Monday, March 30, 2009

Duplicity

Here’s my problem with the majority of contemporary, big budget Hollywood movies: by the end, there is little to no mystery left. But, as a majority, American filmgoers don’t want to think. They want to go to a film, sit down, be entertained for two hours, then go on with the rest of their day.

Then there’s the other filmgoer. The type that wants to see a movie that asks questions, pushes limits and makes us think. A good movie can smoothly blend both of these elements (i.e. Slumdog Millionaire). But for the most part there is a specific divide in American film: the entertainer, and the thinker.

Tony Gilroy’s first film as a director, Michael Clayton was one of the few films to successfully mesh the two together, which cannot be said for his latest, Duplicity.

I had such high hopes for this film. Even the first hour or so is great. Two ex-spies fall for each other and form a plan to rip off two competing cosmetics companies. Their plan is intricate and unique, not to mention a blast to watch. But the joy of the film is in its flashbacks. It’s a real treat to witness Julia Roberts and Clive Owen partake in lavish trysts in exotic locations such as Dubai, Miami and Rome. The two flirt, trick and amuse one another in a way that is deliciously sexy.

But as the story begins to unfold, most of the surprises are discovered all too early. By the end of the film, there is hardly any mystery left at all, everything is sugarcoated so that the average Joe will get it. So I ask: where’s the mystery? Years from now, I’ll be having a conversation with someone and they’ll ask:

“Hey remember that movie with Julia Roberts and Clive Owen?”
“Yeah, Closer, that’s a great film.”
“No, no the one where they try to trip those people off.”
“Umm… oh yeah kind of, but not really.”

My point is that films that make you think, stay with you. When every single plot element is delivered with a nice little bow, the audience will forget about the film minutes after they leave. Duplicity can be great fun at times, and it isn’t too hard on the eyes either, given Robert Elswit’s brilliant cinematography (he won an Oscar for There Will Be Blood). But it doesn’t have an ounce of staying power. Which really is a shame. C+

Knowing

Honestly, the only reason I saw this film was because of Roger Ebert’s four star review, and his boasting of the film as “one of the very best science fiction films I’ve ever seen.” Having read that, it can’t be that bad, right?

Well, yes and no. While Knowing isn’t as awful as some of Nicolas Cage’s recent films (Bangkok Dangerous, Next or The Wicker Man?), it doesn’t stand out among great films of the genre either.

Fifty years ago, students from an elementary school were asked to make a drawing that will be put into a time capsule and opened five decades later. One creepy little girl scribbles numbers on her piece of paper. Fifty years later the capsule is unveiled and each student gets one piece of paper. Nicolas Cage’s son just happens to get the numbered paper. Coincidence?

That will prove to be the entire point of the film. Do things happen for a reason (determinism) or does “shit just happen” as Cage says to his MIT pupils. It doesn’t take long for Cage to find a pattern in the numbers that relates to 9/11 and in one long night he manages to pick apart every number on the sheet. Basically, each set of numbers describes a major disaster in the world over the past 50 years. The date first, then the amount of people that died. Problem is, a few sets predict that there are some more disasters to come.

It’s a gimmicky concept, one that I was willing to go along with. And as things started to get stranger with the appearance of several trench coat wearing, blonde haired, pale skinned, creepers in the night, I was kind of digging it. Then come the effects. We get to witness two very cool, very awesome disaster sequences (one involving a plane, the other a metro car) that are incredibly thrilling. Director Alex Proyas uses long, albeit CGI, camera shots to show the aftermath of brutality. It pays off.

The main problem here is Cage. When you look at his career, it’s astonishing how many times he’s gone up and down. He delivered a revelatory, Oscar winning performance in Leaving Las Vegas which remains the most accurate portrayal of alcoholism I’ve seen in film. We’ve seen him brilliant in a duel role in Adaptation., good in Matchstick Men, The Weather Man, and World Trade Center, decent in some earlier action roles like The Rock and Face/Off, then just downright awful in his latest slew of action garbage. It appears he likes to cash big checks more than delivering solid performances. His role in this film is extremely unconvincing (very poor written dialogue doesn’t help), but even the likes of Rose Byrne (a terrific, underrated actress) can’t step Cage’s game up.

So, is Knowing worth seeing? Sure. The concept is decent, the action sequences are badass, and I promise you’ll enjoy the end. One of the last shots in the film is a sweeping view of New York City as you’ve never seen. It’s worth the price of admission. B-

Note: One of Cage’s next roles is in Werner Herzog’s new film, Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans, and I’m rooting for a good Cage performance, I really am.

The Last House on the Left

Here’s my problem with the majority of contemporary, big budget Hollywood horror movies: they go for too much snuff, too much gore, just too… much. Note to future filmmakers: when you stab a person in the heart with a very large kitchen knife, they will die. They will not get up and fight back for four more minutes. They will fall to the ground and die. Got it?

In 1972 Wes Craven made his first feature, a grotesque exploitation flick ripped off from Ingmar Bergman’s The Virgin Spring mixed in with a little bit of Charles Manson sadomasochism. It isn’t a well made film, but I respect it. For its shoe-string budget, and mostly limited gore.
Flash forward to present day and we get a god-awful adaptation of Craven’s film. Now with a much higher budget to increase the gore and ridiculousness. Despite a solid, yet misplaced, cast this Last House on the Left is a real dud.

The whole point of Bergman’s film was to propose an ultimate dilemma: is it okay to kill people that have just viciously raped and murdered your daughter? The father in that film thinks yes, but with hesitations. Once the deed is done, he begs God for forgiveness, not knowing if he will be able to atone for his actions.

Here, and in Craven’s flick, the parents actually seem to be enjoying their revenge. Monica Potter and Tony Goldwyn, as the parents, have few reservations about mutilating these guys into oblivion. Which, for a doctor and is teacher wife, isn’t very believable.

After an escaped convict, his brother and his girlfriend, kidnap, kill and rape two girls, they wind up at the house of one of the girls they just assaulted. It doesn’t take long for things to click into place and hell to ensue. The brutality of the murders and rape of the girls is shown in such a gruesome, tasteless manner that a few people walked out of the theatre. But I get the point, the director wants it to be awful, so he can justify what the parents do later.

I recommend pondering that dilemma after watching Bergman’s classic film. Because after a viewing of Last House on the Left, you just won’t care.

I wonder if the director’s of these torture porn films actually sit and watch their films with a live audience. Don’t they understand that the scary stuff is what we don’t see coming, the things lurking behind the corner. The moments where our minds play tricks on us. It isn’t scary to see a man get his hand stuck in a garbage disposal, or to see a naked woman get shot in the head. That’s just pointless gore. As pointless as this film. D-

I Love You, Man

Judd Apatow has had something to do with most major comedies since his 40-Year-Old Virgin was released it 2005. Which is interesting given that I Love You, Man is a great comedy that Apatow had absolutely nothing to do with.

I Love You, Man is a prototype of a film in the Apatow era. Paul Rudd, in his best comedy performance to date, thankfully deviates from his rambling smartass to give us Peter; a sweet, sensitive guy happily devoted to his finance, Zooey (Rashida Jones).

But a problem soon emerges: Peter has no male friends to speak of, no best man to accompany him at the alter. Cue the man-date montage. After several hilarious occasions with a variety of losers (some gay, some squeaky voiced), he finds Sydney (Jason Segel). Sydney waffles through life with a carefree air. He’s Peter’s polar opposite. The two bond over tacos and beer, a fascination with the band Rush, and other amusing male pastimes. Of course, second act problems ensue, but they play runner-up to the smart humor.

Plot for these movies isn’t really the point, right? You care more about the cheeky one-liners and fart jokes (of which there are a few). So don’t worry, I Love You, Man is full of subtle comedy, and (big shocker) it’s fun for you and your date.

Criticism for Apatow’s comedies is usually that they are crude and chauvinistic. Basically, the male counter point to the chick-flick. I Love You, Man couldn’t be more different. Sure, the male buddy film won’t immediately attract females, but this is the perfect date movie. Most women will find it easy to relate to Peter. Also, the supporting female characters are written rather well. Jamie Pressly, as Zooey’s best friend, is fantastic. Her riffs with her husband (played with brute force by Jon Favreau) are the film’s comedic highlights.

Other supporting bits include hilarious turns by J.K. Simmons, Andy Samberg and Lou “The Hulk” Ferrigno. So if you want to ditch the raunch and get a solid does of intelligent humor, I Love You, Man will work for you. B

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

The Class

My oh my, how American films could take a note from the French. This Oscar-nominated wonder has no drastic revelation in teaching dangerous minds, nor does it transform the poor kids from thugs to freedom writers, and it sure as hell doesn’t have dead poets standing on top of desks. Simply put: The Class is the best classroom film I’ve ever seen.

A few years ago, François Bégaudeau wrote an autobiographical novel based on his time as a middle school French teacher in a suburb outside of Paris. Now, Bégaudeau essentially plays himself in director Laurent Cantent’s brilliant film.

The Class plays like a documentary, which is a testament to its genuine “fly-on-the-wall” feel. As another year begins, François Marin (Bégaudeau) prepares himself for a new patch of little hellions. Throughout the film, we follow one class through its ups and downs. A believe me, you’re in for an emotional rollercoaster.

One of the great things I first liked about the film was how Marin was presented. He’s a noble teacher with a few years under his belt, he tries hard to teach things he clearly thinks aren’t necessary, but he’s far from a saint. Much of the movie shows how his frustration (and his fellow colleagues) can sometimes get the better of him. Whether it’s a sneer or a nasty remark, Marin isn’t immune of being annoyed.

As for the kids, they are a revelation in film acting. During the credits, I found out the most of the character’s names matched that of the real actor. So my first assumption was that these kids were playing exaggerated versions of themselves. I was wrong. They are all professional and rather remarkable actors. They’re never over the top, never unreal, but rather, totally authentic.

All of the film takes place within the school, and the majority of the scenes are constructed in Marin’s classroom. But as the extended classroom discussions continue, you’re never bored. The razor sharp dialogue, along with some incredible camera work, make you feel like you’re just another student.

There’s not enough time to get into each individual character, or to talk about the problems they incur, but each highlighted character is presented wonderfully. When they get their moment to shine, it is never overstated, it’s just simply real. Most people will enjoy the teachings Marin tries to embed in his pupils’ heads. Not for their scholastic merit, but because of how silly they seem. I couldn’t agree with Roger Ebert more, who in his review of the film said, “I never learned to diagram a sentence, yet I have made my living by writing and speaking. You learn a language by listening and speaking. You learn how to write by reading. It's not an abstraction.”

The Class has purpose. It makes you think on a few different points, all while being unrelentingly enjoyable. It justly won the Palme d’Or at the 2008 Cannes Film Festival, which leaves just one question. I’ve now seen Waltz with Bashir and The Class, both of which were heavily favored to win the Oscar last month for best foreign film. But in the night’s biggest upset, a movie no one ever heard of stole the prize. So the question is: what the hell is this Departures movie? As for The Class: A+

Gomorra

Gomorra is unlike anything I’ve ever seen. Imagine starting a book 20 pages in, or picking up on a TV show during its second season, or coming into a conversation a few minutes late… that’s Gomorra. It’s been tried before, giving a film such a rugged authenticity that the audience has to compete to catch up, and it usually falters. However, director Matteo Garrone’s bold experiment soars cinematic wonders.

It’s true, though, trying to figure out just what the hell is going on isn’t very easy. After the film opens with a very Sopranos-friendly bang, we’re stuck right in the middle of the Italian mob underworld. But Scarface this is not. Gomorra presents the nitty gritty of a deeply unglamorous way of life.

The film plays like an extended one act film. There’s never any conflict or resolution. The characters live in a constant state of conflict and resolve what little they can as they go. There’s the simple money-man who delivers funds to widows of mob men. The middle-man boss who does the grunt work, the two vigilante kids who want to rule the world a la Tony Montana, the kid who tries not to get sucked in, and round and round.

Garrone isn’t interested in giving you backstories or explanations, he literally dumps you right in the middle of the modernly grotesque apartment structure where all the dirty deeds go down.
Once you settle in and catch up as best you can, you’re in for one hell of a wild ride. Unlike most American mob films, the violence in this Italian gem is never glamorized, even if a few of the characters try to make it look fun. Garrone understands their desire, which leads to their pathetic attempt to be gangsters.

This is a film that could benefit from multiple viewings. Knowing what to expect will eliminate some of the initial confusion. But even on the first time around, it’s impossible not to be shook.

I appreciated the film much more after I learned that it is based on a factual book written by a man who got as close as he could to the real Gomorra, took a lot of notes, and got the hell out of town. After he published the book, the Gomorra put a price on his head, which still remains. I hope he’s careful, or he may end up in the bucket of a bulldozer, riding off into the sunset. A

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Watchmen

It’s rare for a fantasy film to grab me. There are exceptions, of course. The Dark Knight was a remarkable film for various reasons. Iron Man was entertaining as hell. And there are others, but that’s another story. The point is that although I don’t typically enjoy these films, I do give them a fair chance.

Having said that, I thought Watchmen was garbage. Long, boring and completely self indulgent. When the film ended, I didn’t devote one thought to what I had seen, instead I wished there was a way to get my near three hours back.

A friend summed up the movie well: when it’s on, it’s on; and when it’s off, it’s way off. That’s true. At its best, Watchmen is a pulse pounding, eyebrow raising spectacle. Its credit sequence is like nothing I’ve ever seen, re-writing history as it sees fit. Unfortunately, the film never lives up to that opening promise.

The movie, based on the beloved graphic novel that has reached über-cult status, is about a band of underappreciated superheroes who may or may not be getting picked off by some vengeful maniac. They live in 1985 America, Nixon is on his fifth term, and the Cuban Missile Crisis is a hair trigger away from jumping off.

As the characters are introduced, we discover that they have no supernatural powers, except Dr. Manhattan, who can pretty much do anything imaginable. All the other Watchmen just dress up in tacky costumes and when it is time, they kick some serious ass. But where does this ass kicking come from? We’ve seen no training, no working out, no nothing. A dorky, overweight scientist and a small hottie somehow manage to take down eight weapon-totting thugs? Huh?

The acting is so bad that most of the audience laughed at times that were meant to be serious. Jackie Earle Harley (brilliant in Little Children) is pretty convincing as Rorschach, a badass little psycho who can take anyone down. But what’s with the mask? I get the joke… the shifting ink blots that run over his face resemble that of a psychological Rorschach test, but how are the ink blots moving like that? Is the cloth mask made of some electrical device? I just didn’t get it.

Then there’s The Comedian. I’m not sure how director Zack Snyder wants us to perceive this atrocious man. He beats the shit out of a helpless woman before nearly raping her, shoots a very pregnant woman in the head, and commits other acts of ludicrous violence. Am I supposed to sympathize with this guy? Hate him? What?

Snyder’s last film was 300, a movie that had just as many fans as it did critics. I was the latter. I thought it was a contrived, over the top mess. But it’s safe to say, if you liked 300 you’ll like Watchmen.

And please, spare me the “if you read the novel you’d appreciate the film even more” bit. That’s total bullshit. Films are judge solely as what they are, films. If a book needs to be read before the viewing a film for maximum appreciation, then the entire book should be flashed on screen before the picture begins. I’ve seen hundreds of films without first reading the book they were based on, and loved them just the same. I saw Sin City several times before I read those graphic novels, and thought the movie was great from the start. In fact, I can’t wait for sequel. Not something I can say about Watchmen. D

Waltz with Bashir


Is it possible for an ending to completely win you over? By completely I mean not having enjoyed most of the movie until its final moments, then wind up fully appreciating it? If there was ever a film to bore me then suddenly grab me, here it is.

Having said that, most of my boredom was my own fault. I have a strict policy of knowing as little as possible going into a movie. I try not to watch and re-watch trailers, I don’t read reviews, I don’t pay attention to hype, and so on. So I literally knew next to nothing about this film. I knew it was animated war film, but that was it. What I plan to reveal won’t give anything away, but it may help to get a better understanding of what to expect.
It’s helpful to know that Waltz with Bashir is essentially an animated documentary, with an added narrative. Ali, an Israeli filmmaker begins getting flashes from memories he suppressed during the 1982 invasion of Lebanon. Throughout the film he goes to each of his fellow veterans and gets their take on what happened. While each of them speak, we see an event from the invasion through the eyes of the interviewed soldier.

Through his interviews, Ali begins remembering more and more from the invasion. And through the interviews, the film turns into an impressive, yet horrific, animated mashup. The images pulse with excitement as a rousing mix between 2 and 3-D. The final product is a marvelous and utterly original film spectacle.

In summing it up: director Ali Folman is the man that interviews the subjects. His fellow veterans really do play themselves. It’s their face, their voice, just animated. I didn’t figure this out until it was too late, and with only a few minutes left, I was trying to catch up with the rest of the film. If this was a fictional piece, I don’t think I would’ve enjoyed it. But because Folman has the audacity to present this story in animation, it makes for very unique stuff.

Warning: the final images are so haunting in their reveal that they won’t escape your mind for days. By haunting, I don’t mean graphic, but something worse. What you see is reality. After that, you’ll thank Folman for presenting his film in animation. A-

Monday, March 9, 2009

Wendy and Lucy

For most of us, this 80-minute hidden indie wonder fell through the multiplex cracks before we got a chance to see it. You may’ve heard in passing that Michelle Williams was great in that “weird looking movie about a dog”, and you would’ve heard right.

Wendy and Lucy is a quiet, deliberately paced film about a desperate woman in desperate times. Wendy’s stuck in Oregon on a long journey to Alaska. Her car’s broken down, her funds are nearly depleted and her dog, Lucy, is hungry. She slowly watches as her life essentials begin to slip from under her.

Without going into details, this moving, hypnotic little film grabs you right away. In a lesser year, Williams would’ve gotten an Oscar nomination. To prepare for the role, Williams slept in her car for days, didn’t bathe for a week, and void herself of any makeup during the shoot. The method paid off, as this is some of the best acting she’s ever done. She’s totally convincing and completely engrossing.

Some people will be off-put by the HD hand-held look of the film. But it doesn’t just look gritty, it feels gritty. Besides… it’s only 80 minutes. Catch it on DVD. A-

Friday, February 27, 2009

What's In a Name?

When I first started this blog, I chose its title for use as a sly gimmick. For most of my first posts, I incorporated the phrase, “I’ll never tell”, into each review. I wanted to let people know right away that none of my reviews would divulge essential plot elements from the film. What’s the point at ruining all the fun, right?

After a while, that gimmick burnt out and I stop trying to force the phrase in. Recently I’ve been trying to think of a new title, something to get your attention and make you curious. So, without further ado, I present… “And So it Begins…”

Everytime I go to a movie, no matter my expectations, it is a new adventure. I’m thrilled by the whole experience. And whether or not I enjoy the film, there is always that initial excitement in sitting down comfortably in front of the giant, blank white screen, waiting for the show to begin.

But more than that, due to years of inside jokes, “and so it begins...” has manifested itself as a personal family motto. So, with this duel meaning, I give you my new and improved site, which includes a few new sections.


MY FAVORITE SCENE: my favorite moments from a few of my favorite films.

BEST OF 2008: wraps up a great year of character studies.

OSCARS: full (yet dated) coverage on the show.

SUNDANCE ’09: reviews from this year’s festival

10 SECOND REVIEWS: brief reviews of a vast amount of films, to be presented alphabetically shortly.

Hope you enjoy the new features. And so it begins…

Thursday, February 26, 2009

Friday the 13th

You know what… the beginning really isn't that bad.

Like all recent horror duds, this film opens with a string of characters, defined very well by their various clichés- the geek who doesn’t get any, the sex-crazed couple, the good girl, the sensitive hero- but then things start to heat up, fast.

At the risk of ruining what little fun this film offers, let me just say that by the time the title card pulsed onto the screen, I was impressed.
Of course it all goes to shit pretty quickly, but what the hell, if you’ve paid the price of admission you know what to expect.

Not exactly a remake of the original Friday the 13th, which was a cheesy B-movie knockoff of Hitchcock’s Psycho, this “remodeling” of the franchise combines aspects from the first three Jason Voorhees films.

But lets talk about something bigger… when did horror films start producing so much crap? People go to these films to escape from their lives and be given a taste of something eccentric. I get that. But lately, this genre is dead. Did you see Danny Boyle’s 28 Days Later? How about The Descent, in which five women stuck in a cave discover some very bad things. Both are brilliantly bold ventures into a genre that we’ve seen hundreds of times, yet they both manage to pull it off with thrills and smarts.

The problem with the new Friday the 13th's, the Halloween's, the Texas Chainsaw Massacre's, the Prom Night's, as well as the Saw's, the Hostel's and the other massive loads of film garbage out there is that they all lack the same quality… originality.

But maybe I’m thinking too much into it. The first weekend box office take of this Friday the 13th grossed more than the Best Picture nominated The Reader and Frost/Nixon… combined. Given those numbers, I imagine you can expect much more of Jason and company very soon. D+

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

2008 Oscar Wrap Up

A POST-OSCAR CHAT

I fared pretty well, scoring 19 winners out of the 24 categories. The night proved to be eventful, even if it was pretty predictable.

Few surprises were brought by the near-Slumdog sweep (really, you couldn’t have given it Sound Editing?). To be honest, the biggest surprise came with a movie no one has heard of, when Departures won Best Foreign Film, beating the critically acclaimed The Class and Waltz with Bashir. Don’t get me wrong, I was on the edge of my seat during all four acting categories, with a somewhat pleased result.

WHAT I DIDN’T LIKE-- The format, namely how the acting prizes were handed out. The average time to present one of the acting awards (yes, I timed it) was 11 minutes. Eleven minutes… for one award? Go back to the normal way of giving out the award and you’ve just cut over 35 minutes from the show. But instead, we watched as five previous winners from each respective category kissed each nominee’s ass.
It would’ve been better if I actually believed that those five presenters had actually seen the performances they were hailing. (Do you really think Christopher Walken saw Revolutionary Road?)

-- The Oscars are notorious for their ridiculously long and plentiful montages (okay, the ‘In Memoriam’ one is a must, I get that), but the montages this year were just utterly pointless. Two separate episodes involved an assortment of clips from films that weren’t even nominated. While a ridiculously long musical number had… Zac Efron! The kids from Mamma Mia! Beyonce! And I ask… why? What is the point of boasting mediocrity? Maybe I missed something.

WHAT I LIKED-- For starters: Hugh Jackman. He didn’t tell off key jokes. He didn’t that many jokes at all, really. And after delivering a brilliantly paced opening musical number, he did a great job of not wasting our time with extended stage monologues. Bring him back next year. (Oh, and Anne Hathaway can sing? Damn.)

-- Penelope Cruz thanking Pedro Almodovar. Must actors thank their families and the director that directed them to this current award. Almodovar has been essential in the success of Cruz’s career, and it was noble of her to give a shot out.

-- Kate Winslet. Just everything about her. Seriously, what’s not to like?

-- Kate Winslet’s dad. That whistle? Hilarious.

-- Philippe Petit. The subject of Man on Wire never ceases to amaze as he demonstrated an amusing coin trick before actually balancing an Oscar on his chin. That’ll go down as this decade’s one-armed push up. Believe me.
-- Kunio Kato’s speech. The winner for best animated short gave a nearly incomprehensible speech before ending with the self-mocking phrase: "Domo arigato, Mr. Roboto." Classic.

-- Sean Penn’s speech. Yes, I wanted Mickey Rourke to win, badly. Yes I was disappointed when Penn’s name was called. But Penn showed us that he knows how much of a pain in the ass he can be. By taking shots at himself as well as the crowd, he proved his humor can come out. He also managed to, somehow, give the most moving speech of the night, when he switched to the topic of gay rights, pointing out the signs of hate that plastered the streets near the red carpet entrance. While keeping his fierce intensity, Penn explained the shame that those people will come to feel in due time. And, somehow, I like him more now.

So that should wrap up this year’s Oscar coverage. I’ve really enjoyed the bold choices that the Academy has made in recent years. American Beauty started the trend. A very dark film dealing with very touchy subject matter. Once the Academy embraced that film, it opened up some gratifying doors.

The next few years returned to traditional Oscar fare, but in 2004, everything changed. Million Dollar Baby was extremely controversial when it was released, and its Best Picture win was the perfect kick in the face to all the haters. Likewise CrashThe Departed and last year’s No Country for Old Men. All of these films have one thing in common: they are unlike anything that has ever won Best Picture before. Bravo Academy, keep it up.

WHO'S GONNA WIN

Before I sit down with my Oscar appetizer (that would be the Independent Sprit Awards at 5pm today on IFC), I thought I’d post my Oscar predictions.

A slew of tomorrows races are neck in neck, so picking them won’t be easy. Actor, Actress, and Supporting Actress are anyone’s guess. But using my best judgment and reasoning, this is what I’m banking will win, (and of course, what should win).

BEST PICTURE
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Frost/Nixon
Milk
The Reader
Slumdog Millionaire


Should Win:
Slumdog Millionaire. It’s this year’s great rags-to-riches story. A movie barely marketed prior to release became an overnight sensation. Why? Because everyone liked it. Why? Because it’s just that good.

Will Win:
Slumdog.

BEST ACTOR
Richard Jenkins- The Visitor
Frank Langella- Frost/Nixon
Sean Penn- Milk
Brad Pitt- The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Mickey Rourke- The Wrestler

Should Win:
Rourke. He delivers the year’s best performance. Sure this character parallels his real life with painful accuracy, but even in judging the performance on its own, it’s has more heart than anything else out there.

Will Win:
Looks like Penn. And I can’t complain. Penn gave the best performance of his already masterful career in Milk. But I’m really hoping people pull for a Rourke comeback.

BEST ACTRESS
Anne Hathaway- Rachel Getting Married
Angelina Jolie- Changeling
Melissa Leo- Frozen River
Meryl Streep- Doubt
Kate Winslet- The Reader

Should Win:
Winslet. She’s paid her dues (5 nominations by age 33), and she’s considered by many to be the best actress of her generation. Although she was better in Revolutionary Road, she still hit all the right marks as a remorseless ex-SS guard in The Reader.

Will Win:
I’ll say Winslet, with reservations. Streep is right there with her and not without merit. Streep gave her best performance in years as a Doubtful nun, and she’s been nominated a hundred times (at least) but only won twice. But I think (or hope) the Academy will finally award Winslet.

SUPPORTING ACTOR
Josh Brolin- Milk
Robert Downey Jr.- Tropic Thunder
Philip Seymour Hoffman- Doubt
Heath Ledger- The Dark Knight
Michael Shannon- Revolutionary Road
Should Win:
Ledger. Take out the sentiment of his untimely death, and you still have an Oscar worthy performance.

Will Win:
It doesn’t give me any consolation that everyone is saying how much of a lock Ledger is. The Academy has given us a few very wide curveballs in recent years, which scares me. I’m not saying someone will dethrone Ledger, but it’s in the back of my head.

SUPPORTING ACTRESSAmy Adams- Doubt
Penelope Cruz- Vicky Christina Barcelona
Viola Davis- Doubt
Taraji P. Henson- The Curious Case of Benjamin ButtonMarisa Tomei- The Wrestler

Should Win:
Tomei. She was the character audiences immediately identified with in The Wrestler, which allowed us to slowly understand Rourke’s character. Simply put, it’s the best thing she’s every done.

Will Win:
Cruz. Or Davis. This is usually the hardest category to call every year, with no exception here. Cruz had all the early buzz as the fiery girlfriend from hell. But Davis picked up quick traction for her 12 minutes in Doubt.  Even Adams generated a little buzz towards the end of Academy voting. I’ll go with Cruz.

BEST DIRECTOR
David Fincher- The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Ron Howard- Frost/Nixon
Gus Van Sant- Milk
Stephen Daldry- The Reader
Danny Boyle- Slumdog Millionaire

Should Win:
Boyle showed audiences how to miraculously fuse all the elements of filmmaking into a breathtaking spectacle.  A lock if there ever was one.

Will Win:
Boyle.

ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
Courtney Hunt- Frozen Water
Mike Leigh- Happy-Go-Lucky
Martin McDonagh- In Bruges
Dustin Lance Black- Milk
Andrew Stanton- Wall-E
Should Win:
I love the Mike Leigh process of forming a script after rigorous rehearsals with actors. His filmed shinned with gentle optimism.

Will Win:
Black should beat out Stanton.

ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
Eric Roth- The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
John Patrick Shanley- Doubt
Peter Morgan- Frost/Nixon
David Hare- The Reader
Simon Beaufoy- Slumdog Millionaire

Should Win:
Beaufoy. For his seamless narrative.

Will Win:Beaufoy.

ORIGINAL SONG
“Down to Earth” by Peter Gabriel from Wall-E
“Jai Ho” by A.R. Rahman from Slumdog Millionaire
“O…Saya” by A.R. Rahman from Slumdog Millionaire
Should Win:
“The Wrestler” by Bruce Springsteen from The Wrestler. Oh wait, it wasn’t nominated. Okay then, “Jai Ho” or “O…Saya”, take your pick.

Will WIn:
I think Gabriel will pull an upset. Mainly because Rahman is already going to win in the original score category. Why not spread the love?


As for the rest, keep in mind that the Academy votes in trends. Most members pick the same film for all the technical stuff. Sound and Sound Editing almost always go to the same film. Likewise Art Direction and Costume Design. So think in patterns and you’ll either be dead on, or way far off. Personally I’d like to see a Slumdog sweep of every category it’s in (which would mean zero for Benjamin Button, but oh well.)

Are all of my predictions going to be right? God no. But that’s the fun of it. If you’re not kept on your toes for 4 hours then you’re going to have one hell of a boring time.

MY ALTERNATIVE OSCARS

As is my tradition every year, I like to make an alternative Oscar list. If I were the sole member of the Academy, this is what my list of nominees in every major category would look like.

Winners are in bold followed by a brief explanation.

PICTURE
The Edge of Heaven
Milk
Rachel Getting Married
Slumdog Millionaire
The Wrestler


The best film of the year.

DIRECTOR
Darren Aronofsky- The WrestlerDanny Boyle- Slumdog Millionaire
Jonathan Demme- Rachel Getting Married
Christopher Nolan- The Dark Knight
Gus Van Sant- Milk

Boyle directed the best, most thrilling, technical achievement in recent years.

ACTOR
Leonardo DiCaprio- Revolutionary Road
Richard Jenkins- The VisitorFrank Langella- Frost/Nixon
Mickey Rourke- The Wrestler
Sean Penn- Milk

The very best acting performance of the year (sorry Heath).

ACTRESS
Anna Hathaway- Rachel Getting Married
Sally Hawkins- Happy-Go-Lucky
Angelina Jolie- Changeling
Meryl Streep- Doubt
Kate Winslet- Revolutionary Road

Winslet was more raw and emotional here than in The Reader.

SUPPOTING ACTORJosh Brolin- Milk
Heath Ledger- The Dark KnightBrad Pitt- Burn After Reading
Michael Shannon- Revolutionary Road
Philip Seymour Hoffman- Doubt

No explanation needed.

SUPPORTING ACTRESSHanna Schygulla- The Edge of Heaven
Rosemarie DeWitt- Rachel Getting Married
Marisa Tomei- The WrestlerKate Winslet- The Reader
Viola Davis- Doubt

My second favorite acting performance of the year (sorry Heath), not to mention the biggest snub of this year’s Oscar’s. DeWitt was nothing short of perfection as the smart, kind, and overshadowed sibling to her drug addicted younger sister.

SCREENPLAY- Original
The Edge of Heaven
The Wrestler
Rachel Getting Married
Milk
Happy-Go-Lucky

The long conversations, the gut wrenching emotions, the brutal accuracy. Just brilliant.

SCREENPLAY- Adapted
Frost/Nixon
The Reader
Revolutionary Road
Slumdog Millionaire
Tell No One


How many movies have you seen like this before? People forget that a movie this rare starts somewhere.

DOCUMENTARY
American Teen
Standard Operating Procedure
Encounters at the End of the World
Religulous
Man on Wire

A breathtaking spectacle.

CINEMATOGRAPHY
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
The Dark Knight
The Wrestler
Rachel Getting Married
Slumdog Millionaire


No film looked better this year.

SCORE
Slumdog MillionaireThe Reader
The Dark Knight
Milk
Gran Torino


No film rocked better this year.

EDITING
Slumdog MillionaireThe Dark Knight
Milk
Tell No One
The Edge of Heaven

No film was better assembled this year.

Critics Pick: Who WILL Win

Here are a few critics (myself included, of course) I like and consider to be reputable, and their picks for who will win in all the top categories. (The New York Times critic picked Taraji P. Henson to win supporting actress, which throws his credibility right out the window).

Keep in mind, there are always surprises. Actor, Actress, and Supporting Actress are all very close races. And so it begins...


PICTURE
Roger EbertSlumdog Millionaire
Peter Travers (Rolling Stone): Slumdog Millionaire
Dave Karger (Entertainment Weekly): Slumdog Millionaire
MeSlumdog Millionaire
DIRECTOR
Ebert: Danny Boyle for Slumdog Millionaire
Travers: Danny Boyle for Slumdog Millionaire
Karger: Danny Boyle for Slumdog Millionaire
Me: Danny Boyle for Slumdog Millionaire

ACTOR
Ebert: Sean Penn in Milk
Travers: Sean Penn in Milk
Karger: Sean Penn in Milk
Me: Sean Penn in Milk (but my god do I hope Mickey Rourke proves us wrong)
ACTRESS
Ebert: Kate Winslet in The Reader
Travers: Meryl Streep in Doubt
Karger: Kate Winslet in The Reader
Me: Kate Winslet in The Reader
SUPPORTING ACTOR
If you are wondering this, then your head has been underground for 8 months.

SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Ebert: Viola Davis in Doubt
Travers: Penelope Cruz in Vicky Christina Barcelona
Karger: Penelope Cruz in Vicky Christina Barcelona
Me: Penelope Cruz in Vicky Christina Barcelona
ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
Ebert: Dustin Lance Black for Milk
Karger: Dustin Lance Black for Milk
Me: Dustin Lance Black for Milk

ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
Ebert: Simon Beaufoy for Slumdog Millionaire
Karger: Simon Beaufoy for Slumdog MillionaireMe: Simon Beaufoy for Slumdog Millionaire


LET'S TALK OSCAR

Most of the nominations in this year’s race brought little surprise, with a few exceptions, of course. Here is the breakdown of each nominee, the biggest snub in each category and the top two contenders in each race.

PICTURE
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Frost/Nixon
Milk
The Reader
Slumdog Millionaire

The big surprise is the introduction of The Reader, which obviously took The Dark Knight’s place. Even though The Dark Knight had nominations from the Director’s Guild, the Producer’s Guild and the Writer’s Guild (none of which The Reader received), members still aren’t ready to give a comic book movie a shot at the big prize.

Surprise snub: The Dark Knight
Head to Head: Slumdog v. Benjamin Button

DIRECTOR
David Fincher- The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Ron Howard- Frost/Nixon
Gus Van Sant- Milk
Stephen Daldry- The ReaderDanny Boyle- Slumdog Millionaire

No Christopher Nolan. But, this list is rare: the nominations for picture and director are the exact same, only the 5th time this has EVER happened in Oscar history. The last time was 2005, the time before that… 1981.

Surprise snub: Christopher Nolan- The Dark Knight
Head to Head: Boyle v. Fincher

ACTOR
Richard Jenkins- The Visitor
Frank Langella- Frost/Nixon
Sean Penn- Milk
Brad Pitt- The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Mickey Rourke- The Wrestler
No big shockers here, although it’s great to see the Academy spreading some indie love to Jenkins whose spot could’ve easily gone to bigger names like DiCaprio and Eastwood.

Surprise snub: Clint Eastwood- Gran Torino
Head to Head: Penn v. Rourke

SUPPORTING ACTOR
Josh Brolin- Milk
Robert Downey Jr.- Tropic Thunder
Philip Seymour Hoffman- Doubt
Heath Ledger- The Dark Knight
Michael Shannon- Revolutionary Road
Shannon was a great shock, but this is really Ledger’s to lose. Most people desperately want him to win (Shannon himself has said he’s voting for Ledger), but will all the hype be too much? I sure as hell hope not.

Surprise snub: Dev Patel- Slumdog Millionaire
Head to Head: Ledger v. hopefully no one

ACTRESSAnne Hathaway- Rachael Getting Married
Angelina Jolie- Changeling
Melissa Leo- Frozen River
Meryl Streep- Doubt
Kate Winslet- The Reader

This year’s biggest jaw dropper came when we found out Winslet only got one acting nomination, when everybody predicted two. But having her shut out for Revolutionary Road could be a good thing. Without the duel nominations, people won’t have to choose between two great performances, which could’ve split her vote. Now she has the edge over vet Streep and name-maker Hathaway.
Surprise snub: Sally Hawkins- Happy-Go-Lucky
Head to Head: Winslet v. Streep

SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Amy Adams- Doubt
Penelope Cruz- Vicky Christina Barcelona
Viola Davis- Doubt
Taraji P. Henson- The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Marisa Tomei- The Wrestler
The happiest nominees of the year are these five women here. Now that Winslet has moved up the ladder, they all have a decent shot. People that vote for Mickey Rourke could go hand in hand with Tomei. Cruz has paid her dues and deserves it. Davis has been around for a long time and steals thunder from the likes of Meryl Streep, a feat hard to accomplish. But my oh my, where is Rosemarie DeWitt from Rachel Getting Married?

Surprise snub: Rosemarie DeWitt- Rachel Getting MarriedHead to Head: Cruz v. Davis

Sin of Omission
By far my biggest issue comes in the best song category. Where in the hell is Bruce Springsteen’s nomination for his tender, moving title song in The Wrestler. I like A.R. Rahman’s music in Slumdog Millionaire just as much as everyone else, but he doesn’t need three nominations, (one for musical score, two in the best song category). He’s going to win score without breaking a sweat, so why did the Academy only allow three nominations for best song instead of five? Not only did they kick out Springsteen’s track, but Jamie Cullum’s title track for Gran Torino as well. Shame, shame, shame



Sunday, February 8, 2009

Notorious and Defiance

What does a movie about a famous rapper and a movie about the Holocaust have in common? Other than the fact that they’re based on true stories, not a thing.

So why review them together?

Both films are entertaining, well-done, and weightless as air. You won’t remember, or care to remember, a single thing you saw about them once you left the theatre. But you will enjoy your time while you’re there.

Notorious is based on the all-too-short life of famed rapper The Notorious B.I.G. aka Biggie Smalls. The film accurately captures the rugged drug life in late-‘80s Brooklyn and is superbly acted, namely by newcomer Jamal Woodlard in the title role, but it’s nowhere near as hot as its booming soundtrack. We watch Biggie as he goes from rags (freestyle rapping on the streets between crack deals) to riches (becoming a musical icon at the helm of ambitious producer Sean ‘Puffy’ Combs), but the meat of the film is pretty dull.

The movie adds nothing new to the music bio-pic. Biggie is an adulterer! He yells! Screams! Punches walls! Treats women like objects! And so on. As Tupac Shakur, actor Anthony Mackie brings his reliable intensity to a man who was known for his not-so-nice temper. I didn’t mind the time I spent in the theatre, but I constantly wanted more.

The same can be said for Defiance a true story about three Jewish brothers during WWII that hide out in the woods from the Nazis. Slowly, more and more Jews are showing up in the woods, before long we have an entire community to keep up with.

The problem of the film is its predictability. I mean, do they really think they can hide out forever? Daniel Craig is good as the lead, but the material is weak. Credit director Edward Zwick (Glory, The Last Samurai, Blood Diamond) for the thrilling, but overlong, battle scenes. Again, this is a film that will keep your attention throughout its duration, but not too much after. If it’s a bio-pic you want, I suggest Milk, a Holocaust drama, check out The Reader.

Both Notorious and Defiance: D+

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Sundance '09: We Live in Public

You may remember Josh Harris, the subject of the wildly entertaining documentary We Live in Public, as spokesmen for the internet awakening during the late ‘90s.

Harris was a genius in predicting the way our society would live. His first real web investment was a site that had chatting, video downloads, and live TV, none of which had been around before. After that site came and went, Harris wanted a new project, something bigger, better, stronger, faster. His idea was so ingenious, yet equally terrifying, that it startled a nation, and predicted the future.

Harris recruited 100 people to dive head first into his experiment titled “Quiet: We Live in Public”. This venture saw all 100 people living in an underground bunker smack in the middle of New York City. They slept in little pods (which look like Holocaust-era bunk beds), ate, went to the bathroom, shot guns at the shooting range, watched the Millennium ball drop, and so on. They lived as a family, with one small catch. Every single inch of the bunker was under constant surveillance. Every second of every day was taped for Harris’s pleasure. The sex, the urination, the showering, the arguing, nothing was to be missed.

Ondi Timoner followed Harris around for over a decade, recording his lavish, multi-million dollar ideas. But Timoner’s camera never judges. While Harris was eccentric, and egotistical and probably a bit insane, his ideas were revolutionary. Watching clips from his bunker experiment is like watching your favorite trashy reality show. But keep in mind, reality TV didn’t exist when this experiment took place.

Harris couldn’t be a better subject for a documentary. His life-conflicts are gut wrenching to watch on film. Take, for instance, one of his final experiments. He brought his “Quiet” project to a much more intimate level when he asked his new girlfriend if she would like to be filmed in his apartment 24 hours a day 7 days a week. The catch this time: it would all be broadcast live on the internet. Users could even chat about what they were seeing. It’s a real treat to watch Harris on his computer, reading the chat comments as they come to him live.

The downfall, as it is inevitable, is excruciating to watch. We witness a perfectly happy couple wallow in decay over a few months.

This film is like no other documentary I’ve ever seen. Credit Timoner for sticking with such a tough subject. What we get to watch is sacred. Never private, always out in the open. A-

Sundance '09: Passing Strange

It takes a while to get used to the experience, but Spike Lee’s new “see it like your there” film is great fun. Lee, along with one hell of an impressive camera crew, taped the final Broadway performance of "Passing Strange", an all black musical about a confused young man and the years following his leaving home.

The film is shot in real time, so, for the most part, you feel like you’re just another audience member in New York. The fun of the film is that Lee privies us to dynamic close ups, swooping tracking shots and other great tricks. If you’re going to shoot a play, then you have to make the audience member feel like they aren’t missing out on anything, you have to give them more.

When I saw Scorsese’s Shine a Light, the concert documentary on the Rolling Stones, I was almost happier that I was seeing it on an IMAX screen rather than actually being at the concert. Yes, it would’ve been kick-ass to watch Jagger and crew rock out, but there is a certain intimacy to the camera that you can’t get from 40 rows back.

Likewise for Passing Strange. How else, for instance, would be able to see a tear strolling down a character’s face during a pivotal scene? No way you could catch that emotion from the second balcony.

The film itself (or should I say the play) takes a while to warm up. But once it gets going, you’ll be dancing in your seat. B