Pretentious Film Awards 2009--Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role

Welcome to the 2nd Annual Pretentious Film Awards! Like last year, the first category to be announced is Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role. And the reliable women are:


Jennifer Coolidge in The Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans
Years of reliable yet undemanding supporting work may still have made this turn surprising for some people who don't realize how tonally perfect and welcome she is here.




Vera Farmiga in Up in the Air
For imbuing what could read as a stock character with a predictable plot "twist" (Oh my God, she's married?!) with intelligence, sexiness and zeal. I called this wrong. I NEVER thought the Academy would go for something this finely hewned and understated. And they (probably...knock on wood) will.






Anna Kendrick in Up in the Air
For imbuing an unnecessarily and unrealistically obnoxiously written character with humanity, layers and heart. I can't wait to see what she does next.




Mo'Nique - Precious
The film sidesteps one of Mary's greatest transgressions in Sapphire's novel, possibly glossing it over because the audience may not be able to handle it. Therein lay a great challenge for any actor. Horrifyingly portray an unspeakable act that takes place off screen. And yet, for all of Mary's frighteningly loud hostility (handled with aplomb), Mo'Nique provides unprecedented chills with a hauntingly pitch-perfect reading of "Come take care of mommy, Precious."


Samantha Morton - The Messenger
For wisely resisting the urge to overplay the sadness and resignation. Her scene in the mall is memorable and miraculously never dips into realms of preachiness. She deftly handles a role that could have read as ill-fitting as her character's clothing.



Finalists:
Diane Kruger and Melanie Laurent in Inglourious Basterds. Both are sensational and handle Quentin Tarantino's dialogue with skill and finesse. But how to choose between naughty fun treason and quiet meticulous vengeance, respectively? Marion Cotillard is fabulous in Nine, both comparatively and in her own right.

Semi-Finalists
Kate del Castillo can't really keep up with Tilda Swinton in Julia, but she puts forth a valiant and respectable effort. Rosamund Pike is a welcome breath of fresh air in An Education, even if it happens to be all surface.

What's to Come

Hello all. I will begin posting my year end film awards today. As a result, my "Best of the Aughts" series will have to take a backseat.

I will also be posting brief thoughts on the Golden Globes and the Critics Choice Awards, though I have decided not to cover Oscar precursors nearly as heavily as I did last year. Anyway, coming soon are the 2nd Annual Pretentious Film Award Nominees for Best Supporting Actress.

Tah!

Recent Reviews--Reader Beware (Extremely Stream of Conscious) Part 3

Here we go. Last batch.

(500) Days of Summer
Almost an inverse reaction to District 9 in that I had a lot more reservations about this film on my initial viewing. I think I said something to the effect of "I don't want to see any more romcoms about white twenty-somethings that rely on their soundtrack as a plot device." That may still be a valid point, but upon subsequent returns, (500) Days of Summer actually continues to rise in my estimation, specifically its screenplay and Joseph Gordon-Levitt's wonderful lead performance. Zooey Deschanel, who I've heard referred to as "just okay" by even ardent fans of the film is quite good here in her role that's a delightful male fantasy. Certainly better than she's receiving credit for. Like Precious, it contains little experiments here and there that are hit or miss, but they add to the film's overall charm. I can't wait to see how Oscar treats it.
Grade: B

The Hurt Locker
Nothing would please me more than to see Kathryn Bigelow ride her legion of critics awards all the way to a best directing Oscar. It would be so satisfying, not only because she'd be the first woman to win but also because she so richly deserves it. The Hurt Locker remains one of my most vivid movie-watching experiences of 2009. After two viewings months apart, it still won't let go. The images, the sounds, the acting...it all just lingers with you for so long after you've left the theater. This is one of the best pictures of the year and of the decade.
Grade: A

Funny People
I enjoyed Judd Apatow's first two outings immensely, despite their flaws. Both 40-Year-Old Virgin and Knocked Up are funny and entertaining, while being too long, too unfocused and a tad too self-consciously heteronormative. The problem with Funny People is that it has all of the flaws of his earlier work and none of the virtues. I'll admit that I like my films to be on the shorter end (90 to 120 minutes unless they need to be longer). This film has NO business being only twenty minutes shorter than The English Patient. It's so unpleasantly and unevenly misanthropic, with Adam Sandler bearing the bulk of the blame. I get that he and Apatow are friends, but...Sandler is not nearly self-aware or endearing enough as an actor to be in on the joke that is himself. Sorry. The only reason why this film isn't an "F" is because it introduced the world to Raaaaaaaandy.
Grade: D

Whatever Works
So, okay. It's not as good as Vicky Cristina Barcelona. It's a little grating. Patricia Clarkson and Evan Rachel Wood are playing caricatures. But God help me, I didn't think this film was nearly as bad as everyone said it was. It's deeply flawed, even when you compare it to Woody Allen's recent uneven body of work. But I found it pretty damn entertaining. In a lot of ways, it almost felt like an extended episode of "Curb Your Enthusiasm," and not just because of the presence of Larry David. It's not great. But the naysayers really went for the throat on this one and I don't understand all the rage.
Grade: B-

Bruno
I would say that it's not as funny as Borat, but I'm not even sure that's the problem. Have you rewatched Borat? It doesn't really hold up. What made Borat funny was the fact that, with the exception of the fans of "The Ali G Show," most people were unfamiliar with Sacha Baron Cohen and his antics. It felt fresh and irreverent, where Bruno three years later feels boring and predictable in its attempts to offend. I knew every moment when I was supposed to laugh, but the film (with the exception of one sequence) never quite got me there. It would have probably been smarter to make this film a little sooner. The dust had settled on Borat long before this hit theaters.
Grade: D

Moon
An ambitious, meditative sci-fi film that really touches emotionally. Reminiscent of Silent Running, this film falls just short of being the masterpiece that many rabid fans declared it to be. It does boast an impressive, award-worthy turn from Sam Rockwell and left very few dry eyes in the theater by the time the credits were rolling. Oh, and can Kevin Spacey stick to voice acting from here on out? He's never been better.
Grade: B

Outrage
I get that this documentary sparked a little bit of a celebration in the gay community. I understand that there's something satisfying about the outing of closeted conservative politicians who implement and support hateful, discriminatory legislation by day and suck dick by night. I read all of that. But I found this documentary to be an incredibly facile, reductive exercise in schadenfreude that left a very bad taste in my mouth. I'm against the idea of "outing" people on principle, even in this case and the fact that the film seems so fixated with hurting these men rather than bringing about any real change makes me unable to fully get behind it. It's very similar to how I feel about those who celebrated when Larry Craig got arrested. It's ironic, certainly. But Larry Craig's arrest is hardly a shot-in-the-arm for the gay rights movement.
Grade: C

The Girlfriend Experience
Steven Soderbergh is often more interesting when he's being experimental, with Erin Brockovich being the notable exception. I haven't seen The Informant! so I can't make that assessment this time around, but I found this to be a fascinating outing and one that generated one of the most heated post-movie discussions I've ever been involved in. Adult film star Sasha Grey proves to be little more than a cipher through which Soderbergh is expressing his ideas, but she still manages to eke out a respectable performance.
Grade: B

State of Play
I'm curious to see if the British miniseries is as interminably boring and forgettable as this. It's not a bad film, but I literally forgot that I saw it like a week later. Hasn't Russell Crowe been gaining weight for a role for the past fifteen years or something? Dude, wear it well and own it.
Grade: B-

Notorious
I saw this in Atlanta on MLK weekend. The most fun I've ever had at the movies where the fun was not derived from the actual movie. Naturi Naughton's performance as Li'l Kim is, believe it or not, worth a revisit to this film. I kind of think she nails it. Too bad about the rest of the film, though.
Grade: C-

Recent Reviews--Reader Beware (Extremely Stream of Conscious) Part 2

Here we go again. I've recovered from thinking about Invictus.

The Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans
Um...what do I even say about this? It's certainly never boring. Nicholas Cage is more watchable than he's been in years. Jennifer Coolidge turns in a specifically plucky and in-your-face supporting turn that, were it any other actress performing in any other film, would surely garner some awards attention. This is a film that commences, already in realms of Bjork eccentricity and crescendoes gradually into full-tilt Brian Wilson insanity. For that, I've got to respect it and I kind of expect no less than Werner Herzog, who I had the pleasure of hearing speak in person after a screening of this film.
Grade: B-

The Road
Gorgeously shot, necessarily slow paced and well-acted. This is a film that was made with such a full understanding of its almost unfilmable source material. I believe that this is the best film that could have been made based on Cormac McCarthy's staggering and beautiful novel. If it can't be my beloved Jeremy Renner (The Hurt Locker) who grabs that fifth best actor slot that seems to be up for grabs, then I'm totally pulling for Viggo Mortensen who is wonderful here. Kodi Smit-McPhee also impresses, sidestepping the usual cliches of child acting. Nick Cave and Warren Ellis's dark, foreboding score brought tears to my eyes. Is this a perfect film? No. Far from it. I could have done without the beefing up of Charlize Theron's part, not because I have anything against her, nor because it's so untrue to the novel, but because it's so unnecessary. It is, however, a solid film. Certainly more worthy of the zero conversation its generating.
Grade: B+

Brothers
While not terrible, it stinks to high heaven of unrealized potential, even if you don't hold it up against the beautiful Danish original. It's on Netflix watch instantly. Check it out. I'm not a Tobey Maguire fan. At all. I find him to be incredibly blank and corpse-like as an actor. That being said, I'm fully willing to admit that my bias against him may be clouding my judgment, but I did not understand one note of his performance here. He's so shrill on one end and vacant on the other, beyond the requirements of the role in both cases. Natalie Portman is already behind an 8 ball, miscast as a small town, all-American former cheerleader/ war widow. I'll give her that. But she brings few notes to the table. Jake Gyllenhaal tries his best, but ultimately suffers from lack of a good script/good screen partners to play off of. Props to young Bailee Madison, who plays Portman and Maguire's oldest daughter with shocking aplomb and believability. But she's not enough to save the film.
Grade: C+

Up in the Air
I've already spoken about this film briefly. It's very well-made. Polished seems to be the word that comes to mind. It's also superbly acted. This is one of the few cases in recent memory where I'm legitimately behind the Oscar buzz for every performer. Especially the women. Vera Farmiga and Anna Kendrick are fantastic. But the best of the year talk...I'm just not there. Sorry. I enjoyed it, certainly. But it's not a game-changer by any stretch of the imagination. Outside of the aforementioned performances, I seldom think about any specific aspects of Up in the Air less than two months later. The way it sidesteps addressing job loss and the recession in any sort of meaningful way is a bit of a headscratcher, as is its need to spend some twenty minutes at the wedding of two characters who we don't know or care anything about. That being said, it's a good, if over-praised film. Not nearly as great as its lovers would have you believe. Not nearly as bad as its haters would have you believe. A very pleasant movie-going experience. I certainly smiled.
Grade: B



Paranormal Activity
Bleh.
Grade: D





Julie & Julia
What a complete trifle of a film, even when you take into account Streep's enjoyable and overly praised performance. I cannot even remember the last time I violently disliked such a seemingly innocuous film. The Julia Child portion of the film is fine (and that's being generous). Streep is good (as usual) and she has some seriously heartwarming chemistry with Stanley Tucci. If Tucci's getting Oscar buzz, fine but why couldn't it have been for this instead of The Lovely Bones? The Julie Powell portion of the film is absolutely atrocious in a way that every review that says so can't possibly prepare you for. Seriously, Nora Ephron...you curse my beloved Amy Adams with a character and direction as needlessly hostile as her haircut, force me to watch her be mean to Chris Messina for two hours and then expect me NOT to react with vitriol? Nope. Not going to happen.
Grade: C

Julia
Tilda Swinton is absolutely fearless. Only she could take a completely, almost cartoonishly unlikeable character who makes obvious mistake after obvious mistake and make it layered, interesting and modulated. There are so many notes in her performance as the title character that it's practically a symphony. The film is exciting too, if a bit overlong. I leaned forward, I held my breath and I gasped more times than I can remember. Tilda Swinton is exactly the type of actress that we need more of. Someone who doesn't take a project unless she sees that there is something interesting, peculiar and spectacular to do. I said it before and I'll say it again. Tilda Swinton is absolutely, 100% fearless and the fact that she already has an Oscar makes me think the AMPAS voters must have been whacked out on cough-medicine that year or something. Actresses as specifically and startlingly talented as her often go without big laurels. I pray she continues to make movies like this until she's 95.
Grade: B

Capitalism: A Love Story
Michael Moore doesn't make documentaries. Let's drop that pretense now. He makes film editorials. But his films are (usually) so well-made and entertaining that one can often forgive the shaky facts and misleading interviews. Capitalism: A Love Story is (mostly) no exception. It ranks somewhere in the middle of his films. Better than the middling Sicko and the almost abysmal Fahrenheit 9/11, but not quite as good as the wonderful Roger n' Me and the iconic Bowling for Columbine.
Grade: B


District 9
I certainly enjoyed this more when I first saw it, but it has experienced somewhat of a fast fade in my memory. Its allusions to apartheid feel more heavy-handed and obvious in retrospect, but its scenes of well choreographed action still remain a vivid and positive memory. There was certainly no other film like it in 2009 and I'm excited to see what Neil Blomkamp comes up with next.

Grade: B

Part 3 is coming up soon...

Recent Reviews--Reader Beware (Extremely Stream of Conscious) Part 1

We shall return to our "Best of the Aughts" series later this week. It's been ages since I've written a full-length review. Over the holiday, I got insanely caught up on my 2009 releases, so much so that I only have about 3 films left to watch. I thought I'd write one big beautiful post summarizing my feelings about films I've recently watched in an informal fashion. The Academy is nominating 10 films for best picture this year--screw structure.

A Single Man
So replete with good moments and good ideas that one can almost forgive the fact that many of those moments don't connect and many of those ideas aren't fully or richly explored. I was so incredibly moved by Colin Firth's speech about minorities that I almost don't care that I wasn't moved at all by the loss of his lover. Julianne Moore is plucky and fun, though Oscar buzz is a bit of a stretch. I was unbelievably horrified by Nicholas Hoult's performance, then doubly horrified to discover that he's the kid from About a Boy (God, I'm getting old). Yes, it's beautiful but also terribly shallow and unrealized at parts, but I'm being generous because I have a hunch that it's surface-y nature is intended.
Grade: B- (very low B- inching backwards towards a C)

Where the Wild Things Are
Yes, it takes a while to get started and yes it's a little dark for the same youthful audience it desperately needed to attract in order to recoup its budget, but what a wholly engrossing, enriching and beautiful moviegoing experience it was. All of the little flourishes--Karen O's score, Spike Jonze's direction and Max Records pitch-perfectly petulant performance make for an imperfect but resonant piece of cinema that will be talked about for years to come.
Grade: B+

Sin Nombre
Beautifully acted, well-paced and heartwarming, in all the ways that Slumdog Millionaire tried and failed to be (whilst offending many in the process in its failure). It wisely never fetishizes its exotic locale, nor does it try to over explain or provide context into said locale, knowing that doing either would serve to suppress the realness achieved here. And yes, this film was written and directed by a Japanese American. Danny Boyle, take note.
Grade: B+

The Lovely Bones
Not the complete travesty that some are saying, but make no mistake--it's still pretty damn bad. Peter Jackson's direction, while never ambivalent, ranges from heavy-handed to really heavy-handed (every time I even think about thinking about the cross-cutting between Wahlberg smashing the bottle ships and the schooners crashing on the heavenly shore I want to projectile vomit). The characters are written without any semblance of depth or clarity, even Stanley Tucci's bewilderingly lauded supporting turn. Wahlberg suffers from being incredibly miscast and bogged down with a script that's less interested in mining the emotions of a grieving family than it is in allowing Peter Jackson to throw visual flourishes at the audience, like darts at a cork board, and see what sticks. Susan Sarandon, Michael Imperioli and Rachel Weisz are just some of the talent in this film who I hope took up knitting on set, because there sure as hell wasn't a whole lot for them to do. Seriously...the BFCA nominated Saoirse Ronan for this (and in two categories, no less)?
Grade: C-

Nine
I'm not sure if this is the worst film of the year, but it's pretty darn close. It's definitely the worst of my highly anticipated films of 2009. I'm bewildered and appalled by a musical film that is so disgusted and ashamed of the fact that it's a musical. It's like little Sarah Jane trying to pass for white in Imitation of Life. Its lead actor barely sings a note and when he does it's all in his head, because Rob Marshall is apparently in love with that framing device. Marion Cotillard and Penelope Cruz emerge with good and fine turns, respectively. Kate Hudson flips her hair and dances her ass off in the confines of a horribly atonal number called "Cinema Italiano" that (I'm not joking) had jaws on the FLOOR in the theater, it was so bad. What's more offensive is that said song will probably be nominated for best original song at the Oscars (yuck). I definitely enjoyed Chicago with reservations, and Memoirs of a Geisha is certainly not as bad as I judged it at the time. With his third outing, however, it's clear that Rob Marshall is an incredibly surface-y, haphazard and arbitrary director. He may be the worst person of the past ten years to hold a Directors Guild Award, and yes I'm including Ron Howard.
Grade: D

The Messenger
It certainly meanders in its final act, but never to a severe detriment to the film. Ben Foster and Woody Harrelson do some of their best work in a film that is very stridently unafraid to be about what it's about. Every time these two soldiers go to tell a family about their deceased military loved one (and I counted about 5 or 6), it's felt deeply and unflinchingly. Samantha Morton proves, once again (was there ever a doubt?) that she's one of the most versatile and relevant actors working today. She easily gets best in show laurels for a performance in a role that could have easily read as miscast.
Grade: A-

A Serious Man
Funny, specific, uncomfortable, divisive and without and ending. Yep, it's definitely the Coen brothers. Could this be their pet project? Could this be the film that they've always wanted to make? It certainly feels like it. I know some are calling it too strange, too overpraised and too specific. I read all of that. But I found it to be richly satisfying and incredibly well-observed. And if this film isn't too Jewish for a black Canadian/lapsed Catholic, then it's certainly not too Jewish for anyone else (whatever that means).
Grade: B

Avatar
Consider this my mea culpa. Even me, for all my cynicism, defenses and (yes) pretension can't deny that Avatar pretty much rocks. Yes, it's often atrociously written (seriously...unobtanium?) and yes, it's a retread of a story that's been told before. And it's a little racist. But it's also spectacularly made, wonderfully told and emotionally resonant (for me, at least). Moreover, it's making it cool to like Titanic again. And I know that the tide has been turning on that one, where it's grudgingly respected rather than universally ridiculed. But Cameron has still got it and Avatar is evidence that he never lost it in the first place.
Grade: B+

Invictus
I rarely try to delve into the mind of the filmmaker and presume to know his or her intentions when making a film, even when I don't like it. But make no mistake--Clint Eastwood made Invictus to win awards. There's absolutely nothing about this film--how indifferently it's directed and written, how little it tries to do more than scratch the surface of the politics, Eastwood's own political leanings--that leads me to believe otherwise. Nathaniel over at The Film Experience often says it best, so I'll quote. "It's so ham-fistedly unworthy of discussion." That's ALMOST true, except for the fact that even though he lost out on the DGA nomination, Eastwood may still usurp Lee Daniels spot as a best director nominee at the Oscars. Even if I hypothetically hated Precious, one can never call Daniels's direction indifferent or arbitrary. It's such a singular vision, even when it missteps and is certainly more worthy of accolades than Clint Eastwood's rugby game, practically in real time (WTF?). And I know that Precious is viewed as an overwrought melodrama worthy of Lifetime, whereas Invictus is a prestige picture. But even so, a good hamburger is better than a terrible steak. And Precious is a great, well-seasoned hamburger with all the fix-ins on a focaccia bun served on a fluorescent beige platter. Invictus is barely Outback Steakhouse. I'm not one of those who thinks that Morgan Freeman is the best thing since sliced bread and I found this performance to be incredibly uneven and phoned in, as if he knew he would get an Oscar nomination no matter what. In his defense, he was right so why even try? I know this rant borders on excessive, and of course Invictus is not the worst film of the year. But it's just so offensively pedestrian that the acclaim it's receiving inspires rage in me not seen since the likes of A Beautiful Mind.
Grade: C-

And that's the end of Part 1. I'll post Part 2 in a couple of hours. After railing against Invictus, I am spent.

Peace, Love and Pretension

Best of the Aughts Continued--2001

My top ten list from 2001 looked a little something like this...

1. In the Bedroom (Todd Field)
2. The Royal Tenenbaums (Wes Anderson)
3. Memento (Christopher Nolan)
4. Moulin Rouge! (Baz Luhrmann)
5. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (Peter Jackson)
6. Amelie (Jean-Pierre Jeunet)
7. Gosford Park (Robert Altman)
8. Monster's Ball (Marc Forster)
9. Ghost World (Terry Zwigoff)
10. The Believer (Henry Bean)

This is a mostly respectable list. 2001 boasted one of the best lineups for cinema in the aughts. #1 and #2 would probably swap places, then swap back on any given day. Both of these films hold up very well. I have probably returned to Todd Field's disarming debut the most out of all the films on this list. I seldom think about Memento anymore, though it is a singular achievement, without a doubt. Ditto for The Believer, which probably crept its way onto this list because of Ryan Gosling's fiery lead performance. Gosford Park would probably rank higher on this list if I were to make it today, and Ghost World may not make the list at all. I recognize that Zwigoff's biting misanthropic tragicomedy has moments of inspired brilliance, but as a whole I'm forced to admit that it hasn't burned bright in my memory. I'm one of the few people who actually approve of Halle Berry's highly-contested best actress win. I still hold true to that feeling. Having revisited Monster's Ball, I'm not sure it would still make the list, but it's a solid film. Since making this list, I've watched David Lynch's work of sheer brilliance that is Mulholland Drive. Something would have to take take the fall for these masterworks, but surely one of them is not Moulin Rouge! which evokes so many emotions in me (not all positive) but it is never boring or forgettable and I'm not sure it ever will be. For the record, I saw Hedwig and the Angry Inch after the fact...I enjoyed it, certainly, but not enough to justify a spot on this list.

Films I Missed: AI: Artificial Intelligence, Bandits, Black Hawk Down, Crazy/Beautiful, Frailty, Iris, In the Mood for Love, Monsoon Wedding, Vanilla Sky.

The Aughts...A film Retrospective: 2000

Since it is all the rage, I've decided to do a retrospective of my favorite films from each year in the aughts, both at the time and how they rate now. This is all leading up to my list of my favorite films from the decade, as well as my favorite of this past year (I still have four big titles I need to see before I can evaluate 2009 in cinema). We'll start off with 2000, obviously.

At the time, my top ten list looked something like this. I'd like to qualify that I was all of 14 years old in 2000. Anyhoo...

1. Requiem for a Dream (Darren Aronofsky)
2. American Psycho (Mary Harron)
3. Ginger Snaps (John Fawcett)
4. Almost Famous (Cameron Crowe)
5. Dancer in the Dark (Lars Von Trier)
6. The Gift (Sam Raimi)
7. Before Night Falls (Julian Schnabel)
8. Amores Perros (Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu)
9. Erin Brockovich (Steven Soderbergh)
10. Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon (Ang Lee)

Wow...I know. It's mostly respectable, I suppose. Ranking American Psycho as my #2 seems very generous, if not completely ridiculous in retrospect. Christian Bale's phenomenal lead performance still burns bright, but the rest of the film...not so much. Requiem for a Dream is a film that (believe it or not) I've revisited several times. It still remains the most indelible movie-watching experience of 2000, but the best? Debatable. The Gift seems like the one I should be making the most apologies for (give or take Ginger Snaps) but both remain watchable, enjoyable fare for me. I'm not sure how they would rank if I were to watch some of the films I've omitted, and retoggle things. Erin Brockovich is one of my favorite movies of all time and I am not apologizing for it (nor am I sure that I should). At the risk of being reductive in my language, it is such a GOOD film. It would definitely rate higher than it did here. I have little or no desire to revisit Dancer in the Dark, Almost Famous or Amores Perros. Should I? With Amores Perros, I definitely hadn't grown tired of Inarritu's overly-maudlin, timeline-in-a-blender style of filmmaking. I find 21 Grams to be so relentlessly and unnecessarily wrenching that it may have made me overly harsh of Babel (but we can discuss that when I get to 2003 and 2006 respectively). I have recently revisited Before Night Falls. While it lacks the emotional punch it had at the time, I still found it compelling.

Still haven't seen: Pollock, You Can Count on Me, Chocolat, High Fidelity, Traffic (I know), Nurse Betty, Wonder Boys, Cast Away, Shadow of the Vampire...among others. I'm sure a lot of these omissions seem glaring and unforgivable, but dude...in August of 2000, I turned FOURTEEN YEARS OLD.

Sometimes I Blog...

So, once again I allowed life to sweep me up and away and I haven't blogged in over a month. Grad school has been amazing and challenging (and quite the time-suck), so I have an excuse. Plus (ahem) I premiered my feature film in Atlanta. I'm not one for hyperbole, but seeing a feature film I directed on the big screen, as well as having the title of my film on the marquee of a theater that I've been going to for years made for the best night of my very young life. But enough about me...

So, awards season has already started. There's no point in even posting the BFCA, Globe, NBR or SAG nominees at this point. You've heard about them ad-nauseum elsewhere by now. I plan to post reviews/mini-reviews of films I've seen recently (Up in the Air, The Road, Invictus, Avatar, Brothers, etc). I have to run down my list, but I'm fairly certain I have a little under ten films left that I absolutely need to see. I'll be posting more in the next few weeks.

Peace, Love and Pretension.

Up in the Air with Reitman and other thoughts

I just saw Up in the Air yesterday. I can't talk about it too much (my thoughts are too fresh on it for the moment) but let's say...I enjoyed it. It's pretty much impossible not to. Let me just say, regarding the Oscar talk, people are right about...

Clooney. His very recent win for Syriana, plus the fact that some will read this performance as easy effortless for Clooney, PLUS the Colin Firth/Jeff Bridges factor will likely prohibit him from winning. But he should snag his third nomination, no problem.

Anna Kendrick. She's plucky and funny (two things that often get you noticed in the supporting actress category) and she brings layers to what is essentially a caricature. In a category that only seems to have one lock (Mo'Nique for Precious) and one "probably" (Julianne Moore for A Single Man) I don't see how Kendrick misses here, what with the Nine ladies causing confusion left and right with this Cotillard lead/supporting mess.

I'm less sure about...

Vera Farmiga. Her performance is a lot quieter than Kendrick's and she suffers (**spoiler alert**) the unlikeable character conundrum, which tends to hurt women more than men. I may be wrong, but I'm not thinking she gets nominated for this.

Picture. I know it's a ten-wide field, but I could still see Up in the Air missing. It's not the total slam-dunk it's being built up to be. The film's third act almost collapses under the weight of everything before it. The tonal shifts provide a sort of narrative whiplash. It's not going to be a massive crowd-pleaser like Juno (again, I could be wrong, and maybe projecting a little in this case). What could potentially help Up in the Air is its own perceived relevance to the current economic recession. Potentially. But (without going into too much detail), I'll say that that's problematic in and of itself and I'm sure a lot more reviewers will discuss this at length after the movie is released. All of these comments seems to suggest that I liked the movie a lot less than I did, by the way. It's a good film.

Other thoughts:

Reitman can light up a room. He speaks very honestly about his experiences as a filmmaker and I didn't detect one trace of bullshit or entitlement, even when people asked him incredibly stupid questions. He's also very charming and funny, in a way that's completely unforced and unaffected. Kind of like how I imagine Clooney to be, honestly (aside: I know people read Clooney's coolness as smugness, but I don't...or if I do, I'm okay with it. He has the talent in front of and behind the camera to back it up. And I believe that infamous 2005 Oscar speech came from a place of genuine sentiment about how proud he is to work in what he feels is an increasingly progressive industry. It's not his fault that the Academy underwrote everything he said by giving best picture to Crash a couple of hours later. aside over). Reitman has also managed to make three good feature films at a relatively young age. It may not be for this film, but if he ever gets a chance to get up on stage, I think we'd be in for a great Oscar speech. Specific, funny and personal the likes we haven't seen since Ms. Swinton. I hope he presses on.

Full Review to Come


****Apropos to nothing, I feel it prudent to publish a mea culpa regarding my post about Lady Gaga. What can I say? The gal is talented. I concede. Sure, nearly every one of her fans I've encountered is a culturally-anorexic queen who's also currently in line to buy tickets for the new Twilight movie. But I'm not going to hold that against her. There's a right way to be pretentious and a wrong way. I'm a firm believer in hate fanboys, not the phenomenon. Mostly, I just got caught up in the fact that Perez Hilton likes her in a "friend of my enemy is my enemy" sort of way. Je suis désolé, Gaga.

Happy Birthday, Maggie

May you stay just as you are.



I made you a little cake.


What? It's not "Magaggie's" birthday?

The worst trailer I've seen...this week

So, the trailer for Dear John, starring Amanda Seyfried, Channing Tatum and directed by Lasse Halstrom is up on Apple. Oh, and it's based on a Nicholas Sparks novel...
I am at a loss for words as to how unbelievably trite/stupid this movie looks.

"She's a good girl who's inexperienced in love. He's the bad boy from the wrong side of the tracks with a sensitive side that only she can get to. Oh, and he's a surfer. And his father is dying. And then he's fighting in Iraq(?) for some reason. And...go!"

Seriously, doesn't it seem like they make this movie every year? Furthermore, hasn't Nicholas Sparks himself written novels that have inspired something like three or four movies EXACTLY like this? A Walk to Remember, The Notebook and now this. I'm forced to ask, is Nicholas Sparks even a real person? Perhaps he's just the name of a computer that's programmed to write the same stupid romance novel over and over again with slightly different character names and settings. I see the words "From the author of The Notebook" in a movie trailer and I just...deflate.

And then there's Lasse Halstrom, the director who hasn't given us a halfway decent film since What's Eating Gilbert Grape? With his almost preternatural penchant for hokum and syrupy-sweet dramatics, this is exactly the type of project Halstrom should be forbidden to work on for the same reason Robin Williams should be forbidden from any movie that forces/allows him to do a "funny" accent. This material only serves to further indulge all of Halstrom's worst impulses as a filmmaker.

All I'm saying is that when Amanda Seyfried can't even get my ass into a seat, then be afraid because I LOVE Amanda Seyfried. I have the Mamma Mia! ticket stub to attest to this fact.

The Oscar Race...What's still up in the air?

Many months after the announcement that there will be ten best picture nominees, rather than the usual five and people are still in a tizzy. What will make it in? What won't? This is It and Star Trek are clearly locks, right? And what about Paranormal Activity? Surely they'll have room for that in a ten-wide field. These are all things I've actually heard from people who follow the Oscars, believe it or not. But one thing I've learned is that (even from myself) is the following the Oscars doesn't mean that you always understand them. There is still much to be discovered in the way of best picture fodder. If my top ten list were to come out today, it'd probably look a little something like this:

1. Up
2. Precious
3. Inglourious Basterds
4. The Hurt Locker (though I need to see this again, and if they want a really good shot at an Oscar campaign, the people behind this movie better be planning a DVD release or a theatrical re-release very soon).
5. An Education
followed by a very VERY big leap. From there we have.
6. Moon
7. Away we Go
8. The Girlfriend Experience
9. Drag me to Hell
10. 500 Days of Summer

Being in grad school this past year, I have missed a lot of things. I missed Julie and Julia. Should I see it? I'm going be playing catchup this month. I still need to see Antichrist and Bright Star, probably in that order as they are both likely to be out of theaters soon (the former moreso than the latter). I need to see Where the Wild Things Are and A Serious Man. Pronto. I'll be seeing Up in the Air later this week for school, so luckily that's taken care of. Here's my thoughts on the majors.

1. Best Picture

Although there are going to be ten nominees, and I'm aware they have to come from some place, these are the only three I've seen that I think are assured a spot:
Up
Precious and
The Hurt Locker

I think anything else is vulnerable. An Education seems likely, but it's so slight. I could very easily see buzz, outside of Mulligan, drying up when its time to cast ballots. The word on Up in the Air seems to be "lock" but having not seen it, and having lived through enough Pay it Forwards in my day to be weary of early buzz, I'm reserving judgment. Call me crazy, but I think Precious might just win. Like Slumdog Millionaire, the people who like it love it. And unlike Sulumdog Millionaire, it has the benefit of being locked up for at least two acting nominations and a probable win. The only thing against it that I can see right now is Oprah's endorsement. She's so divisive outside of the housewife set, that Oprah. Of the yet to be released films, obviously Nine, The Last Station, The Lovely Bones, Invictus, etc, etc. These could all easily factor in. Having now seen two Avatar trailers, I must say there's a disconnect where I'm concerned regarding all this Oscar talk. Why? Because it's James Cameron? Am I the only one who thinks Avatar looks a little...silly? Call it a hunch, and I'll be reading my mea culpa if I'm wrong, but I don't think it will factor into the race in a major way.

Best Director

Kathryn Bigelow (The Hurt Locker) and Lee Daniels (Precious) are (probably) good to go. I can't say the same about Jason Reitman (Up in the Air) having not seen his film, but if it's as well received as the buzz is suggesting, he should have no problem here, being a former nominee. Outside of those three...search me. Can't count out Eastwood, I suppose, though he was overlooked (rightly so) last year for work that I'm not sure was all that much worse than the stuff he's been recognized for. Anything can happen here.

Best Actor

So, it's Clooney (Up in the Air) probably Jeremy Renner (The Hurt Locker). Then we have Morgan Freeman playing Nelson Mandela in a Clint Eastwood movie. Unless Invictus is a total suckfest, I don't see how Freeman doesn't coast to an easy nomination here. Colin Firth is feeling the buzz for Tom Ford's A Single Man, but buzz for the film itself is mixed. Will that hurt him? Who knows. This category is still very nebulous as well.

Best Actress

Three of the five spots are already locked up. Meryl Streep (Julie and Julia), Carey Mulligan (An Education) and Gabby Sidibe (Precious) are locked and loaded, ready to go. Done. The question is, who will win? A lot of people are saying Streep. Having not seen this film yet, I cannot comment, but the word and the vibe I'm getting is that the movie is far too slight for her to win. Why give Streep the third Oscar for this film? Surely, she has another Silkwood or Postcards from the Edge left in her, right? I'm almost sure of it. Then there's Mulligan. Young, British and lovely...which means surely she'll be here again. Sidibe, as great as she was in Precious, will be nearly impossible to cast again in Hollywood. The precursors will tell us a lot in this race. Whoever ends up getting the trophy probably won't "sweep." Mulligan and Sidibe will be battling it out for those breakthrough awards and critical prizes. It'll be tight, but I think it's a two-way race between these two young upstarts, with a slight edge to Sidibe.

Best Supporting Actor

I won't even pretend as if I have any clue about this category. I loved Christoph Waltz and Alfred Molina in their respective films, but I'm not buying the buzz for either of them at this point. Wide open spaces.

Best Supporting Actress

Only one spot is locked up here and that's Mo'Nique for Precious. And she's going to win. Signed, sealed, delivered. It's hers. If Julianne Moore gets nominated for A Single Man, there will be talk of her as a potential spoiler. But alas, she'll only be Peter O'Toole to Mo'Nique's Forest Whittaker. Gone are the days when the Jaye Davidson shocker loses to the Gene Hackman snoozefest in the supporting categories. They want big, flashy and outlandish for the most part, particularly in supporting actress. Supporting actress winners generally come in these varieties:

1. There's the "Check out the mouth on her! Can she say that?" Bold, brash ladies who steal the show in their one or two scenes with their attention getting one-liners and moxy.
(See Mira Sorvino in Mighty Aprhodite, Catherine Zeta-Jones in Chicago, Penelope Cruz in Vicky Cristina Barcelona, Marisa Tomei in My Cousin Vinny, Judi Dench in Shakespeare in Love etc. etc. etc.)

2. There's the "Everything (or much) about this film seems designed around me winning an Oscar" performance. Leads masquerading about supporting performances often win here as well.
(See Angelina Jolie in Girl, Interrupted, Jennifer Hudson in Dreamgirls and Renee Zellweger in Cold Mountain)

and 3. The bad seeds/villainess/otherwise monstrous performances.
(see Tilda Swinton in Michael Clayton...an interesting twist on this one, Anna Paquin in The Piano...naughty naughty and Renee Zellweger in Cold Mountain...I was terrified).

Mo'Nique arguably fits all three, n'est pas? The good news, she's actually deserving.

There is still much to see, and who knows how this whole thing will play out. I will say that I don't think the ten-wide best picture list will last long. They can't do away with it next year (they don't want to look THAT stupid) but I give it four, five years max before they're back to five.

Precious

written by Geoffrey Fletcher (based on the novel "Push" by Sapphire)
directed by Lee Daniels
starring: Gabourey "Gabby" Sibidbe, Mo'Nique, Paula Patton, Mariah Carey, Lenny Kravitz and Sherri Shepherd

The nickname Precious, which has been given to Claireece Jones (Sidibe), presumably by her mother, almost serves as a sick, tongue-in-cheek joke that runs throughout this film. Very little in this film is precious (quite intentionally). Watching this film, it's hard for the viewer to even imagine Claireece's monstrous mother Mary (played with frightening bravura by Mo'Nique) gifting her with such a lovely nickname, reflective of her love for her daughter. Regardless of one's opinion of this film, it is certainly one of the most arresting moviegoing experiences in recent memory. I yawned and nodded off several times during Paranormal Activity, but I sat up with fear, feeling goosebumps form on my arm each time Mary yelled "Precious."

This story of an illiterate obese Harlem teenager in the 1980s, pregnant by her father for the second time, harangued and ridiculed at school, and verbally and physically beaten down by her abusive mother is not for the faint of heart, and is no movie of the week. The elements are certainly there. There's the saintly teacher at the alternative high school, determined to breakthrough to her (Paula Patton as Ms. Blu Rain) and the caring but tired social worker Ms. Weiss (played with aplomb by Mariah Carey). It easily could have been saccharine and hackneyed, if not for how beautifully it is made. Films like this are rarely a showcase for cinematographers, but Andrew Dunn manages to experiment, being imaginative and artful without being too showy. There are a few exceptions. Precious often escapes into her own fantasies, where she is a runway model, a movie star, a heroine in a Vittorio De Sica film along with her mother. If the film is ever treading too close to the edge of the cliff, it is during these sequences, but it is no matter. The stark, harrowing realism of the rest of the film jolts you back to reality so fast, much in the same way that I imagine it does for Precious.

Every performance in this film is absolutely pitch perfect. I read Push, the novel that is the basis for the film, weeks before I ever saw a trailer. I thought to myself, the only way they can find an actress to portray Precious, downtrodden, close-mouthed, eyes on the floor as if afraid to look at the horror before her, is to find Precious herself. Sidibe's Precious Jones evokes images of Heath Ledger's Ennis Del Mar. So terse, yet conveying so much pain and internal struggle. Every word spoken is labored, every smile a miracle, as if the desire or need to do either has been frightened and beaten out of her. And yet, Sidibe is not Precious. She's big, yes. But the comparison ends there. She's bubbly, friendly. She was popular in high school, and her voice and cadence are reminiscent of the girl at the beginning of the Sir-Mix-a-Lot song "Oh my God, Becky. Look at her butt. It is so big..." She delved deep into this character and navigates the emotions and archs that Precious herself lacks the language to communicate, eking out a rich characterization that never falters, never missteps.

Mo'Nique is terrifying as Mary, who has her daughter trapped in a sick co-dependent relationship. She needs Precious to make her meals, buy her cigarettes and to act as a punching bag to deflect the spectacular failure that is her own life. At every glimmer of potential, possibility and light in Precious's life, Mary seems sadly determined to snuff it out. She cannot and will not allow her daughter to rise above the conditions that trapped her. And her failure to stop Precious precipitates her emotional breakdown at the end of the film, which could have served to engender misplaced sympathy in a lesser film. Here, the character is so well understood that it only serves to reinforce to the reader how horribly, how pathetically Mary has failed and betrayed Precious both as a mother and as a fellow human being. She envelopes the film, even in the scenes where she is absent as a dark, ominous cloud. It is one for the ages.

I had my defense up going into this film. It was almost impossible not to. Firstly, the last time people went out in droves and raved about the little film that could, that film was called Slumdog Millionaire. And I'm sorry to that film's fans, but...I just wasn't there. It's strange to be on the other side of the hype, much as I was with Juno (an aside: Juno was a fine film. The problem is, once it got popular, it became uncool to like it, and heaven help you if your film choices make you look uncool. I still contend that the people who hated it and the people who raved about it are two sides of the same coin in that they both made way too much of a fuss). Secondly, I'm weary (probably unfairly so) of anything that gets Oprah's seal of approval. Maybe that's because I suspect that any movement or cultural phenomena led by Oprah mostly serves to call attention to Oprah. And Tyler Perry...don't get me started. I'm glad he recognizes that this movie is "so powerful," as he states in the film's second trailer. By the way, I think it's strange that Perry and Winfrey felt the need to stick their talking heads in the trailer. Their names are already becoming synonymous with the film. Then I remembered that Perry puts "Tyler Perry's" before the title of every movie he makes, and Oprah Winfrey is...well, Oprah Winfrey. Some people always need a stage, you know? Precious almost feels like a film that Perry himself would never have the balls to make, because it doesn't end with Precious forgiving Mary and the two of them going to church. But it is unfair to judge this film on these factors, very extrinsic to its quality and luster (although people will). I will say this. Oprah's insistence that Precious exists in all of us, while a sweet sentiment, is not what one should take away from this film. I think "For Precious girls everywhere," which appears at the end of the film, is a better and more accurate read of what this film is trying to say. We are NOT all Precious. Precious is someone that most of us don't see. She's someone we ignore. She's someone we dismiss and don't think about, possibly because we don't care, possibly because it's too painful to fathom. This is Precious's story, FINALLY. This IS for Precious girls everywhere.

Grade: A-

An Education

written by Nick Hornby
directed by Lone Scherfig
starring: Carey Mulligan, Peter Sarsgaard, Rosamund Pike, Dominic Cooper, Emma Thompson, Olivia Williams, Cara Seymour and Sally Hawkins

An Education is highly enjoyable and serviceable on nearly every level, but is it more than that? My uncertainty is due to the awesome power of its central performance from relative newcomer Carey Mulligan. She plays Jenny, the young woman whose education (in more forms than one) is the central focus of this film. She is sixteen, British, intelligent and willful. Alas, it is the sixties and there are only so many suitable predestined paths for her to choose...and none of them look appealing to the young adventurer. In walks David Goldman (Sarsgaard) an older man determined to show her a different kind of education. One of culture, music, sex and excitement. But like so many things in life wrapped in a package like Peter Sarsgaard, all is not as it seems.

Mulligan is absolutely bewitching as young Jenny. She expresses the heroine's quick, acerbic wit with not just her words. What this young woman does with a look, a smile that seems to know more than she speaks, and a gesture as simple as smoking a cigarette speaks volumes. As stated earlier, so good is Mulligan's performance that it almost distracts from how...something...this film is. Oh, what's the word I'm looking for? Jenny, a whiz at English (though she detests Latin) wouldn't have trouble finding the words. Wispy? Wispy as all get out? That seems to apply here.

I saw this movie over a month ago, and while Mulligan's performance refuses to let go, still burning bright in my memory, the movie comes across as slight and almost feathery. The film's third act seems almost fairytale-esque in its tying together of all the loose ends. "Oh no...David's a thief and a liar and he's married! And I've dropped out of school to be with him! What's a girl to do?" Apparently there's nothing that a quick meeting with Emma Thompson (perfectly stiff and entertaining in a delicious cameo) followed by a studying montage with Olivia Williams can't solve. I say this not to be harsh. I enjoyed this film immensely, but I enjoyed it because of Mulligan and the other actors breathing so much life into their characters. Rosamund Pike shines as the girlfriend of David Goldman's partner in crime (played by Dominic Cooper, who's also fine). Alfred Molina has moments of genuine humor as Jenny's stale father. And Olivia Williams does hot school teacher with her hair pinned up like nobody's business. Even Sally Hawkins, in her one scene, reaffirms that she was robbed of an Oscar nomination last year as she spins gold with a few lines and five minutes of screentime.

In a ten-wide best picture field, An Education will likely ride Mulligan's coattails all the way to a best picture nomination. And in a year that has yet to birth many really stunners, it may be deserving in a field so wide. But this is all, once again, a testament to Mulligan. She carries the film on her back, sometimes in a school girl's uniform in the rain, sometimes in heals, sometimes while making the most horrible discoveries about the men she loves and she never once breaks a sweat.

Grade: B

Inglourious Basterds

Inglourious Basterds
written and directed by Quentin Tarantino
starring: Melanie Laurent, Christoph Waltz, Brad Pitt, Eli Roth and Diane Kruger (among others)

This is a little late, I know. But this is a film that I cannot NOT write a review about, even if I did see it for the first time more than two months ago, and for the second time a little over three weeks ago. While there are some releases that I can merely slap a grade on, and otherwise ignore altogether (State of Play are your ears burning?) I cannot do that with this particular film. Regardless of your thoughts on Basterds and Tarantino in general, his films refuse to be brushed away and ignored, so audacious they are in their sensibilities. I'm not a Tarantino loyalist, but he has never made an uninteresting film. That's not a feat to which even many of my favorite filmmakers can lay claim (most of the good ones have a few Intolerable Cruelties for every Fargo they manage to crank out).

Inglourious Basterds begs in nearly every conceivable way to be polarizing, and I've yet to decide:
A. If that's a good thing
and
B. If that matters.

Several things are clear when watching this film. First of all, for all the accusations Tarantino receives for being a blowhard who is in love with his own writing, one can't deny his ability to write incredibly engaging and arresting scenes. The opening, a showcase for Christoph Waltz, scoops on tension like big mounds of dairy creme (not an arbitrary simile for those of us who have seen the film), until it all but collapses in on itself...in a good way (does that make sense?). And that scene in the basement? It read as mildly obnoxious the first go round, yet perfectly paced and beautifully acted the second time. It also made me think of Diane Kruger as an actress for the first time (actually it made me think of her for the first time). Secondly, Tarantino always surrounds himself with a good crew. The production designers should all receive a medal and maybe a cash prize for their work here, and if an Oscar nomination is not forthcoming, then they should rethink the entire ceremony entirely. Thirdly, the film's shameless rewriting of history serves as a great litmus test. Your response to the fact that it is not a factual accounts of events that took place "Once upon a time in Nazi occupied France," very much informs your response to the entire film. When watching the trailers, this aspect bugged the shit out of me. Tarantino sticks to his guns, though. The concept, as ridiculous and farcical as it is, never wavers a little bit, even as the movie clocks in at well over two and a half hours. The result is a highly enjoyable, well-executed film that's not without its faults, of which there are several.

Melanie Laurent's Shosanna (a terrific turn) doesn't get a fully realized arc, as her character never gets to have her "big moment" that the film is steadily building to. Avoiding obligatory scenes is often refreshing and enhancing for a film (think of No Country for Old Men where the climax actually takes place off-screen). Other times, there's just nowhere else to go, so much so that avoiding said scenes feels obnoxious and patently false. Then there are the Basterds themselves, so smugly giddy and cool, for they are in on the joke with Tarantino. Am I falsely talking about the Basterds when I should be talking about the actors that portray them (Pitt, Roth, BJ Novak, Samm Levine, etc, etc, etc)? Perhaps. A better question: Is there a difference? I think the lines are quite blurred here, particularly in the case of Brad Pitt who has never been more distractingly Brad Pitt than he is in this film (and remember, I actually like the guy). Pitt's tongue is so firmly wedged in cheek, that he may as well be winking as he reads his lines. I laughed, certainly. But he mostly served as a diversion from the story, which is surprisingly rich and intricate (or rather moreso than the trailer would leave you to believe).

None of these elements act as such a detriment to the film as a whole, probably because they are excesses and the film is arguably one big exercise in cinematic excess. But it is a glorious one at that. The criticisms of this film are hard to have missed. Its celebration of violence, its rewriting of history (already addressed) and the presence of Eli Roth (about which I remain conflicted for reasons I won't divulge here). The most interesting I heard was that "it takes a serious topic, like the Holocaust, and makes it into something fun and exciting." And I've heard this from more than one person, believe it or not. Inglourious Basterds is no more a film about the Holocaust than Gone with the Wind is a film about slavery. In both cases, the larger historical event only informs the events in their respective films in the most tangential way...so that argument sort of falls apart under a microscope, dontcha think?

Grade: B+ (though I'm leaning towards A-)