down lately, and i think that has something to with how everyone is trying to make this category seem like it isn't all wrapped up. but alas there will be no crash-type upset sunday night. no country for old men will cap off an incredibly successful night with a final feather in their collective cap.
should win. . . of the final nominated films there are some great, some good, and some what-the-hell-are-people-thinking. starting at the bottom of the rung, i will never understand why people are falling all over themselves cheering for the crap-fest that is juno. in the middle is no country, not too great, but certainly not bad. and then there are the truly great atonement and there will be blood. i will be rooting for atonement (is it completely outside the realm of possibility? i think yes, but people are saying no). still, truly the best movie of the year was persepolis. too bad it is in french.
my five. . . persepolis, into the wild, hairspray, atonement and 3:10 to yuma

other categories:
cinematography. . . i think any of the five nominated movies could potentially come out on top in this category. especially after last year's children of men catastrophe, it seems pretty obvious that people voting on this category don't know what cinematography is (pretty landscapes ala brokeback mountain does not equal excellent camera work). it is most likely going to be the assassination of jesse james or there will be blood. i think some of the cinematography in atonement is fantastic, but not quite as great as james. still, my prediction is there will be blood
art direction. . . it shocks me that there is even a chance that sweeney todd won't win this category. burton's art direction here is so fantastic that it really makes the movie. it is just fun to look at. there will be blood is the favorite to win this, and it might be deserving in another year. i am going to go ahead and predict sweeney todd in this category, if only because it seems like a travesty not to.
costumes. . . once again, the costumes in sweeney todd are truly fabulous. it is one of those movies that you watch and think that these actors must have really been living in the scene. i wouldn't even begin to think of how they could get out of bed and walk into the film and seem like such a part of the scenery otherwise. there is a lot of support for atonement here (it's amazing what a little green dress can do), but i am still thinking it is sweeney todd's to lose.
makeup. . . i had never seen marion cotillard before watching this movie, so i didn't really know what she looked like, but now that i know it just makes the makeup in this movie that much more fascinating. in la vie en rose, she goes back in forth in age from her teens to maybe her late 40s. i don't think i have ever seen a movie like that where this shift seems so convincing. la vie en rose will win this category no doubt.
score. . . it's kind of screwed up that johnny greenwood's score for there will be blood was disqualified in this category, but my favorite score for atonement was my favorite. it's so cool how they made the sound of the typewriter dominate the film's music. and it is going to win the category.
song. . . i really don't care too much about this category this year since none of the songs from into the wild or love in the time of cholera made the cut. in short, the best film song will not win this award. but the oscar will probably go to that song from once that everyone seems to be putting over their oscar montages this year.
foreign film. . . what a disaster. here is a list of the best foreign films this year-- the diving bell and the butterfly, 4 months 3 weeks and 2 days, persepolis, lust caution and the orphanage. here's how many of these movies that were nominated in this category-- zero. in fact none of them even made the top 10 shortlist. the five nominated movies are no doubt inferior, nobody has ever seen them, and so i just don't care.

2007 top 10

2008-02-21T17:25:00.004-05:00

so, it has really been a great year for movies, especially after the past two kind of down years. (remember when crash won best pic in 2006? there was like nothing out that year). there are at least four or five movies that really should have been in this list, that i just couldn't quite fit in. but here's what i've managed to come up with. (and no, i didn't include high school musical 2. . . although maybe i should have. hm.)

10. the lookout. . . i don't know who joseph gordon levitt's manager is, but she should really be given an enthusiastic high five or something. every movie he does is always so fantastic. of all the young male actors, levitt is definitely my favorite. i think the lookout just represents how young hollywood can actually make movies that don't suck (take that lindsay lohan). it is a really intelligent movie, well written, great acting. i can't wait to see what levitt does next.

9. in the valley of elah. . . just as joseph gordon levitt can't seem to make a movie i don't like, paul haggis hasn't yet disappointed me with any of the movies he has written either. i actually didn't expect to like this, but it is really fantastic. haggis' writing is so subtle and nuanced here. there's no clint eastwood or oliver stone-esque dramatic braggadocio here (not that there isn't room for that sometimes). it is just a sad, lonely story with no easy solutions presented in the end. and to top it off, the miracle is that charlize theron didn't bother me nearly as much as she usually does (even though she still sucks).

8. there will be blood. . . i sort of go back and forth on this one. when i first saw it i thought it may have been a little over the top, but the more i think about it, the more it grows on me. obviously daniel day lewis is amazing, even though his performance is a little reminiscent of bill the butcher. the cinematography is really interesting, and the landscapes are definitely beautiful. but i think that the real reason that this movie is one of the year's best is that p.t. anderson made so many risky, gutsy decisions with both the script and his direction. even though the product isn't flawless i respect his work.

7. sweeney todd. . . tim burton is a strange strange man but that's why i love him. this movie is no doubt like nothing you have ever seen. amazingly, i think this movie is even gorier and more violent than no country, and that's an accomplishment. what i love about burton is that he can tell a whole story using just his art direction. i would have probably loved this movie if there had been no music or even no actors at all-- just watching the scenery. but that doesn't mean i didn't love the music too and depp and bonham carter are fantastic. (i wouldn't want to eat their pies though).

6. american gangster. . . see, this is why 2007 was such a great year at the movies. no doubt american gangster was a much better movie than the departed and it didn't even make the best pic list this year. all of the problems i had with the departed were erased here by ridley scott. most notably, this movie really tackles the structural problems at the heart of nyc's drug and organized crime problems, and attempts to engage not only with the glamour of the whole thing, but also with all the tragic aspects. i was so fascinated with the complexity of this story. Scott manages to tie up organized crime, race, poverty, gender, the Vietnam War, drugs, police corruption, media and religion.

5. 3:10 to yuma. . . i really love westerns, and nobody is happier than me that 2007 marked a brief renaissance for them. 3:10 to yuma marks the year's best example of the genre. i think some people were irritated with or confused by the ending, but if it had ended any other way it would have been out of step with the western genre. men in these movies don't always make the most rational decisions. it is about masculinity, family honor, promises and revenge. so what if christian bale risks his life for perhaps specious reasoning. in a fictional outlaw-town in southern arizona, it makes perfect sense.

4. atonement. . . this was definitely the acting movie of the year. keira knightley, james mcavoy, saorsie ronan, romola garai and vanessa redgrave all deserve to be nominated. and then there is the amazing cinematography. the sweeping scene of dunkirk is just awesome. this movie just made me want to scream out at the screen so many times. everyone just makes one mistake after another. i hate that feeling of seeing everyone decend into tragic circumstances, and there's nothing i can do but watch. at the very least, seeing knightley in her green dress made up for it a little.

3. hairspray. . . yeah it was a little too cleaned up from the john waters original for my taste, but who gives a care. how much fun was watching this movie? john and i only own about three or four truly happy movies in our 400+ collection, but this one is at the top of the list (sorry emperor's new groove). john travolta is just hilarious in the divine role, and this was the best performance by michelle pfeiffer in her comeback year. but even though this is a fun, silly, happy movie, it is also just plain good.

2. into the wild. . . krakauer's into the wild is one of my all time favorite books, which would generally mean that these movie would suck big time, but to my surprise it didn't. i actually think sean penn added something to the story. he really emphasized the complicated nature of christopher mcandless' journey, when it would have been so easy to paint him as some sort of thoreau or kerouac character, wise beyond his years. what he ended up showing us was a lonely, conflicted character, confused about a lot of things, learning along the way but also resistant to learning. i think that this movie is one that isn't for everyone. it is really difficult to watch at times. but if you can overcome how overwhelmingly sad it is, i think you can really get a lot out of this.

1. persepolis. . . i wasn't surprised that i liked this movie, but i was surprised by how much i liked it. i am really not a fan of animated movies (especially after hearing lars von trier expound on how shallow they are in the five obstructions) but the animation here is so gorgeous, you just get lost in it. the story itself is set forth much like a comic strip, so there are bits and pieces here and there and a lot left out. the result is that the viewer is challenged to sort of engage with persepolis in a way that you are almost never able to do with movies. i still have a ton of questions after watching this movie, but i think that is why i liked it so much. it is intricate and challenging and just a good movie to watch and talk about for hours afterwards.

okay, i'm just gonna say it

2008-02-18T10:14:00.002-05:00

so it's oscar week, and i don't really care if it isn't the "in" thing to say, but i am just gonna come out with it-

julie christie really isn't that good in away from her.

first of all, i really think this role was more supporting than lead. she is only in probably less than half of the film. honestly, olympia dukakis is almost as central to the film as christie, and i actually liked her performance better. but really this was gordon pinsent's film. he is really the only lead here.

that being said, the relatively little time christie is on camera, she doesn't really do that much acting. Mostly the camera just watches her as she plays cards on the other side of the room or watches her lie on her bed and stare blankly at the wall. There are probably 3 or 4 scenes where she actually acts.

Now one certainly couldn't call this a "bad" performance, but all i'm saying is that it wasn't really all that "great" either. The movie was as boring as sin and she certainly didn't do much to supplement the excitement. i don't even think this performance can even be put on the same plane as marion cotillard in la vie en rose or cate blanchett in elizabeth.

so, in short, sorry to have to say it but christie = not so good here.

the problem with juno:

2008-01-24T14:35:00.000-05:00

a multivariate analysis
by lucas witman
phd candidate

the problem with juno can best be described by breaking the film down into its various areas of suckitude.

1. okay, so i've never dismissed a film out of hand on its music (well, except maybe dreamgirls, but i digress). however, at the forefront of juno's outstanding degree of viewer-inflicted-irritation has got to be the mindnumbing uber-repetitive songs that permeate it. all of the songs are basically three cords repeated over and over again with more or less the same lyrics (e.g. If you were a wink, I'd be a nod/ If you were a seed, well I'd be a pod./ If you were the floor, I'd wanna be the rug
And if you were a kiss, I know I'd be a hug. . . *AAARGH*) think the opening song from napoleon dynamite but over and over and over and over again until you want to take your greasy fingers out of your popcorn tub and dig them down into your inner ears. I have never written a song before, but I am confident that I could imagine better lyrics than are present ANYWHERE in this movie, and I have never played the guitar before, but I am confident that after a single lesson I could play all three of the cords that the movie's songwriters play. honestly, i know you think i am exaggerating, but the music really is that irritating.

2. maybe one could forgive and forget the music if the substance of the film was really great, but the more i think about what i watched, the more confused i am. i mean, everyone seems to love this movie, but nobody is pointing out the looming large problems with the script. let's start with the opening scene in the convenience store. WHY DOES THIS SCENE EVEN EXIST? it seems that they are going to develop the character of the convenience store clerk, but the store is never revisited and this is the only place where the clerk appears in the film. and why is juno taking a pregnancy test in the convenience store bathroom in the first place? and why does she have such a intimate conversation with a person that i presume she barely knows? then there is the high school scene. what the fuck is the deal with that? they do that typical teen movie thing where they introduce the different groups in the student body but then the students have no role in the movie. she makes this comment about how the jocks really like goth girls, and there are several scenes where daniel clark (from degrassi) stares smolderingly at her, but this as well goes no where. am i the only one who thinks diablo cody wrote this as some sort of bizarre stream of consciousness? i can't think of another movie that has so many scenes and characters that seem out of place and ultimately go nowhere. honestly, i would rather watch 10 things i hate about you or mean girls or even 90210, all movies/shows much less lauded than juno but seemingly much more logical.

3. and while we're on the subject of the script, let's all admit that the overly in-your-face hipness of cody's writing smacks of a subpar episode of dawson's creek. the way these characters talk is honestly unintentionally funny throughout. i love the one scene where juno's friend leah exclaims over the phone: "phuket thailand." that sort of feigned profanity could have been directly lifted from the creek. honestly, i am so sick and tired of reviewers calling cody's script "hip." what does that even mean? yes the characters speak with an obsessive-compulsive disorder-like use of slang, but does that make it hip? to me, 90 percent of the dialogue is simply idiotic. if you want hip, smart teen movie writing, watch Rian Johnson's Brick. Cody could definitely learn a thing or two from Johnson.

4. and the icing on the cake is that the story itself, as thin as it is, is sometimes offensive (on a gutteral level) and offers more scenes necessitating that i cover my eyes and ears than a teen comedy should require. the offensive scenes largely center around jason bateman's character, a fundamentally evil guy. the only really fulfilling end to this movie would be if his wife had ended up decapitating him with a pick axe or something. the relationship he had with juno was inappropriate from the very first moment they met and every time they were alone i could hardly watch it. first of all, the dialogue they had was eerily similar to the dialogue between ellen page and pedophile patrick wilson in hard candy. just the inane-ness of these conversations made me embarrassed for them both, but the subtext was just icky. honestly, everything else ignored, this relationship made the movie basically unwatchable to me.

5. and finally, the ultimate factor in juno's suckitude, it just wasn't that funny. i mean, this movie is obviously inspired by napoleon dynamite, and that movie was much funnier and never got anywhere near the degree of critical attention juno has gotten. the funniest parts for me were the unintentional or the more understated moments. the one line that really made me laugh was when juno tells her lab partners, "i hear that snow peak peach is actually the best flavor of boone's." cody just isn't a good enough writer to pen the sort of understated comedy that made napoleon dynamite, lost in translation or sideways really excellent.

the one wholly bright spot in this movie was jennifer garner. her character was the only one that really seemed to have a heart. i really enjoyed the few scenes in which she appeared, especially when she meets juno in the mall. i am not a huge fan of garner by any means, but i would have loved this movie if it had starred her character and not the other vapid soulless idiots that permeate the film.

i have to say that i love ellen page, and was a huge fan of hers before any of this juno hysteria. i had her on my best actress list last year for hard candy and have been waiting anxiously for the release of her perpetually delayed an american tragedy. and she did the best she could with the material here, but i honestly feel that this dialogue was largely beneath her. i mean, imagine if scarlett johannson and joseph gordon levitt were to star in dawson's creek as joey and dawson. it would just be inappropriate and weird. that's what this movie felt like to me. i can't wait to see more of her, but i hope next time it is in something a little more substantial and a little less cliched

so unbelievably sad

2008-01-23T11:06:00.000-05:00

live blogging high school musical

2007-08-25T21:04:00.000-04:00

okay, so it's the end of the summer and i was thinking that this should also be the end of my blog summer hiatus. i have quite a few movies from the summer that i want to review, and there are a lot of things coming out this fall that i am looking forward to writing about. i think that this year i am going to change things up a little bit and write more about new and upcoming movies and less about all the old movies john and i love.

anyways, in honor of my return to blogging and in honor of monday being back to school day para mi, i decided to do something i have been putting off for a couple weeks now: i am finally going to watch high school musical.

if there is one lasting memorable contribution of 2007's summer movies, it has got to be the hotness that is zac efron. i have been putting off watching hsm for a a long time, but after discovering my new bf zac, i decided it was finally time to stop pretending i am too mature to enjoy it. plus, as everyone knows, this past week hsm2 premiered, so i tivoed both films and i am thinking that tonight is the night.

okay, here goes. . .

25 august 2007
9:14 pm- i can't believe i am watching something on the disney channel. i dont think i have watched this channel since i was like in the 12th grade and i used to watch bug juice. (remember that?) i hate corporations.

9:17 pm- troy is doing karaoke and he says he can't sing, but SURPRISE he can. he reminds me of a hot clay aiken, but like in a good way.

9:31 pm- i think this musical might have been choreographed by janet jackson circa 1989.

9:32 pm- is the guy with the weird hat supposed to be gay?

9:38 pm- isn't troy a little short to get a scholarship to play college basketball? i hope he quits this stupid team and goes to sing with gabriella instead.

9:43 pm- jesus christ i hope ms. darbus gets hit by a bus or something. what an unholy bitch. i think troy and gabriella should go put on an alternate musical so they don't have to be involved with this woman.

9:45 pm- remember that episode of saved by the bell where they have to do a performance and they make up the rap musical version of snow white but then at the last minute kelly and jesse get into a big fight? that was a good one.

9:47 pm- sharpay and ryan are so cruel intentions. i love it.

9:54 pm- yeah ryan is definitely gay.

9:56 pm- omigosh this "stick to the status quo" song is totally adorable. definitely my favorite so far. it reminds me of something from "you're a good man charlie brown."

10:03 pm- i am starting to get very worried. i have a feeling a plan is under foot to tear troy and gabriella apart. i hope they get to sing together.

10:09 pm- "you're not just a guy troy, you're the team leader" *sticks finger down throat*

10:14 pm- chad is so effing cute. i really don't want to hate him. i think he really does have troy's best interests at heart. i hope he eventually learns a valuable lesson and troy forgives him erotically.

10:17 pm- oh nooooo troy. how could you say something so heartless about gabriella?!? i am so disappointed in you. you need to start thinking for yourself and stop letting those jocks control your life. then maybe you can get her to forgive you.

10:20 pm- jesus, this "when there was me and you" song is fucking terrible. the girl who plays gabriella really doesn't sing very well, and she can't support an entire song by herself without zac efron. plus, this song is just whiney and annoying anyway. she needs to stick to duets. p.s. she also kinda sucks as an actress. how did she get this part anyway? the girl that plays taylor should have had her part.

10:29 pm- how come there are a dozen lockerroom scenes in this movie with shirtless boys and none of them include zac efron. i guess there is always high school musical 2. (they better start giving the audience what it wants)

10:35 pm- oh i spoke too soon. *lick*

10:36 pm- i really like kelsi. i hope she has a bigger part in hsm2.

10:37 pm- i also really like everything ryan wears (except for the stupid hats). i think he should have his own clothing like at h&m. i really like the black print shirt he is wearing at his callback audition.

10:43 pm- oh hurrah! everyone loves troy and gabriella. i wish i went to this high school.

10:47 pm- zac efron is truly the undisputed master of the smoldering stare, dethroning the once great luke perry.

10:48 pm- the wildcats won the championship. yippee. who really gives a fuck. wow everything just got tied up really neatly and REALLY quickly

10:49 pm- wtf?!? sharpay is nice now? um, okay.

10:50 pm- okay, so it's over. with the exception of the way-too-quick-obviously-made for-tv ending i thoroughly enjoyed it. one of the cutest movies i have seen in a while. without a doubt they will be showing this at christian lock-ins for decades to come.

this sounds incredible. . .

2007-08-08T19:09:00.000-04:00

(okay, subject heading obviously intended to be taken as sarcastic).

i was randomly surfing imdb and came across this upcoming movie with jack black and mia farrow called be kind, rewind. listen to the description:

"A man (Black) whose brain becomes magnetized unintentionally destroys every tape in his friend's video store. In order to satisfy the store's most loyal renter, an aging woman with signs of dementia, the two men set out to remake the lost films, which include Back to the Future, The Lion King, and Robocop."

okay, granted this is a michel gondry film and he has made some pretty awesome movies like the science of sleep and eternal sunshine, but OH MY DEAR LORD. i don't think i have ever read two sentences that have come out as convoluted as these two.

the film comes out december 21, so please everyone set your crackberries.

poor little miss frida

2007-03-21T09:46:00.000-04:00

well it looks like one of my most looked forward to movies this year is going all to hell. if you didn't see the trailer i posted the other day for julie taymor's new project then you should, because it looks awesome. unfortunately, according to this post on the ew blog, the studio has pretty much cut it to hell in order to make money. i think i am only watching foreign films from now on. here is the AWFUL article:

Beatle battle: We can work it out -- maybe
Mar 20, 2007, 09:01 PM | by Gary Susman

A studio takes a film away from its director, recuts it, and puts out the revised version over the director's objections. It's a story as old as Hollywood, though it's rare that the studio recuts a film behind the director's back. But that's what seems to have happened with Across the Universe, Julie Taymor's Beatles-scored musical starring Evan Rachel Wood (pictured). According to the New York Times, Revolution Studios chief Joe Roth lopped half an hour off of Taymor's 128-minute cut and test-marketed his version, which he believes is more commercial; as a result, Taymor is considering going all Alan Smithee and taking her name off the project.

Now, Roth has the contractual right to recut the film, and he's a director himself, though his movies (Christmas With the Kranks, America's Sweethearts) aren't exactly as acclaimed as Taymor's works (Frida, Broadway's The Lion King). Plus, a shorter cut can play more showings per day. Still, who would you trust more to do right by the movie musical: the woman whose radical reimagining of a Disney movie has been running on Broadway for a decade and spawned nine road-company productions, or the Revolution Studios exec who greenlit xXx: State of the Union and Gigli?

Permalink | Comments (10)

33 movies to look forward to in 2007

2007-03-16T12:52:00.000-04:00

i really enjoyed going to the movies in 2006, and that makes me sad. it seems lately that every other year is a good one for movies. so i don't have too much hope for what's coming out this year. most of the early awards buzz thus far centers on upcoming near-east-centric political dramas which are just not my cup of tea. and plus there is fated to be no more gael, no more gonzález-iñárritu, no more scorsese and no more eastwood. *sigh* still, there are things to look forward to. there will be more julianne moore, more nicole kidman, a new film by alexander payne and a ton of long anticipated sequels and adaptations. here is my list of 33 films to look forward to in 2007:

after a couple decades of more-or-less genre hibernation, the movie musical has been slowly coming back over the past 10 years or so. this year a ton of musicals are slated to be released. i am most looking forward to the musical version of john waters' 1988 film hairspray (20 july). i haven't seen the stage show, but i am a big fan of the film, and photos of john travolta in the divine roll are priceless. one of the most hyped films of 2007 is the new tim burton project, a film version of the musical sweeney todd (december), starring johnny depp. i don't really know the musical, but johnny depp plus tim burton is always a terrific formula. another movie that has been getting a lot of media attention is the sure-to-be-bizarre bob dylan musical biopic i'm not there (21 september). i'm definitely not a dylan fan, but i am a fan of filmmaker todd haynes, and the awesome cate blanchett is just one of the people portraying the musician. another upcoming film i am skeptical but hopeful about is julie taymor's new project across the universe (28 september), a musical about 1960s unrest. even though this film features beatles songs (ugh), it stars evan rachel wood, and that can't be bad. rounding out the slate of sure-to-be bizarre if imaginative musicals is the half live action/half animated disney musical enchanted (21 november), a modern day fairy tale set in manhattan.

another film genre set to get a booster injection this year is the western. two high profile westerns are coming out this year and both look really cool. the assassination of jesse james by the coward robert ford (september) has been being made for what seems like forever, but it is finally coming out in 2007. photos of brad pitt as jesse james are (in a word) dreamy. also hitting theaters is a remake of the 1950s western 3:10 to yuma (5 october). russell crowe and christian bale helm this film about a small town rancher who captures a well known outlaw.

there are quite a few sequels to look forward to in 2007. the most eagerly awaited and sure to be one of the biggest money-makers of the year is third installment in the pirates of the caribbean franchise, at world's end (25 may). seeing as how the film's predecessor ended with a huge cliffhanger, i can't wait to see what happens. another sequel i am looking forward to, even though its predecessor left a hugely bad taste in my mouth is ocean's 13 (8 june). i am really hoping billy ocean and his crew learn from their ego-driven mistakes and make a better film this time around. another looong awaited sequel is the poised-for-awards sequel to elizabeth, the golden age (5 october). i loved the first film and can't wait to see cate blanchett's return to the role.

the horror movie mania of recent years will not end in 2007, and, per usual, there are more horror sequels a'comin'. i am dubious if the franchise can continue its momentum this time around, but the money machine is wasting no time in rolling out saw iv (26 october). i haven't heard much about the plot, but i am curious how the film can really work seeing as how all the characters in the franchise are dead (and it is supposedly not a prequel). the hills have eyes 2 (23 march) is also coming out soon, the sequel to one of the goriest horror movies i have ever seen. more nuclear mutants chowing down on unsuspecting passersby? i for one can't wait. i am really anxious to see what eli roth does in his sequel project hostel part 2 (8 june 2007), considering that at the end of the first installment, pretty much nothing gets resolved. there is so much room for expansion on the über-creepy torture-tourism theme. another horror sequel hoping to cash in on the genre explosion is 28 weeks later (11 may), which will continue to show the effects of the apocalypse. fun!

there is also some new material to look forward to in the thriller/suspense/horror genre. looking like it leans further to the horror end of the spectrum is the upcoming hilary swank flick, the reaping (6 april). the trailer has been playing in theaters for a month or so and the biblical plagues in modern times imagery consistently creeps me out. perhaps lingering somewhere between suspense and horror with a sprinkling of sci-fi is sunshine (15 december), a film about the death of the sun. i love disaster movies, and there haven't been many lately so i am excited for a new one. probably located further to the thriller end of the spectrum is the awards-buzzed film adaptation of the book the kite runner (2 november). its political content is a potential turn off for me, but everyone seems to enjoy the book, so the film seems promising.

2007 is set to be a big year at the movies for fans of victorian lit. two upcoming films will focus on the lives of british writers of the 19th century. brontë (no release date), starring michelle williams as charlotte, tells the story of how the brontë sisters rose to literary prominence. the film also features the ultra-hot jonathan rhys meyers as the brontë's brother branwell (who knew they had a brother?). becoming jane (3 august), is a similarly themed biopic of the life of jane austen which also details the author's rise to fame. it stars anne hathaway in the title role. could this be the film that finally gains her some attention?

2006 will probably be remembered for its breakthroughs in foreign, foreign language and foreign-set films, and several 2007 films will continue in that vein. one film i have been looking forward to for some time is the nebulously themed paris je t'aime (21 july). this film, divided up into 18 shorts named after various paris districts, sports a long list of directors including alfonso cuáron, alexander payne and the coen brothers. it looks like it will be fantastically romantic. one of the most celebrated novels in latin american literature, gabriel garcia márquez' love in the time of cholera (16 november) is coming to the big screen this year, starring javier bardem and catalina sandino moreno. this is also a romantic story about a love triangle set in turn of the century south america. keira knightley is the star of another foreign-set film debuting this year, silk (3 august). this movie, set in 19th century japan, tells the story of a french silkworm smuggler's affair with a japanese concubine.

quite a few of my favorite actresses have films coming out this year giving me a lot to look forward to in that department. nicole kidman has had a quiet past year, but she has a big movie coming out this year, his dark materials: the golden compass (7 december). this is a futuristic sci fi fantasy film about a young girl who travels the world saving kidnapped children from medical experimentation. scarlett johansson has two high profile films coming out. first, the nanny diaries (20 april) is a comedy about a recent college graduate dealing with a new job as a nanny, a difficult boss and her increasingly fractured personal life. (hm, plot sound familiar?) also, johansson stars in the other boleyn girl (26 october), her latest film in which she is doomed to be considered and then disappointed come awards season. johansson stars with natalie portman (anne boleyn) as two sisters vying for the attention of henry viii. jennifer connelly's newest movie is already getting best picture buzz, the drama reservation road (9 november). this movie details the relationship between two families after one man kills the child of another in a car accident. one of my newer fave actresses, ellen page, has a really cool looking movie coming out this year where she appears opposite catherine keener, an american crime (17 august). in this true story, page plays a girl who was locked up for months in a basement in the 1960s by her mother, keener.

some of my fave filmmakers are also coming out with new projects this year. if you haven't seen the trailer for the new quentin tarantino movie grindhouse (6 april), you can't miss it. tarantino's newest project looks ultra-avant garde, a double feature about sex and violence at the movies featuring, among other things, rose mcgowan with a machine gun for a prosthetic leg. alexander payne also has a new movie coming out this year, i now pronounce you chuck and larry (20 july). even though its content seems questionable, the story of two straight men who get married in order to receive domestic partner benefits at work, it is after all an alexander payne film, so i am hopeful. sean penn is taking his turn at movie direction, helming the film version of one of my all time favorite books: jon krakauer's into the wild (21 september). i can't wait to see what penn does with this story about a boy who goes off into the alaskan wilderness to discover himself.

georgia rule (11 may) has been getting a lot of media attention, not for the film itself but rather for the onsite antics of star lindsay lohan. but the movie does have a pretty stellar cast including felicity huffman and jane fonda and the trailer looks really promising. similarly chapter 27 (no release date) which just recently had its debut at sundance, has gotten a lot of attention for its eye makeup-obsessed star jared leto and his alleged self-obsession. but the film itself, the story of mark david chapman's assassination of john lennon has gotten decent reviews and looks to be, at least, interesting.

probably the most hyped movie of 2007 is the simpsons movie (27 july). this movie is poised, i think, to make more money than any other this year. who isn't going to want to go watch this? worldwide, i think it will have an awesome audience. however, this also means that fans have super high expectations. so if the film is anything less than brilliant, it will be a huge disappointment. we'll see.

après les oscars

2007-03-02T21:40:00.000-05:00

i don't know who produces the academy awards, but i think they might have down syndrome. and i don't even think it is like cute corky-from-life-goes-on down syndrome, but it is like full blown swedish chef level mental retardation. i mean what else could possibly explain someone saying-- hey, you know what this awards ceremony needs. . . interpretive dancers! then you have the endless inane montages. what the hell does that mean anyway? it's like, hey here are a bunch of movies from the past that have nothing to do with one another. . . enjoy. none of this boring pointlessness would have mattered much to me except for two things:

#1 the producer feels the need to play almost every single winner off stage, but she still has time to show a bunch of lame dancers making penguins out of themselves?!? HEY PRODUCER BITCH. people actually like hearing the award winners' speeches. NOBODY likes interpretive dancers.

#2 four effing hours.

on the good side, ellen was a pretty good host more or less. i guess after the past two years the hosts (chris rock and john stewart) have set the bar pretty low, so i wasn't expecting much to start with. even though ellen wasn't all that funny, she was really nice, which i liked. i don't understand why the hosts always have to take digs at people in the audience. it is just mean spirited especially in light of the situation. ellen didn't do that, so i enjoyed her if only for that reason. (plus, personally, i just think she is a really great person, so i am happy for her).

as for the awards themselves, (you mean they actually give out awards there?!?) there weren't a whole lot of surprises-- good or bad. alan arkin beat out eddie murphy for supporting actor which gave me a little pleasure. not that i actually was rooting for alan arkin or anything, but i was happy to see eddie murphy lose. what a tool. the biggest disappointment was probably pan's labyrinth losing best foreign film to some stupid movie from germany that nobody has ever even seen. i don't know how they vote for foreign film, but they really need to fix it. it seems the wrong movie ALWAYS wins that category.

and then there is cinematography. don't get me wrong, the camera work in pan's was pretty good, but how could those amazing shots from children of men not impress the voters? i am in awe about it.

as for the best moment of the night, i will have to go with john on this one. i couldn't have been happier to see melissa etheridge win the best song category. first of all, her song was simply the best-- hands down. but to see her kiss her wife when they announced her name and then thank her on the stage was really cool. for one brief moment, late at night, after several glasses of wine, i wished i was a lesbian.

p.s. out of the 12 awards i predicted, i got 9 right which i think was pretty decent. *yea* for me

My Oscar Fave

2007-02-27T08:09:00.000-05:00

I know I do not post on here often, but I wanted to share my favorite moment of the Oscars:

When Melissa Etheridge won her Oscar -AND- kissed her wife before accepting! I really respect Melissa Etheridge for being out and proud in an industry with so many closet cases and former closet cases (cough, Rosie O'Doughnuts, cough). She and her wife were glowing and happy and it was great to see it.

I am also very happy to see "An Inconvenient Truth" getting a lot of positive buzz (I know Luke and I may not see eye-to-eye on this). I also with that it would prod Al Gore into running again in 2008. If we had leadership that gave a shit about the environment instead of blowing up every country in the middle east, maybe we would have a beautiful place for our descendants to live. But that's getting political, and this is not the time nor is it the place for that . . . ;)

who will win (and who should win) tonight

2007-02-25T15:17:00.000-05:00

so who's excited for the big game tonight? although i know i am inevitably going to be disappointed as i watch jennifer hudson ramble on inarticulately about how this award has inducted her into some sort of community or whatever i am still looking forward to the proceedings (and holding out hope that some surprises will creep up and keep the night interesting and **me hoping** hudson-free). here are my choices and final predix:

supporting actor:
will win. . . eddie murphy has been getting most of the buzz lately for his turn as a heroine-addicted motown singer in dreamgirls, but i am going to go out on a limb and say i think he will go home empty-handed tonight. too many people don't like him personally. i am picking alan arkin as the heroine addicted grandpa in little miss sunshine.
should win. . . well, of the five nominees, i will be rooting for jackie earl haley from little children. not only did he gave a crazy-scary performance, but he is a cool comeback story as well, and i am happy for him. still, the person who should win the best supporting actor oscar won't go home with it tonight: jack nicholson in the departed.
my five. . . jackie earl haley, djimon honsou, eddie murphy, jack nicholson and michael sheen (the queen).

supporting actress:
will win. . . as much as i hope it doesn't happen jennifer hudson is definitely going to win this just because people are looking forward to her weepy acceptance speech. although i didn't necessarily dislike her in dreamgirls, she didn't do a whole lot of acting. plus i am not really a fan of her personally, especially some negative things she has said about the gays.
should win. . . adriana barraza. she gives the single best performance of the year. period. watching babel again yesterday, i was even more touched by the emotional plea she offers the border patrol agent at the end of the film. i hate to tell academy members how to do their job but THIS is acting!
my five. . . adriana barraza, rinko kikuchi, cate blanchett (notes on a scandal), meryl streep (the devil wears prada) and catherine o'hara (for your consideration).

actor:
will win. . . i am torn about this one and not very well informed, since i have only seen two of the five films that have nominated actors. most people are predicting forrest whitaker who plays idi amin in the last king of scotland (which i haven't seen). but i wouldn't at all be surprised if peter o'toole wins for venus (which i also haven't seen), since this will probably be his last chance for a non-honorary award. still, my pick is whitaker.
should win. . . with the above-stated caveat in mind, i think leonardo dicaprio should win this category. the question is for which film? i think his acting is superior in blood diamond as opposed to his smaller role in the departed. but with two great performances this year, i definitely think the award should go to leo.
my five. . . leonardo dicaprio (blood diamond), leonardo dicaprio (the departed), will smith, patrick wilson (little children) and matt damon (the good shepherd).

actress:
will win. . . helen mirren has won every single precursor award to the oscars. not a single one of the other nominees has beat her thus far. so it would be absolutely crazy if she didn't win tonight. still, this is probably the acting category with the best collection of performances, and it is a hard pick for me.
should win. . . mirren is dead on in her portrayal of queen elizabeth, no doubt. but, for me, it just isn't as exciting a performance as some of the other nominees. my pick is kate winslet for little children. besides being one of my favorite actresses as well as the fact that she keeps losing these things, she is just great in this movie. for someone who has had so many memorable roles in her short career, it is amazing how she just melts into this character and makes you forget about all of the other ones. it is a nuanced and, most importantly, exciting performance.
my five. . . kate winslet, helen mirren, dame judi, ellen page (hard candy) and ivana baquero (pan's labyrinth).

director:
will win. . . this one is scorsese's to lose, although i don't think anyone would be necessarily surprised if he did lose it. honestly, i think that if and when scorsese wins the oscar for the departed, it isn't as much for this movie as it is for his entire body of work. and, if this is the case, he certainly deserves it.
should win. . . like the supporting actor category, i don't think the person who truly deserves to win this is one of the nominated five. of the five possibilities tonight, i go back and forth between gonzález-iñárritu and clint eastwood, and i would be satisfied if either one was crowned winner. however, the director who i think really deserves to win is alfonso cuáron, filmmaker behind children of men.
my five. . . alfonso cuáron, clint eastwood, alejandro gonzález-iñárritu, martin scorsese and guillermo del toro (pan's labyrinth).

film:
will win. . . it's weird that, this year, best picture seems to be the only category that noone is able or willing to predict. i guess that part of this is fallout from last year's crash upset as well as the dreamgirls nomination upset. the only one of the five nominated films that definitely won't win is the queen. i am picking babel to win. it has a huge cast, people in the industry seem to like it, and it won the golden globe.
should win. . . my pick for best pic hasn't changed all oscar season. i loved babel. there really isn't a single bad thing i can say about it, and i have tried to think of something. this is a hard year to pick a favorite, but i have settled on this movie as mine. HOWEVER, just seeing letters from iwo jima last night for the first time, it was fucking AMAZING. i think that if more people in the academy actually saw it, it could be crowned winner tonight, and it would definitely deserve it.
my five. . . babel, letters from iwo jima, blood diamond, little children and pan's labyrinth.

other categories:
original screenplay. . . if little miss sunshine doesn't win best pic (which i don't think it will, despite the buzz) it will probably win here. my pic here would be babel.
adapted screenplay. . . little children, little children, little children! this is such an intelligently written film, the best of the year. but, the departed will definitely win. (i am confounded).
score. . . nobody has mentioned it all awards season, but i was really impressed by the score to pirates of the caribbean: dmc. it might have been my favorite all year. i predict that the score to babel will win the category. of the five, my choice would be the queen.
song. . . my pic would be melissa etheridge's "i need to wake up," from an incovenient truth it is really the only song of the five that i like, so it isn't a hard choice. the fugnasty song "listen" from dreamgirls will win this though. (once again, i am confounded).
cinematography. . . in 20 years i think that one of the things that this year will be remembered for at the movies is the camerawork behind children of men. nothing would upset me more than this movie not winning the cinematography category tonight.
costumes and makeup. . . the costume category is going to be a pretty contentious one i think. marie antoinette, the devil wears prada and dreamgirls are all deserving. my prediction and personal fave would be marie antoinette. makeup should be more open and shut: pan's labyrinth.
documentary. . . an inconvenient truth will win this category. even though i haven't seen the other nominees, i am dubious as to whether truth really deserves the award. even though i enjoyed the movie, my pic would be any of the other five.

you like eating red carpet, tough guy? say you like eating red carpet

2007-02-24T13:33:00.001-05:00

10:45am:
good morning! Menonfilm is going mobile today while we attend the best picture movie marathon at potomac mills in woodbridge, va. I can promise joan rivers will NOT be making an appearance on our blog today :-)

1:30p.m.:
We are live on location in potomac mills. We just saw Babel (johns pick so far for best picture). Luke is enjoying his free popcorn and collectable pass. This is a really cool idea and i hope they do it again next year! We are getting ready to play movie trivia during our fifteen minute break. The AMC employee is way super over excited about this.

1:35p.m.:
Luke thinks it is because she gets to use the cool wireless microphone :)

my top 10 of 2006

2007-02-23T21:11:00.000-05:00

it is so much harder to choose the ten best movies this year then it was in 2005. really there were only two or three movies that came out last year that i think really deserve any mention, but there are at least 15 movies that came out this year that i really enjoyed. nevertheless, i narrowed it down to my ten faves and here they are:

10. strangers with candy. . . forget little miss sunshine. i really think this was the best comedy of 2006. i was so glad that one of my all time favorite tvs shows got resurrected this year (and especially that almost all of the actors from the show returned). amy sedaris is without a doubt one of the funniest women alive. watch any of her letterman appearances on youtube (like this one) and you will be on the floor. for anyone who loved the show, this movie couldn't have disappointed you. if you saw this movie and didn't like it then i don't want to be your friend anymore.

9. i'm going to tell you a secret. . . i suppose most people wouldn't give this movie a second thought, but i thought it was really entertaining and, at times, insightful. madonna's second documentary has little in common with her first, truth or dare, but that is actually good. it paints a picture of madonna's personality that fans haven't seen before. i actually think that you don't have to be a madonnaphile to enjoy igttyas though. anyone who likes music documentaries would probably be interested in the filmmaking here. the opening sequence of madonna dancing to the beast within mix of "justify my love" alone is enough reason to see this film.

8. notes on a scandal. . . cate blanchett is certainly the actress of the year 2006. she seems to have been in just about everything. but watching her beat up dame judi dench in notes on a scandal was probably her high point for me. scandal is one of those movies that really rises above its plot. the story is simple. but it is written so creatively, and its two lead actresses are so captivating that i was actually surprised by what should have been predictable events. this year has really proven that the best movies being made nowadays are not being made in hollywood. i can just imagine what a u.s.-american filmmaker would have done to this story (and it's not pretty).

7. little children. . . director todd field is my discovery of the year. after watching little children, field's second film, i went out and bought his first, in the bedroom. i can't believe i missed this when it came out 2001. field tells stories about suburban u.s. ennui better than anyone else. i think that little children was really the best written film of 2006. it is smart, creative, nuanced and thought-provoking. it didn't hurt him either that he got two of my favorite actresses, kate winslet and jennifer connelly, to play the lead female roles (alongside patrick wilson, who is rapidly becoming one of my favorite actors as well). if you like todd solondz or lars von trier or other directors making movies about the fractured "american dream," then i think you will really this.

6. a prairie home companion. . . the more i watch this movie the more i like it. i fell in love with garrison keillor on the radio during the summers i spent in new hampshire as an undergrad. this movie really captured the comic spirit of the show, but mixed it with something much more profound. this film really has very little plot, but, more or less, i think i would characterize it as a non-dark comedy about death (if that is possible). it sort of defies genre. it chronicles the ways different cast members of the radio program "a prairie home companion" deal with the death of a castmate as well as the demise of their program. it is touching and sad, but filled with these hysterical moments that make the sadness bearable. the irony of this being robert altman's last film is dumbfounding.

5. blood diamond. . . if cate blanchett is the actress of 2006, then leo dicaprio probably deserves the actor title. i think the academy got it right by nominating him for this role rather than his turn in the departed though. it is maybe the best performance he has ever given. but it isn't just dicaprio that makes this film great. it is a terrific story, not just about civil war and the illegal diamond trade, but about journalism, international politics, academia, race, class, gender, language. . . it goes on and on. i think students in the social sciences should really watch this before doing any sort of field work. it shows how complicated the role is of the u.s. intellectual overseas, and it does it without providing any clooney-esque easy answers.

4. babel. . . gonzález-iñárritu leads a pack of great mexican filmmakers this year. (and even though i agree with him that the mexican film industry has been sharing great works with the rest of the world for generations, i am glad that, 2006 has finally brough mexican films to national prominence in the u.s.) babel follows in the tradition of gonzález-iñárritu's other works amores perros and 21 grams. in some ways, i think babel could actually be watched as a sort of sequel to these movies. it builds on themes he has worked with previously, but he approaches them in new and exciting ways. this movie is really gripping and i can't wait to see what he does next.

3. manderlay. . . okay, okay, i know that this movie is maybe, technically, actually a 2005 movie (that's where it came out every place else in the world other than the u.s.), but since i saw it this year i am classifying it under 2006. manderlay is the latest film in lars von trier's "u.s.a.: land of opportunities" trilogy that began in 2003 with dogville. it is, as usual for von trier, provocative and controversial. i stand by my argument that even though he is danish, lars von trier makes the most insightful movies about the u.s. you will watch this movie and think, that is true, that is true, that is true. he communicates things in a way that you have never thought of it before. manderlay left me feeling a little ashamed but at least a little more informed as well.

2. hard candy. . . i put this movie on over christmas break and i do not lie that i watched the entire thing standing up. i couldn't sit down, i was so shocked and energized. i ended up watching it three times in one week. the bulk of hard candy is simply two actors, patrick wilson and the AMAZING ellen page debating about relationships between teenagers and adults. at times the viewer feels sympathy for both characters in this story, but, in the end, the movie doesn't really provide any winners. the movie just sort of leaves you feeling that the new millenium is an era of sexual sickness, and nobody is escaping it. (just a word of caution, this movie gave me some of the worst nightmares i have ever had. but watch it anyway!)

1. the da vinci code. . . was there any doubt? the code has quickly joined john and i's high rotation viewing list alongside twister, showgirls, drop dead gorgeous and erin brockovich. this is a rare eminently viewable, immensely entertaining movie that is also an intelligent, well crafted film. ron howard managed to do what very few filmmakers have: he took a book and he improved upon it on screen. i just don't understand why critics dissed this movie. it was unfair. other than tom hanks' questionable leading performance i don't have much to criticize about it. people called it shallow? the greatest coverup in human history?1? people called it boring? a story about events that could change the face of the earth?!? i could watch this over and over again (and i have). it is the best movie of the year.

it's a small (violent) world after all

2007-02-21T00:38:00.000-05:00

i don't really know what to make of it, but it seems that every year one major theme emerges that is central to the majority of awards-nominated films. two years ago there was a whole crop of films dealing with gender and health (e.g. the aviator, million dollar baby, finding neverland, hotel rwanda, vera drake and kinsey). last year, i wrote this post about all of the films that came out focusing on the national and worldwide problems caused by the u.s. (e.g. syriana, good night and good luck, munich, memoirs of a geisha, etc).

this year, the prominence of hispanic (and especially mexican) filmmakers and actors is one thing that has united quite a few films. alfonso cuarón is nominated for his second screenplay oscar for children of men. he will be competing against fellow mexican guillermo del toro who wrote pan's labyrinth. alejandro gonzález iñárritu made the best pic-nominated babel. also, spain's almodovar released this year his latest volver. the film's lead actress penelope cruz is nominated for best actress. *yea spanish speakers!*

still, it seems to me that there is another theme that has been especially popular among the filmmakers of '06. there have been an abundance of films focusing on violence across the globe. in general, awards-nominated films this year have been, i think, more violent than usual. this year has definitely been one to remember for those (like me) who love dark, depressing movies about death, war and depraved sexuality. *hurrah* here are some movies you might want to check out if you're into world travel and also really bloody violent scenes.

blood diamond. . . this was like the first movie i saw this oscar season back in november, which is totally appropriate since it is maybe the most violent of the pack. it deals with a 1990s revolution in sierra leone and the enslavement of children for use as soldiers by the guerrilla leaders. i will never shop for engagement rings the same way again!

the departed. . . this movie had the most per capita deaths of any i saw this year. i am still trying to figure out how they are going to make a sequel out of a film in which every single character is killed but one. there are beatings, stabbings, shootings, arm breakings and a whole panoply of violent outbreaks. and, in between deaths, you get to have a nice filmic tour of the ghettos of boston. (i'm thinking road trip!)

children of men. . . the apocalypse isn't looking very pretty. in 2027, the only place on earth that isn't in total chaos is britain, and that isn't looking too stable either. this movie involves two of the coolest shoot-em-up scenes ever. cuáron uses a single camera, single shot method (never done before, mind you) to film various battles between a group of terrorists and the film's protagonist. the violence in this movie is totally horrific, but you can't take your eyes away.

notes on a scandal. . . also in britain, cate blanchett and dame judi dench tearing at eachother's faces and slamming eachother into walls. so cool.

pan's labyrinth. . . i read an article recently that a lot of parents have been taking their young children to see this movie thinking it was a fantasy flick like the lion, the witch and the wardrobe. in the first few minutes of this film about the spanish civil war, captain vidal shoots one man and then bludgeons another to death with the butt of his revolver. the rest of the film doesn't get a lot more fun. if your kids like movies about the torturing and killing of women and children then this is definitely for them. otherwise, stick with the santa clause 8 or whatever.

letters from iwo jima and flags of our fathers. . . dueling historical epics about the wwii battle at iwo jima.

hard candy and little children. . . (both starring patrick wilson, mind you). each of these movies, both taking place in suburbs, deals with sexual depravity and, believe it or not, each culminates in a castration. patrick wilson, this year it might be time for a romantic comedy opposite renee zellweger. just thinking.

babel. . . this film deals with violence on three continents. in the desert between california and mexico, adriana barraza and gael try to save two small children as the evade/search for la migra. in morocco, brad pitt strives to save cate blanchett who lies in a pool of blood for two and a half hours. in japan, rinko kikuchi tries to deal with the suicide of her mother while, perhaps, contemplating her own death. and the whole movie centers around a gun.

then there is the da vinci code, the queen, the last king of scotland, and the 9/11 movies. all violent. all international.

if little miss sunshine happens to win the best pic award on sunday, i honestly think it will have little to do with the film itself, but will rather reflect academy voters being tired of all the violence and throwing their support at the only funny, lighthearted flick in the bunch. (but wouldn't it be sad for a year that has birthed so many awesome, disturbing, blood-soaked movies to be remembered for one silly flick in which the most memorable scene is a girl dancing in a leotard. no. no. no.)

it's oscar week y'all

2007-02-18T17:39:00.000-05:00

i really like movies. going to the movies is probably my fave pasttime. i do it at least a couple times a week usually. but, at the same time, i only like good movies. it is very difficult for me to sit through a 90 minute movie in which ben stiller and jack black fight ninja robots while their girlfriends try to teach them a valuable lesson about sex and love by exchanging their lubricant with chili oil or some crap like that. and seeing as how, nine out of ten movies that are released in any given year fall under this general genre, sometimes it is hard to find good movies to go see.

i have really been enjoying going to the movies over the past two or three months, because there have been so many things in the theaters that i really wanted to see. actually, there were at least 5 or 6 movies this winter that i have been dying to go see that i just couldn't find time to get out for (e.g. marie antoinette, science of sleep, for your consideration, shortbus, the last king of scotland, running with scissors, flags of our fathers). but i have managed to get out and see probably a couple dozen movies this winter, and i really haven't had a bad time yet. 2006 in general, i think was just a great year at the movies.

anyways, this is why oscar week is a little bit bittersweet for me this year. on one hand, i am looking forward to this upcoming weekend. john and i are going to the amc oscar movies marathon all day on saturday which i am sure will be super fun. and i am excited to watch the ceremony on sunday. but this week also marks the end of good movies and the beginning of the spring (and then *shudder* summer movie seasons) when i will once again have to scour moviefone to find something at least not totally reprehensible to go catch at the theater. oh well, at least i have all the oscar-nominated movie dvds that have started coming out over the past couple weeks. (and, of course, showgirls).

in any case, i am looking forward to writing posts this week on the oscar nominees, my top 10 list for this year, and more reviews of nominated films and stuff. so keep reading and let me know what you liked this year too.