When this movie was released in the late 1980s, it was a real delight; because it was proof that the animated feature film was still alive and well. The movie is the Little Mermaid, a beautifully drawn story about a mermaid named Ariel who wants to become human and marry the prince of her dreams.
Objecting to his daughter’s desires to turn human is King Triton, who manages to crack the crab, Sebastian for information about his daughter. The source of evil in this film is the magnificently drawn sea witch, Ursula; who persuades Ariel to make a deal to become human for a while and engage the prince, but only at the price of losing her voice to the evil Ursula.
This whole film is a delight. I have nothing but compliments for the Little Mermaid. The art work is rich and colorful, especially with all those underwater scenes. When I see all those bubbles, I’m glad they took the time and money to animate every individual bubble.
The tightly told story is credited to directors Ron Clements and John Musker. Animated film directors usually don’t get noticed until they’re either retired or dead. Let’s start giving the credit a little early this time.
The film is chockfull of good songs that carry the movie forward, and they’re fun to listen to. The music in this movie is fantastically superior than most modern musicals. The music brings back memories of great Hollywood musicals like Singing in the Rain, Me and My Gal or other Walt Disney classics like the Jungle Book. A lot of the time, the music in modern animated musicals sounds like MUSAK with words; but the music in this film is terrific, especially that calypso number, Under the Sea; which is sung by a cast of sea creatures, and fronted by Sebastian the crab who thinks that life under the sea is just fine. In fact, Under the Sea is the best number of the film and recalls some of the great Disney music of the past like When You Wish Upon a Star and Zip-A-Dee-Do-Da.
I also think that this movie created a classic animated character with Sebastian the crab, similar to Jiminy Cricket. And Ursula the witch is right up there with some of the great villains of the past. Name any classic Disney villain, from the wicked step-mother to Captain Hook, and Ursula is in that category.
Best of all (this is my favorite part); this is a film for people of all ages. Young children will beyond a doubt love this movie; and it is witty witty witty for the adults.
I enjoyed this movie from beginning to end. I enjoyed everything about it, including the music.
This movie bares comparison to some of the great Disney Classics. This really is a contemporary animated film which is as good as those great films from 40, 50, and 60 years ago. Little Mermaid is a return to the great tradition of animated feature films.
In Swedish, the film is known as Men Who Hate Women. In English, the title refers to the work’s unconventional female protagonist. In reality, though, it is just a predictable bore peppered with some surprisingly nasty moments. Indeed, as with the conspiracy genre that was bemoaned here some weeks ago, it has become very hard to find good and original detective dramas anymore. Such works have always been heavily character-driven. However, a skinny Goth who combines a photographic memory with deep-rooted mental traumas and who has become obsessed with a paunchy middle-aged journalist is either someone’s private fantasy come to life or a test of where the boundary now lies between plausibility and parody. In any event, is there not already an American police show that features a very bright Goth who sleeps in a coffin?
Anyway, the weird and the wacky aside, this adaptation of Stieg Larsson’s novel of the same name is based around two central plotlines. The first is the privately commissioned investigation by journalist Mikael Blomkvist (Michael Nyqvist) into the mysterious disappearance of the niece of a wealthy industrialist (Sven-Bertil Taube) forty years previously. The second is that Blomkvist has become the subject of some obsessive cyber-snooping by our aforementioned skinny Goth, Lisbeth Salander (Noomi Rapace). Sullen and misanthropic, she appears to have more piercings than personality. On the one hand, this makes her decidedly vulnerable to various malevolent characters that pop up. On the other hand, she does make for an intriguing, albeit unlikely, guardian angel for Blomkvist.
However, what starts out as a dark, brooding, and multi-stranded tale from director Niels Arden Oplev soon turns into a much more straightforward sleuths-following-clues drama with enough bangs and wallops along the way to make sure that no one has entirely dozed off in the audience. The mystery itself concentrates on a secretive and feud-ridden family who have nothing to do with their time except be rich and nasty. Moreover, the case is so cold by the time that Blomkvist picks it up, and the related characters so under-developed, that frankly you are more likely to be interested in which of them flosses at night than in which of them did what dastardly deed to the other and when.
Worse, this is seemingly the first in a trilogy of such films. As such, it probably explains why there were so many loose ends and orphaned references in the script. On the other hand, a less generous opinion of the film would be that it has simply been disappointingly scripted and edited. Moreover, there is something terribly superficial about both of the central characters. Therefore, whilst the wonderfully-transformed Ms. Rapace is agreeably volatile in her depiction of her moody character and Mr. Nyqvist plays the dull but amiable Blomkvist in a credible enough manner, the thought of sitting through any more of their adventures together is enough to make spending a bitter Swedish winter alone in an isolated and draughty cabin seem like the far more enthralling prospect.
Toyota proudly supports Asian American Cinema across the country. Visit www.thedirectorschairsite.com to see photos, reviews, buzz and upcoming events. On Oct 15-29, Toyota is the official vehicle sponsor of the 10th Annual San Diego Asian Film Festival (SDAFF ‘09). With more than 200 films from 20 countries, parties, celebrities, and a live hip hop showcase featuring Lyrics Born, the San Diego Asian Film Festival is the place to be. Text “SDAFF” to 53137 to be a Festival Insider.
Good God. If you’ve Never, Ever seen another movie, this movie might have a shot at impressing you. That’s about all the hope this dog of a film has got going for it because this thing is terrible. I grumble about films like ‘Revolutionary Road’ and ‘The Hurt Locker’ but this thing is a travesty.
What’s Good About It
Uuh… Not much. It has Don Cheadle and Wesley Snipes in it. Which already makes it a kind of a parody rather than anything tangibly held to ‘realism’. None of the cast ever look like they inhabit the world they’re portraying. Ethan Hawke was rehashing his ‘Training Day’ looks and Richard Gere was sort of re-running his pained look from ‘The Flock’. God knows what the rest of them thought they were doing.
At one point as we were watching and anti-cineaste Rob Morgan said, “oh look, the background in that shot is beautiful.” – If a film making novice is noticing stuff like that, you get the idea how disengaging this film is.
So what is good about it? You don’t know what’s going on so it makes you keep watching in the hope that you find out. Then you’re bitterly disappointed.
What’s Bad About It
Where do you start with a pile of dog shit this high?
The whole film is like 17 cliche setups in search of a story. We’ve seen ALL of these elements before – some, in the case of Richard Gere, he only did it last year when he played another dude days from retirement, rescuing people from abuse. Ethan Hawke’s cop struggling with money, playing poker with his cop buddies is like a bad re-make of Stallone’s ‘Copland’, and Don Cheadle’s undercover storyline is like a bad rendition of ‘Donnie Brasco’ except in a black neighbourhood, drug gang setting. By the time Ellen Barkin graces the screen, you’re grimacing going, “what? this is Basher and the Cougar from “Ocean’s 13!”
So many good actors cast so badly to play such boring, ordinary roles. It’s a travesty this thing got made. Really, it’s that bad.
Whatever they were aiming for, it wasn’t working because everybody in it was carrying too much luggage from their previous body of work, none of them were particularly likeable and there’s no real unifying story. It’s like ‘Babel’-In-Brooklyn. Or just more plain babble. It has nothing to say about human nature or existence or love or hate or ambition or betrayal or any of that, even though it talks about it and around it. It’s pathetic. You’d think the writer decided to do the “full retard”.
What’s Interesting About It
I rarely say this, but this has nothing interesting about it. Avoid it like the plague. It’s not even “so-bad-it’s-funny-good”. There is nothing redeeming about this picture and it’s all the director’s fault. This is the worst film I’ve seen in a very long time.
Okay, Wesley Snipes with cornrows kinda looked ‘interesting’, but he’s still Wesley Snipes.
Il paraît qu’il est passé sur France 2 hier soir. Bruce Lee en prime time sur une chaîne nationale? C’est une bonne chose, même si le choix du film est totalement à côté de la plaque.
Plus sérieusement, j’ai vu quelques minutes de l’émission; coup de bol, je tombe tout de suite sur la partie qui nous intéresse tous: le joueur/cobaye est confronté aux cris du type qui se fait électrocuter (“Aaah, arrêtez, j’abandonne”), aux ordres du présentateur qui lui intime de poursuivre la torture, et enfin aux enjeux financiers (un prix d’un million d’euros si je ne m’abuse).
N’ayant vu qu’un court passage du programme, je m’abstiendrai d’un commentaire plus poussé. Une phrase, prononcée par une des candidates, a cependant retenu mon attention: “Je suis désolée, mais je suis au chômage, il faut que je le fasse.” Signe révélateur d’un malaise social en France? Sans aucun doute.
Question: comment vit-on dans une société où le chômage massif et structurel n’existe pas? Avec une Delorean il suffirait de remonter dans le temps, pour observer la France des années 60-70. Mai 68, le yéyé, les rouflaquettes, les cols pelle à tarte, le maoisme et autres doctrines extrémistes… Ca donne envie, non?
Sinon, on peut prendre un avion et aller aux antipodes sur l’île de Norfolk, en Océanie, qui détient le taux record de 0% de chômage (pour 1345 actifs…). Plus significativement, la Norvège jouit (j’aime pas ce mot, “jouir”, mais faute de mieux, je vais le garder) d’un taux de 2,5%.
Voilà, c’est tout pour ce soir. Prochain article: Le jeu de la mort, le film de/avec Bruce Lee! (la cohérence thématique de ce blog est à son meilleur: TV française, puis chômage, puis film de king fu).
The Emperor’s New Groove is a Disney movie, and as such I didn’t exactly have high hopes for accuracy, remembering all too well how badly Indiana Jones went. However, I was pleasantly surprised with how heavily influenced by the Incas the movie was. The story itself could have been set anywhere, but the background art was very clearly Inca in style, although to an untrained eye it may not look that way.
The story is about a young Emperor named Cuzco, who gets turned into a llama by his evil advisor. He must enlist the help of a peasant, Pacha, to get himself turned back into a human and back into the palace. It’s a cute movie that really doesn’t have a lot to do with Peru other than the background artwork and the setting, but it is funny and a bit different from most other animated Disney movies. For starters, it’s not a musical. It is, however, definitely worth watching!
Here is a comparison between artwork from the movie and actual Inca artwork:
…Kind of. There has been much contention over who would become the mightiest of all Avengers over the last few months. Rumors have been swirling that run the gamut from John Krasinski (Jim of The Office) all the way to Channing Tatum (G.I. Joe). Very little headway has been made and it all has felt like a great, big round-robin of sorts with the casting. Collider was where I first heard the news today, however, that Chris Evans (The Human Torch in the Fantastic Four franchise) has been offered the role as The First Avenger by Marvel Mouse. Interestingly, Evans has yet to accept the offer, and may even hesitate to do so. The agreement locks the actor who will portray Cap down to a three picture deal ON TOP OF an Avengers flick, as well as multiple possible appearances in smaller Marvel vehicles, as well. This is a fairly overwhelming amount of commitment for a role that has been rumored to only be worth $300,000, initially. And while the argument that $300,000 is a lot for playing a dress-up IS well-heard on this blogsite, allow me to remind you that Marvel looks to make GANGBUSTERS on this franchise. This flick, if done right, could easily put up Spider-Man numbers and Marvel is fully aware. So the concept of being locked down for the next five to ten years of your life for a less than standard sum may not be all that glamourous to Mr. Evans. (Granted, this writer would actually PAY to play one of his super hero childhood heroes, but I digress). With Hugo Weaving attached as The Red Skull, I can’t say at all that I’m disappointed with this casting news. As a matter of fact, I have quite a bit of faith in Evans over the other pile of names that have been slung around over the past month. This, of course, is because I was taught a lesson after bitching incessantly for months about Heath Ledger being cast as The Joker. And we all saw how that worked out.
I’ve got problems with this list, BIG problems. That being said, however, what this list does at least do is compile an overarching docket of comedians who are currently winning at Hollywooding. I’ll let you follow the link to see the list for yourself, but some of my gripes are:
*Spoilers ahead (if you actually care about spoiling a Top 25 list)*
Mostly they have to do with placement rather than actually being put ON this list. I understand the rationale behind LISTING all of these actors, but the stack-ranking involved has left me baffled. For Instance, I have no idea why Elizabeth Banks is #14 on this list, ahead of Russell Brand, Ricky Gervais, and Ken Jeong. Granted, she was in Role Models and Zack and Miri, and has played a couple of laughs for the Apatow gang in the past, but can ANYONE give me a reason that she should be ahead of the incredibly talented and devoted people behind her who have been creating and performing in comedy for years? To further bitch, how is Anna Faris even farther up the list at #11? Funny in the Scary Movies, yes, and pretty good in Observe and Report, but how far have we ACTUALLY seen her stretch? She has adequately portrayed slapstick-ditzy and train-wreck-of-humanity, to great laughs. That’s basically it. And now that I mention it, I think I’m going to copyright both of those…
In addition to ranking wrong, I feel that this list is labelled wrong, as well. This list is compiled of strictly Film and Television actors, nowhere on this list can producers, stand-ups, or late-night personalities be found, all of which, I would argue, constitute “Funny People Working in Hollywood.” My notable ommissions would include Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Judd Apatow, Eddie Izzard, Craig Ferguson, Matt Stone and Trey Parker, Chelsea Handler, Jo Koy, Loni Love, Josh Wolf, Guy Branum, Whitney Cummings, The It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia Gang of writers, producers, and actors, and the list could go ON AND ON AND ON AND ON…
To wrap up, I feel that the most egregious error comes with placing Paul Rudd at #1. I’m certain that there are some die-hards out there that will greatly take offense to that, but let’s face it, Rudd is our generation’s leading straight-man. An important position for comedy, sure, but his range is CERTAINLY no greater than that of Bill Murray, Sacha Baron Cohen, Steve Carrell, and Tina Fey, just to name some of the accompanying members of the list.
Moviefone’s Top 25 Funniest People Working in Hollywood (Right Now)
In the dazzling kaleidoscope of artistic nomenclature, it is unlikely that there is anything that even comes within an aerosol can of encapsulating the raw, unbridled cinematic talent that is Banksy. Indeed, it can only be a matter of time before this thrillingly inventive auteur produces the sort of spray-on masterpiece that will eschew the need for actors, scripts, lights, support crew, and even cameras. Indeed, this stunning advancement in film-making techniques will leave avant garde audiences staring in devoted wonderment at a screen that lesser mortals would probably just think is blank. However, the pop culture elite have forgotten more than this slovenly heathen will ever know. Therefore, by the end of such a magnum opus, they will have proclaimed Banksy to be a living deity and worship him accordingly.
Yes, in this tongue-welded-onto-cheek documentary about how a French ex-pat goes from selling alternative clothing in Los Angeles to recording the lives of the world’s best known street artists and beyond, the audience is being asked to live up to all of their prejudices about modern art having about as much value as a bowlful of other people’s nail clippings. As the enigmatic Banksy would have us believe, he decided to turn the camera on would-be documenter Thierry Guetta when he discovered that the latter had no more film-making talent than one of his wall murals did. However, it is not as if a degree of peer criticism was ever going to faze this seemingly irrepressible Frenchman. Rather, if ever there was a man to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear, it is he. As a consequence, the audience just about manages to cling on to Guetta’s ridiculous mutton chops, as his providential trajectory takes him ever upwards.
As for the rest, well, you can expect pretty much everything from André the Giant to Leonard Nimoy to anarchic rodents to put in an appearance, as a humorous smorgasbord of paranoid warnings and lefty sloganeering get daubed on walls across the planet. Narrated by actor Rhys Ifans and with cuts to Banksy whenever a scarcely plausible explanation for how things kept on progressing from one thing to the next is needed (monkeys with typewriters do not stop trying just yet), one would want to believe in the tooth fairy as much as Shepard Fairey for this pseudo-documentary to seem remotely credible.
In any event, when it comes to Thierry Guetta, we have the most ludicrous of Gallic head-the-balls since the guy who once freaked out an entire generation of football scribes with his pronouncements on seagulls, trawlers, and sardines. From cheap gags such as spilling pink paint all over the back of his station wagon to haranguing bemused employees as he trundles about on a tricycle, this modern-day Pierrot is the perfect foil for this mischievous send-up. Equally, there are some fine glimpses into the shadowy world of these street artists, including a fine montage early on that is fittingly scored by Richard Hawley’s Tonight The Streets Are Ours. While the whole thing may feel a little like The Simpsons taking the mick out of Fox at times, art knobs are a sufficiently plump and juicy target that we will all want to chuckle along just the same!
Acaba de sair no Brasil o novo filme de Martin Scorsese, um dos mais importantes realizadores dos últimos 40 anos.
Apesar do reconhecimento monumental de hoje, sua trajetória foi mais difícil do que se imagina. Seu primeiro grande sucesso comercial veio apenas nos anos 90 com Cabo do Medo e, mesmo com todo a aclamação crítica que recebia desde os anos 70, Scorsese teve dificuldades para tocar seus projetos na década de 80.
Martin Scorsese faz parte da primeira geração de cineastas americanos oriundos de cursos de cinema em universidades. O cinema clássico já tinha pedido as contas, todos grandes aposentados ou em fim de carreira. Enquanto isso, o cinema europeu estava no auge com as cinematografias nacionais e as experimentações de linguagem.
Esta dupla influência é fundamental para entender o cinema da geração da virada dos anos 60 para os 70 que reergueu Hollywood, principalmente no caso de Scorsese, talvez aquele que materializou com mais intensidade a influência européia dentro do cinema americano.
O grande eixo de sua obra seja talvez a violência latente de seus personagens. Marcados por solidão e frustrações, a energia de vida dos personagens é deflagrada pela violência, seja no outro (Taxi Driver, Cabo do Medo, Caminhos Perigosos, Os Bons Companheiros, O Rei da Comédia), neles mesmos (A Última Tentação de Cristo, Vivendo no Limite) ou mesmo nos dois (Touro Indomável).
Robert DeNiro se tornou a grande encarnação da personagem de Scorsese. O misto de fragilidade com aspereza de sua fisionomia foi importante para que os flagelos da solidão do diretor pudessem aflorar. O ponto alto da parceria acontece em Touro Indomável onde a fragilidade violenta de DeNiro explode na tela e só amansa quando faz o movimento inverso, autoflagelando-se quando LaMotta engorda e tenta uma fracassada carreira como comediante.
O catolicismo e o submundo – principalmente a máfia – permeiam diversos de seus filmes em diferentes momentos da carreira. Muda o registro, que vai do metafórico, simbólico e chega ao mais mundano e inconseqüente nos anos 90. A máfia alcança seu ponto máximo na obra de Scorsese em Os Bons Companheiros, quando perde o glamour e vira motivo de piada escancarando a boçalidade desse tipo de criminoso. Nesse sentido, é o anti-Poderoso Chefão, ainda que sirva como complemento de representação a ele.
Outro fator importante de sua obra é a cinefilia. Scorsese talvez seja a pedra fundamental dos cineastas-cinéfilos e em menor ou maior grau, a história do cinema representa papel importante. Ela serve muitas vezes como recheio de uma segunda camada ou até uma terceira, é a instrumentalização fundamental em Scorsese, já que ele está sempre se reportando ao passado cinematográfico. Não que ele seja um pós-modernista. Contudo, Scorsese sempre mantém a história do cinema em uma das mãos como guia de referência para seu trabalho. A partir de Os Bons Companheiros, com seu final que retoma The Great Train Robbery, esse caráter cinéfilo ganha mais força e culmina, até o momento, em Os Infiltrados e no curta A Key to Reserva.
No longa com Leonardo DiCaprio, Scorsese parece mover-se de encontro às grandes histórias clássicas do cinema policial, principalmente o cinema B dos anos 40 e 50, mas com grandeza da Hollywood canônica de Hawks, Ford, Wyler, Vidor, Walsh. É seu filme mais perto de John Ford, onde todos os planos são feitos para significar muito além da composição e das plásticas, são centrados, recheados, grandiosos, completos. A arte do diretor disfarçada de história codificada sob o gênero policial. Nesse sentido é seu filme que mais deve ao cinema clássico. A Key to Reserva, nessa direção, é seu filme mais de emulação, uma brincadeira com a arte do cinema clássico e com o ofício do diretor. É o cinéfilo que fala cada vez mais alto.
Checklist Martin Scorsese
Esse é apenas uma referência (até para mim mesmo) filme a filme da obra do diertor americano, indo de * a *****
Quem Bate à Minha Porta (Who’s That Knocking at my Door? – 1967) – *
Street Scenes (1970) – Não vi
Boxcar Bertha (1972) – **
Caminhos Perigosos (Mean Streets – 1973) – ****
Italianamerican (1974) – Não vi
Alice Não Mora Mais Aqui (Alice Doesn’t Live Here Anymore – 1974) – **
Taxi Driver (1976) – *****
New York, New York (1977) – ***
O Último Concerto de Rock (The Last Waltz – 1978) – Não vi
American Boy – A Profile of Steven Prince (1978) – Não vi
Touro Indomável (Raging Bull – 1980) – *****
O Rei da Comédia (The King of Comedy – 1982) – ****
Depois de Horas (After Hours – 1985) – ****
A Cor do Dinheiro (The Color of Money – 1986) – ****
A Última Tentação de Cristo (The Last Temptation of Christ – 1988) – *****
Life Lessons (Episódio de Contos de Nova York – 1989) – ***
Os Bons Companheiros (Goodfellas – 1990) – *****
Cabo do Medo (Cape Fear – 1991) – ***
A Época de Inocência (The Age of Innocence – 1992) – Não vi
Cassino (Casino – 1995) – ****
Kundun (1997) – *
Il Mio Viaggio in Italia (1999) – Não vi
Vivendo no Limite (Bringing out the Dead – 1999) – ***
Gangues de Nova York (Gangs of New York – 2002) – ****
While not the greatest movie in the world, Be Kind Rewind is a cute heart-warming film which if suffering from anything has a little too many big name actors involved. The film tells the story of two friends Jerry (Jack Black) and Mike (Mos Def) who accidentally erase all the video tapes at the failing Be Kind Rewind Video store while the owner Mr Fletcher (Danny Glover) is away at a Fats Waller memorial service. In their desperation to hide the mistake from Mr Fletcher and satisfy the few but loyal customers Jerry and Mike attempt to remake some of the classic films the store holds. It all begins with Ghostbusters and from there business builds up as their mini-movies are a hit in the neighbourhood.
While at times Jack Black’s acting is a little like attacking, the rest of the film makes up for it. A novel concept and some solid performances from outstanding actors like Mia Farrow, Sigourney Weaver as well as the lead actors. The cringe moments in the movie were luckily few and far between. I did love the ending with the Fats Waller film and the community coming together which warmed my heart.
There’s a politically potent scene towards the end of the film Green Zone (‘inspired’ by Rajiv Chandrasekaran’s ‘Imperial Life in the Emerald City’) which shows an aerial view of Iraqi oil refineries. Apt and a telling ending to a film that demolishes any belief in WMD. The film has also been dubbed, ‘Bourne in Baghdad’ (based on the Bourne series) as this is another collaboration between Matt Damon and Paul Greengrass. It is a high octane action-packed political thriller fictionalised account (and as they say the difference between documentary and fiction is with fiction you have to tell the truth) that is set at the start of the invasion of Iraq (early 2003) where US military soldier, chief warrant officer Miller, (Damon) is given the task with his unit to find WMDs. Miller discovers that he has been sent on a wild goose chase (the ‘intelligence’ just doesn’t ‘add up’) and wants to know why. Miller goes ‘rogue’ to uncover the truth about WMDs where he is continually obstructed and comes up against the lies and deceit perpetuated by Pentagon and Washington officials, one corrupt official called Poundstone (this reminded me of ‘Operation Treadstone’ in the Bourne films). Miller comes up against a weary and out-of-the-political-loop CIA agent who doesn’t believe there’s any WMDs, a duped journalist, a macho special-ops ‘baddie’ American soldier (played by Brit Jason Isaacs) and disabled war weary Iraqi ‘Freddy’ who acts as Miller’s translator. With the eventual meeting with one Saddam’s generals which is highly dramatic and fast paced, and the whole charade of WMDs unfolds and where the reality dawns of Miller.
Unlike the Hurt Locker which is a more in-depth slow-paced psychological portrait of soldiers engaged in combat in Iraq and obviously with its political colours nailed to the establishment pro-war friendly mast and therefore a safe Oscars shoo-in (Bigelow in her acceptance Oscar speech dedicated it to soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq). In saying all that, I still believe it is a well crafted film and believable characterisations of modern-day shell-shocked soldiers. While Green Zone is clearly partisan in its anti-war message, where the lacks in character development it makes up for it stating loud and clear that the Iraq war was based on a lie, with its shaky edgy hand-held camera docu-drama about it. There is another powerful scene where ‘Freddy’ eloquently states to Miller, ‘you have no right to decide what is best for us’. We witness the horrors of torture as Miller enters a camp where Iraqis are being held, abused hooded frightened men forced to their knees while soldiers stand around with barking dogs. Again, Miller faces up to the reality of the so-called ‘liberation’ of Iraq. It also brought to mind Karl Rove’s latest defence of the indefensible… waterboarding.
The battle scenes are dramatic and cinematography breath-taking (Barry Ackroyd was the cinematographer for The Hurt Locker). The acting is good especially Khalid Abdalla who plays ‘Freddy’ is very impressive and comes across as realistic in his portrayal. Greengrass is known for his social realism and bold political commentary films such as ‘The Murder of Stephen Lawrence’, ‘Bloody Sunday’, and ‘United 93′…
It is undeniably an anti-war film that honestly confronts what really happened in Iraq, which wasn’t about liberation but enslavement and expropriation though some how I doubt it will win any Oscars.
I just finished watching Where the Wild Things Are, which is easily one of the best movies that I have seen over the past year.
It is not a perfect film, but it has moments that capture an exuberant, kinetic and pure joy of a kind I’ve very rarely experienced since childhood. There are moments in the film that reach inside to your own wild thing, that make you want to move along to the wild rumpus on screen. Moments that capture an essence of youth on film both boisterously and delicately, leaving it intact so that energy can leap back out into the audience. I spent most of the film with Max where the wild things were, and the tiniest bits of it with old friends during recess at the Crow Island Woods. Even as I write this, I am remembering in first grade when we tunneled under the fence to escape the playground, how we managed to keep the project secret for what seemed like years but was really days (I would have said that it seemed like millennia, but we barely had conception of months).
But Wild Things is not content with that vivacity. It also explores the casual but harsh cruelty of childhood, the breed of fractiousness and fear that comprise an all too real aspect of early life. It’s easy to build a great fort, but it’s hard to get everyone to be inside it together; as the wild rumpus starts the sun is dying and the world is slowly grinding from rock to sand to dust. Smiles and tears are both integral to the movie, but neither overpowers the other. Wild Things is neither schmaltzy nor sad. It is beautiful, a movie about childhood that was, in the end, not really made for real children, but for inner ones.
Hoje estreiou o novo filme de Robert Pattinson, “Remember Me” ou , aqui no Brasil, “Lembranças” e eu lógicamente fui assistir. A história é realmente emocionante/dramática, principalmente se você tem algum tipo de conflito familiar para se identificar com os personagens apesar do filme em si não ser lá um merecedor de Oscar e afins, mas vale super apena assistir e chorar um pouquinho (haha), além de que o personagem de Robert ( Tyler) valhe cada centavo do ingresso.
so the plot is a bit like watching a toddler wreck a sand castle. But the plot is not important. I mean if you’ve seen a trailer for it or even a freeze frame you have seen the film. Basically the earth doesn’t make it. But that’s not why you go see this film. You go to watch LA slip into the ocean. You go to watch grandmothers drive into walls that jut out of the pavement. You go to watch a plane fly through a collapsing Las Vegas. If you have several hours of your life to kill and some spare change, go see this for the graphics alone. Oh and Woody Harrelson who is amazing.
Hattie McDaniel (June 10, 1895 – October 26, 1952) was an American actress and the first African American to win anAcademy Award of any kind. She won the award for Best Supporting Actress for her role of Mammy in Gone with the Wind(1939).
McDaniel was also a professional singer-songwriter, comedienne, stage actress, radio performer, and television star. Hattie McDaniel was in fact the first black woman to sing on the radio in America.Over the course of her career, McDaniel appeared in over 300 films, although she received screen credits for only about 80. She gained the respect of the African American show business community with her generosity, elegance, and charm.
McDaniel has two stars on the Hollywood Walk of Fame in Hollywood: one for her contributions to radio at 6933 Hollywood Boulevard, and one for motion pictures at 1719 Vine Street. In 1975, she was inducted into the Black Filmmakers Hall of Fame and in 2006 became the first black Oscar winner honored with a US postage stamp.
In 1993, Derek Jarman was dying of AIDS. He had serious complications from his treatments for the disease—eventually going blind—but even in the midst of it, he still managed to create his most personal film.
His final film, “Blue,” is the ultimate statement about death. Jarman’s regular troupe of Tilda Swinton, Nigel Terry, and John Quentin contribute to his final project. The most striking element of the film being the entire visual element. It is a deep shade of Yves Klein blue. This acts as an entrance into Jarman’s mind as he speaks frankly about his life, his illness, and his impending death.
It was a very difficult film for me watch physically;the endless blue tone has that effect. But I was utterly entranced once the voice of Jarman entered the film. He spoke very frankly about his disease, his pains, his blindness, and his desire to keep going. It was, at its core, like watching a person die.
What has always impressed me about Jarman is his lack of need for a traditional narrative structure. In “Blue”, with the visual element essentially gone, we are left to interpret every emotion and every experience along with Jarman. The fact that Jarman throws away the entire visual dimension in a visual medium is truly incredible. What he does in this new presentation is allow the film to become something it could never be. We actually feel his pain: he is dying, and we have to follow right along with it. When I can say that a film is a truly new experience, it amazes me. Derek Jarman’s film “Blue” does just that. Never do I think we will see a film so psychologically engaging and emotionally gut-wrenching.
I can wonder what Jarman would be doing if he were still alive. Even in death, he still had more to say than most other filmmakers could ever hope to have in an entire career.
A medley of love, crime, art, politics, revenge, humour, and western, with a condor on top, this two-hour long adaptation of Antonio Skármeta’s novel of the same name by well regarded Spanish director Fernando Trueba has it all and suffers for it. Set in Santiago following the fall of the Pinochet regime, a nationwide prisoners’ amnesty has been granted. Amongst those to benefit from early release are the ageing master safecracker Nico Vergara Grey (Ricardo Darín) and the seemingly simple-minded but enthusiastic petty thief Angel (Abel Ayala). Vergara Grey now wants nothing more than to find his wife and son and live out a quiet trouble-free life. By way of contrast, though, Angel is hopelessly enthusiastic about his future and has several major plans that he wants to set in motion.
In possibly the film’s most charming few moments, though, Angel firstly runs into Victoria (Miranda Bodenhöfer), a mute and poorly-dressed girl, who has been standing outside of an adult cinema. Gaining her attention initially with a babbling mixture of bluff and bluster, she casts a spell over him by her magical dancing ability. From then on, Angel is utterly smitten, whilst the serious-looking Victoria is clearly beginning to reciprocate his feelings for her. However, she has a troubled past and her impoverished background makes it seemingly impossible for her to become a professional dancer. Meanwhile, Angel hopes to persuade Vergara Grey to do this one big job with him that will allow them all to realize their dreams.
Frankly speaking, there is no need to adjust the resolution on your monitor – you have, indeed, heard all of this somewhere else before now and this film adds little that is new to such familiar themes. Moreover, despite its length, there are several badly underdeveloped subplots here – from Angel’s beef with the sleazy prison warden (Julio Jung) to the relationship between Vergara Grey and his wife (Ariadna Gil) to the decidedly hammy robbery scene. When taken together, they make for a contrived and hackneyed series of scenes that are loosely linked together by Angel’s relationship with the other two main characters. Moreover, what he is doing wearing a Trilby and riding a racehorse around central Santiago is anyone’s guess!
Yet, for all that, there is a warm and pleasant tone to this film that does offset some of the harsher criticisms of it. In part, this is due to the many splendidly composed and photographed scenes that can be enjoyed here. In particular, the final few images make for a very beautiful and evocative ending. Moreover, there are some interesting and undeniably dark undertones to this film that allude to the country’s terrible recent history. They seem to say that as much as Chile is a country reborn and its citizens have all manner of new opportunities and freedoms available to them, there are still the tentacles of an appalling past wrapped around the legs of so many people. Still, as symbolized by the permanence and splendour of the Andes, all of these things will pass in time, even if this can never be soon enough for some.
Presenting the Excellent and elegantly installed solo exhibition of 100 never-before-seen unique and picture perfect Polaroids by photographer Philip-Lorca diCorcia, culled from diCorcia’s archive/collection, spanning the past 25 years, at the David Zwirner Gallery booth during the Armory Show 2010. Price per Polaroid:$,4ooo.00.
100 Polaroids by Philip-Lorca diCorcia, taken by the photographer over the last 25 years and culled from his archive, shown at the David Zwirner Gallery booth during the Armory Show 2010. Image by The Excellent People, 3:14 p.m., Friday, March 5, 2010.
I have been saving for almost a year now to buy a LCD TV along with a home theatre system. My idea of relaxing and de-stressing is watching a good movie. Nothing can be better than watching a movie of your choice comfortably at home on your favorite couch.
A year back when I really wanted to buy a LCD TV the price was well beyond my budget and a luxury for someone who had just started working. But in a last couple of months when my hunt for a good bargain with a renowned brand name and affordable price started again, I realized that the prices seem to have come down considerably. With reduced prices LCD TV has been giving tough competition to plasma TV and has even overtaken them in many international markets.
The LCD stands for liquid crystal display. There are liquid crystals pressed between two glasses, which is electrically charged to form an image. The plasma TV picture may be slightly better than LCD because they can render black better than LCD therefore, providing good contrast.
Though minute details are better seen on LCD because of more pixels on the screen, they were available only in smaller sizes earlier giving plasma TV an edge over them. They are now available in all sizes, even in sizes bigger than forty inches and are as good or better than plasma TV performance wise.
LCD`s are used as computer monitors extensively. They are not only flat and light weight but also consume up to thirty percent less energy. Another interesting factor that caught my attention was 60,000 hours stuck on the LCD`s. This is the number of hours that the LCD can be viewed with optimum picture quality. A slight negative is that LCD TV is not very clearly visible from acute angles.
Since more and more individuals are getting hooked to television and computer monitors are becoming a necessity for individuals all over the world the manufacturers are investing billions of dollars in research. The leading brands in this category are Samsung, Phillips, Sony, LG and Sharp. By 2011 the production of number of LCD TV is expected to go up to sixty one million from about twelve million in 2006. The LCD TV market is expected to be worth 25 million dollars by 2011.
Some leading manufacturers even employ the Original Design Manufacturers (ODM`s) and Electronic Manufacturing Services Providers(EMS), to meet the growing demand. The competition between the brands on the size, quality of the picture and cost has benefited the consumer the most.
Apart from the prices there are a whole lot of features to be compared between the leading brands. I have technically become very aware of the features of the LCD TV after my research on them for a few weeks now. I just wanted this buy of mine to be perfect. For me watching television is not just about moving images but about an experience that has to be perfect.
After a whole lot of research in electronic malls and on internet I finally bought LCD TV that is a best buy for me, well within my budget. I placed my prized possession just beside my home theater converting one small room into a mini comfortable theater.
There are bean bags thrown around with a carpet and an air conditioner. Now, my friends cannot really resist my cozy room and invite themselves over almost every weekend. Many land up with the movie of their choice that sometimes is very annoying to me.
There are some friends who stay back at night after late night show and some who come in with food. Although, I love to spend time with them my effort now is to convince them to have their own LCD TV so that I can get my new LCD TV all to myself. Some seem to be convinced while others are happy to treat my LCD TV as theirs.
John Cusack is at a store picking out a turtleneck and he’s stammering his way through trying to pick which colour to buy. The shy, cute sales girl is trying to help him but seems to be mesmerized by his lack of confidence. A minute later, Jack Black walks by, points to the blue one so John picks the gray one instead then returns a minute later to exchange the gray for the blue. See, anybody can write a John Cusack movie.
Scottie está internado numa unidade de psiquiatria. Midge coloca um disco de Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart no gira-discos.
- Tive uma longa conversa com a senhora da terapia musical. Ela diz que Mozart é o indicado para ti, é a vassoura que varre as teias de aranha. Foi o que ela disse.
So, one of my favorite new actors is Ben Barnes. Hailed from Britain, he’s the beady-eyed, long brown haired actor who has a short resume of films. He made a brief cameo in the Fantasy film Stardust and was the titular character in Narnia: Prince Caspian. So far, his most recent films have not been released in the United States, but thanks to the Internet, I’ve watched three them all. Here are my reviews for them:
Dorian Gray (2009)
I had such high hopes for this film. It’s Victorian gothic literature of a man selling his soul for eternal youth and beauty leading to a journey into hedonism. It’s quite poetic, but the execution was an abomination to the Oscar Wilde’s original work. Ben Barnes is good to look at and his journey is riveting; but cheesy effects, crappy editing, and below average acting did not save this movie. I think I made my mind up when Ben Barnes unsuccessfully kills his mentor with a bow tie and ends his life with a fiery “Tales of the Crypt” death scene. No thank you!
My Rating: C
Easy Virtue (2009)
Easy Virtue is mostly a star vehicle for Jessica Biel but Ben Barnes looks quite dashing in the background. He’s coiffed with 1920s attire as he plays the son of an English family who brings his new bride to meet the family. It’s pretty engaging, but I get the feeling that this film doesn’t cater to American audiences, as much of it is British humor with a touch of 1920s vaudevillian humor. Nonetheless, it’s still a good film to catch Ben Barnes in as he sings a few songs.
My Rating: C+
Bigga Than Ben (2008)
A departure from his typical movies, Bigga Than Ben has Ben Barnes play a Russian refugee who deals with criminal activities. It’s a very independent movie with documentary style angles as it focuses on the underground international lifestyle. Not in a period piece, but it is interesting to see Ben Barnes play a character different from his other films as his character has a Russian accent and dressed like a dirty vagabond. It’s worth a look since a majority of his films are all period pieces.
My Rating: C+
Ben Barnes has much potential and looks great as a great period-era actor, but needs to step up his movie roles. With a background in theatre, he has leading man potential. I’ll wait for his time, but again, he’s very debonair.
The nominees have been announced, the studios all campaigning wildly, and the film critics and pundits all making their annual predictions as to who will take home the revered statues come the evening of March 7, 2010. As I do every year, I try to come to grips with those who have been snubbed of well-deserved recognition (see my previous posting on this blog) and those who are nominated for reasons I cannot yet fathom. In addition, this year brings the new anxiety of trying to brace myself of having to sit and watch Alec Baldwin co-host the ceremonies….I feel it does not bode well for the millions of viewers across the globe. As I stated earlier, it hasn’t been the strongest film for film this year. Even the nominees were somewhat of a bore…a bit anti-climatic. Not many great races to speak of as well, with a few categories already being viewed as semi-locks. I am hoping that this is not an omen of a 4-hour snoozefest on Oscar night, but the realist in me says that this is most likely what we will get.
So here are my predictions for the 82nd Annual Academy Awards in all of the major categories — complete with a listing of “Who Will Win,” “Who Should Win” and finally, “Who Should Have Been in the Running.” Enjoy — and please feel free to post your comments in agreement or heated disagreement!!! I welcome it all….
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Matt Damon (Invictus)
Woody Harrelson (The Messenger)
Christopher Plummer (The Last Station)
Stanley Tucci (The Lovely Bones)
Christoph Waltz (Inglourious Basterds)
This one is a slam dunk. As soon as I left the theatre, I vividly remember thinking, “This guy has the Oscar wrapped up.” Many months later, that same sentiment holds true. This “guy”? Christoph Waltz as Colonel Hans Landa in Quentin Tarantino’s very strong “Inglourious Basterds.” He’s already won numerous accolades for his performance and I don’t see what is to stop him from receiving the grandest accolade of all – especially when I don’t think the film has a legit shot at Picture or Director here. The only competition comes from the wonderful Christopher Plummer, portraying the celebrated author and idealist Tolstoy. He was (as always) truly a marvel to watch – and has never received an Oscar in his prolific career. But in the end, I don’t believe enough people saw the film. Same goes for the other nominees – not many at all saw “Invictus” or “The Messenger” and both Woody Harrelson and Matt Damon are deserving of their nominations here. As for Stanley Tucci, I confess, I did not see the film, but have heard he was one of the very few bright spots in Peter Jackson’s critically (and publically) roasted failure. He nearly ruined King Kong…might as well hurt Alice Sebold’s prose while he’s at it, right?
Who Will Win: Christoph Waltz
Who Should Win: Christoph Waltz
Who Should Have Been Nominated: Burghart Klaubner (The White Ribbon)
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Penelope Cruz (Nine)
Vera Farmiga (Up in the Air)
Maggie Gyllenhaal (Crazy Heart)
Anna Kendrik (Up in the Air)
Mo’Nique (Precious)
I’m in an odd position here and I’ll readily admit this – that based on all that I have read and heard, the winner may very well be the only performance I have missed (“Precious” being the only film of the nominated 10 that I unfortunately missed). But I cannot believe that Maggie Gyllenhaal would win (Lord help us) as I don’t feel a nomination was warranted. And what’s with Penelope Cruz? Why do voters have a fixation with everything she does? Her best work is in Almodovar films – yet she wins for a Woody Allen film when clearly, Amy Adams or Marisa Tomei should have won last year. Go figure. Anyway, she plays the same unbalanced lover here in the subpar “Nine” so I don’t see her winning in back-to-back years. The race comes down to Vera Farmiga and the heavily favored Mo’Nique. Mo’Nique has won just about every “Supporting Actress” award this year and there was some bad press over the fact of whether she would do press for the film or wouldn’t she. That’s all been cleared by now. I liked what Ms. Farmiga did in the Jason Reitman’s wonderful “Up in the Air.” Sadly, I think the film will,, for the most part, be going home empty on Oscar night – and the two actresses nominated here may also split the votes. I can’t speak to Mo’Nique’s performance, but because none of the other four “wowed” me and the glowing press so far received, I have to believe that she will take home the Golden statue.
Who Will Win: Mo’Nique
Who Should Win: since I didn’t see ‘Precious’ I can’t say with authority
Who Should Have Been Nominated: Kate del Castillo (Julia) or
Diane Kruger (Inglourious Basterds)
BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY
Avatar
Harry Potter & the Half-Blood Prince
The Hurt Locker
Inglourious Basterds
The White Ribbon
An interesting list of nominees this year in an all-important category. As impressive as “Avatar” and “Inglourious Basterds” is from a photography standpoint, I would think that the beautifully shot black-and-white film, “The White Ribbon” will steal this one. It’s got a couple of strikes against it in that (a) it’s a foreign film so hence (b) not many have seen the film. I’m certainly not picking it simply because it’s a B&W film. I was just overly impressed with the film as a whole, cinematography included. In addition, the film did just win the A.S.C. award, so it has a little steam going in.
Who Will Win: The White Ribbon
Who Should Win: The White Ribbon
Who Should Have Been Nominated: The Road
BEST ANIMATED FEATURE FILM
Coraline
Fantastic Mr. Fox
The Princess and the Frog
The Secret of Kells
Up
One of the few locks of the evening for sure. The fact that “Up” happens to be nominated for the actual “Best Picture” award tells you all you need to know. I thought “Up” was sweet…a strong 3-star film and not much more. The highlight of the film was the very moving montage between Carl and the love of his life Ellie – without dialogue. Quite beautiful. A sweet film, no doubt, but not one of Pixar’s best. I didn’t get into “Coraline” at all and if you can sit there and tell me that you saw “The Secret of Kells” playing at a theatre near you, I’ll call you a liar right now. “Up” is the sure winner here, but “Fantastic Mr. Fox” was the stronger work and greater achievement in film. I was hoping “Cloudy with A Chance of Meatballs” would get a nomination as I did find that film to be great fun.
Who Will Win: Up
Who Should Win: Fantastic Mr. Fox
Who Should Have Been Nominated: Cloudy with A Chance of Meatballs
BEST ORIGINAL SONG
“Almost There” (Princess & the Frog)
“Down in New Orleans” (Princess & the Frog)
“Loin de Paname” (Paris 36)
“Take it All” (Nine)
“The Weary Kind” (Crazy Heart)
This is a two-horse race, but I really don’t see “The Weary Kind” (by T-Bone Burnett and Ryan Bingham) losing. The two selections by Randy Newman are, let’s face it, Randy Newman songs. No knock on Mr. Newman, but there’s not much new here. A “Best Song” should capture the essence of a character or a specific scene or the film as a whole – or all three. No song has done that better in recent years than the marvelous “Falling Slowly” featured in the little indie-that-could “Once.” Eminem’s “Lose Yourself” (from “8 Mile”) back in 2002 also is a great example. There have been some wonderful songs featured in this category over the years. Sadly, the producers of this year’s telecast have chosen NOT to showcase each song individually and have the artists sing it. This was a great disappointment as some of the most memorable moments in Oscar’s history have come from the musical artist performing the piece live for us. The only competition that “The Weary Kind” may have is “Taken it All” from the musical “Nine.” This is a wonderful song written specially for the film – and is performed with raw passion by Marion Cotillard. It encapsulates her character and everything she has gone through in her failure-of-a-marriage to her ingenious husband. “The Weary Kind” however, is near perfect and will take home the gold. Bingham’s raspy, old vet voice fits splendidly. The lyrics and music perfectly complement the feel of the film (“Crazy Heart”) and depicts the man that is Bad Blake – (“Your body aches/Playing your guitar and sweating out the hate”….” this ain’t no place to fall behind/Pick up your crazy heart and give it one more try.”) I only wish we were given the opportunity to watch it sung for us live on Oscar night.
Who Will Win: “The Weary Kind”
Who Should Win: “The Weary Kind”
Listen to the song here:
BEST ACTOR
Jeff Bridges (“Crazy Heart”)
George Clooney (“Up in the Air”)
Colin Firth (“A Single Man”)
Morgan Freeman (“Invictus”)
Jeremy Renner (“The Hurt Locker”)
Lock. L-O-C-K! And well deserved, I might add. Mr. Bridges is 0 for 4 as an Oscar nominee, but America’s most under-rated actor (can we now say that anymore?) will be winning come Sunday night. It’s a vulnerable, gritty, honest and seemingly effortless performance and his Bad Blake is truly a character to remember. We sympathize with Bad, we root for him, we want him to succeed and get well. That’s what Mr. Bridges brings to the table here. Also, he’s got a nice set of pipes on him! He looked the part and looked quite the natural in all of his vocal scenes. Perfect casting and it is always such a pleasure to watch him work in indie films such as this one – and the bigger blockbusters that he sometimes does. I’m still trying to get over the fact that nominating Jeremy Renner is an utter waste of a perfectly fine 5th slot here. Colin Firth was terrific and the one shining star in what I found to be an unremarkable film. George Clooney is the tricky one here. He was wonderful in a great movie. However, if I am truly honest about it – it was George doing what George does best…the kind of role he can do in his sleep. He is charming, witty, charismatic and at times, susceptible. I enjoyed his performance, but could never think of him beating out the work that Jeff Bridges turned out this past year – it will be a pleasure to watch his acceptance speech. The Dude prevails….
Who Will Win: Jeff Bridges
Who Should Win: Jeff Bridges
Who Should Have Been Nominated: Michael Stuhlbarg (“A Serious Man”)
What a weak category this year. W-E-A-K! It also illustrates a year where there were not very good roles for leading women in cinema. As written in my previous blog, I have no idea why Tilda Swinton was completely forgotten and not nominated for giving the year’s best performance in the very powerful, but little known film “Julia.” Having said that, if Sandra Bullock wins, I will weep. I like Sandra Bullock. I have nothing against Sandra Bullock. She was fine here…gave a good performance. But Oscar worthy?! Please! Years from now we’re going to look back at this film and see an actress truly shine? Hardly. She is here because voters approve of the fact that we’re not seeing her in another piece of crap – plain and simple. That, plus the poor roles for leading women in 2009. But sadly, she does have a legit shot. The movie raked in millions and America loves her. Despite my animosity towards the nomination, her chances are very good…scary, right? The winner, I’m afraid will be Ms. Streep in the very mediocre “Julia & Julia.” I adore Meryl Streep – love her in just about everything she does. With more nominations than anyone in Oscar history now, she surely is one of the greatest actors to ever grace the silver screen – period! Having said that, this is NOT the film she deserves to win for. Not after Oscar has shot her down in much better films in which she has given outstanding performances in like “Doubt,” “Adaptation,” “One True Thing,” and “Out of Africa” to name a few. So why will she win this year? Hollywood adores her (as they should) and she hasn’t won since 1982 – it’s been a while! She’s always there; each year, smiling gracefully each time she is defeated. I feel she will be rewarded for that this year at the expense of Ms. Mulligan who turns in a multi-layered, well-crafted performance in a film that few went out to see. I love Helen Mirren and she is great in “The Last Station,” but she won just a few years back and nobody saw this under-rated film about Tolstoy and his wife in their latter years. It’s a battle for the two undeserving this year. Bullock vs. Streep. It will be nice to see Ms. Streep walk up to accept, and I guess I can swallow that after years of hoping that she would win…however, this year, I know better. You just watch – she’ll give a breathtaking performance in another film this year or next – and will lose out once again.
Who Will Win: Meryl Streep
Who Should Win: Carey Mulligan
Who Should Have Been Nominated: Tilda Swinton (“Julia”)
BEST DIRECTOR
James Cameron (Avatar)
Kathryn Bigelow (The Hurt Locker)
Quentin Tarantino (Inglourious Basterds)
Lee Daniels (Precious)
Jason Reitman (Up in the Air)
This seems to be a very competitive two (wo)man race – between James Cameron and Kathryn Bigelow. Those two seem to be the darlings of past awards presentations over the past couple of months. In my opinion, both simply do not deserve it. Of the five nominees, I would say that Tarantino’s work is the most deserving – and I don’t even care for the man. I hate listening to him speak in that self-important, supercilious way that he does. In truth, I can’t stand watching him, but I can be objective here and say that the man can make a fine film from time to time (“Jackie Brown” and “Kill Bill: Volume I” as examples). I thoroughly enjoyed “Inglourious Basterds” and put it in my Top 10 of the Year. Though he is deserving, he won’t win. It’s between the couple that once was. Not many people like James Cameron – especially after he made a bit of a spectacle of himself when he won for the over-glorified “Titanic” and just a few weeks ago when he dissed Meryl Streep. NOBODY disses Meryl Streep and gets away with it! Not in Hollywood, at least. My feeling is that this year, the “Best Picture” and “Best Director” awards will be split – and history will be made with the first female director ever taking home the Oscar. This does not mean she actually deserves this distinction though – but voters like to congratulate themselves for this kind of thing. You can make a strong argument that Lina Wertmuller deserved to be the first back in 1976 (“Seven Beauties”), but it will instead be for the very over-rated, much ballyhooed “The Hurt Locker.”
Who Will Win: Kathryn Bigelow
Who Should Win: Quintin Tarantino
Who Should Have Been Nominated: Neill Blomkamp (“District 9”)
BEST MOTION PICTURE OF 2009
So “Avatar” took home a zillion dollars, or something like that and was, for all intents and purposes, cutting-edge as far as film achievement goes. It was a wonder to watch in the theatre. I cannot deny the remarkable triumph in that regard. It will continue its phenomenal success by taking home the “Best Picture” Oscar and raking up more zillions in the theatre, in merchandise and in Blue-Ray sales. Having said that, it is not the best film of the year. Think about why it didn’t even garner a screenwriting nomination. The story was not very good at all – highly predictable and took for so many other films in years past. You couldn’t sit through “Avatar” and not be reminded of a film here and another film there (“Dances with Wolves” in particular). Glorious to watch, for sure…but I wouldn’t put it in my Top 10 or Top 15 of the year. It will win though – there are years when Oscar likes to go to the big blockbuster (“Titanic,” “LOTR: Return of the King,” and “Gladiator” to name a few). This will reward the millions watching at home who actually saw one of the nominees and rooting hard for it.
I already made my feelings known about “The Hurt Locker.” Though a critical darling and on many Top 10 lists around the country, I simply do not see it. I feel it is overvalued. Maybe I missed something. Maybe I was in a cranky mood when I saw it. I have no idea. I simply know that when it was over, I thought, “Hmph, that was it?”
“District 9” deserves the win, but has no chance at all, especially when the director is not nominated here – and I don’t see another “Driving Miss Daisy” year coming. Of the ten, it was the strongest and most powerful piece of original filmmaking. I’m not a sci-fi guy by any stretch, but the film works as a marvelous parable to our world today. It is riveting, haunting and at times, quite touching. I’ll be rooting hard for it, but to no avail, I’m afraid.
“Up” has its own category all to itself – way to waste a place Oscar voters! That’s why the “Best Animated Feature” was created to begin with – to prevent this!
I loved Jason Reitman’s “Up in the Air.” What a fine filmmaker with this work following the wonderful dark comedy, “Thank You for Smoking” (I felt “Juno” was the weakest of the three by far). “Up in the Air” is probably the most topical film of 2009 and makes a profound statement on our economy and the job market during a historical recession. Great performances across the board and a sharp, clever, thoughtful screenplay. This would be my personal #2 choice. An outside shot at best – if “Avatar” and “The Hurt Locker” split the votes, this could creep in and surprise everyone. Let’s hope it does!
“A Serious Man” (besides “Intolerable Cruelty” the Coen Brothers have not made a bad film!) is along for the ride here – but I was thrilled to see it not forgotten and in the running for the evening’s grand prize – kudos to the voters for including this insightful, funny and splendid film.
Who Will Win: Avatar
Who Should Win: District 9
Who Should Have Been Nominated: Watchmen or (500) Days of Summer
OTHER PICKS:
BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
Who Will Win: Inglourious Basterds
Who Should Win: A Serious Man
Who Should Have Been Nominated: (500) Days of Summer
BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
Who Will Win: Up in the Air
Who Should Win: Up in the Air
Who Should Have Been Nominated: Julia (or Where the Wild Things Are)
BEST FILM EDITING
Who Will Win: The Hurt Locker
Who Should Win: District 9
BEST ART DIRECTION
Who Will Win: Avatar
Who Should Win: Avatar
BEST VISUAL EFFECTS
Who Will Win: Avatar
Who Should Win: Avatar
BEST MAKE-UP
Who Will Win: Star Trek
Who Should Win: Star Trek
BEST COSTUME DESIGN
Who Will Win: The Young Victoria
Who Should Win: (did not see 2 of the films nominated)
BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE
Who Will Win: The Cove (if you haven’t seen it – rent it!)
I felt “Food Inc.”, as informative as it was could have been more “viewer-friendly” if that makes any sense. Michael Moore – pay attention…this is what documentaries are supposed to be….they are not editorials.
So those are my picks – for better or for worse. I hope I am wrong about a number of them. I’ve been watching the Academy Awards each year without fail since I was about eight or nine years old. Too young to even care, I suppose. My friends and family have always joked with me, calling Oscar night my Christmas. In many ways, it is. I love film just about more than anything. It is what I do…I watch movies. I watch too many movies – but there are very few things that give me greater pleasure than going to a theatre, sitting in the darkened room and watching a work of art on the screen. And film is art – there is no question about that. And that art is celebrated each year in grand fashion at the Kodak Theatre. I could care less about the Red Carpet – I never even watch that. I could care less about the dresses. I watch no other Awards show prior to the Oscars (could never be bothered with the SAG awards or the over-hyped Golden Globes). It’s all about the little golden guy they have called Oscar since 1928. No matter what films are nominated, which films or actors win or lose, I am glued to the television – and they become a part of motion picture history. The past few ceremonies have been somewhat boring, true. Here’s hoping that this year will be a pleasant surprise – and that the best artists in each category win!
Again, I welcome any and all comments here. Feel free to share your own picks on this page. That would be great. I’m hoping some are even reading this blog and that I’m not writing for my own sake. That would just be sad.
Most of all – to each of you – enjoy your Oscar Night!!!
(Next Posting Coming Soon — Best & Worst Films of 2009)
Starring – Mia Wasikowska, Johnny Depp, Anne Hathaway, Helena Bonham Carter, Crispin Glover, Michael Sheen, Stephen Fry, Matt Lucas, Alan Rickman
Every seasoned cinema-goer is no doubt fully aware of such idiosyncrasy and succinct casting by one Tim Burton. Every child is raised with some knowledge, however extensive, of Lewis Carroll’s dark tales of Alice and her adventures in Wonderland.
Whilst Alice In Wonderland is undeniably Burton-esque, the seeping, monotonous, drivel churned out by the corporate drudge of Disney unashamedly puts a dampener on what should theoretically be one of the greatest 3D experiences of 2010. Instead of tempting an audience to the edge of their seats in sheer delight, they are dragged into a false sense of hope that, at any moment, something wonderful and ethereal is going to happen, which will make the effort worth their while.
What fails Burton in lieu of the expectant over-Disneyfied bunkum, is Linda Woolverton’s re-imagining and revisiting of Wonderland when Alice (newcomer Mia Wasikowska) is in her teens. Ultimately, the illustrious title gives far too much in the way of expectation and wholesomely fails to outline that this is not Alice In Wonderland, it is emblematic of what younger generations believe it to be. In being so, we find it to be a lazy, vapid take on a childhood classic that most of us have known and loved.
This crowded, muddy interpretation has sullied a routinely stellar project by a lauded, quirky, visionary and has already found even the greatest of fans leave with their heads bowed in an awkward shame. So too have the otherwise faultless performances from such a popular cast been overshadowed by a heavy, almost pointless venture.
Though it pains to say all this, even setting out with low expectations, it is difficult to understand just how appallingly tragic the film feels. For all it’s comedy, big names and great performances as well signature, picture-perfect special effects and Danny Elfman’s soundful delights, it feels flat. The ambiguity of some of the original characters, partucularly the Cheshire Cat (Stephen Fry) have been cast aside in favour of quick lines to tie up the narrative knots, but are blatant to those who know the original story.
For all it’s failings, a few things beyond performance shone through; The costumes (particularly Alice’s) were stylish and didactic and worked well in contrast to the artistic conception of the sets. In true Burton style, the atmosphere was generally dark with his trademark feel-good factor licking at core. Everyone has come to expect good things from our peculiar auteur and credit where it’s due, he has achieved another notch on his unorthodox belt, however, the bitter pill appears to be in the shape of a giant, curvy, letter ‘D’ and it’s not that easy to swallow.
