Continuing with my ongoing series of early Oscar predictions, we move on to Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role.
This category is packed to the brim with potential contenders. And yet, I can't imagine a list that doesn't include...
1. Sean Penn in Milk
This role positively screams Oscar-bait, but in a way that (for once) I mostly approve of. I hate biopics, but I feel like the story of openly gay city supervisor Harvey Milk is one that is still relevant today. One that we can still take lessons and cues from. Penn is pretty much a lock for a nod as far as I'm concerned. Oscar loves to reward people playing real people. But Sean Penn is not really well liked, as last year's snubs for Into the Wild can attest. Too gay? It might be. It might prevent Penn from winning his second Oscar, even if he deserves it. Wouldn't it be easier to reward...
2. Frank Langella in Frost/Nixon
He's playing Richard Nixon in a film based on an acclaimed play. And it's directed by Opie, who some people seem to think is a good filmmaker. Langella is an aging veteran with no nomination to speak of, even after moderate buzz for his performances in recent films like Good Night and Good Luck and Starting Out in the Evening. It seems like a safe bet on paper. But this may not translate well from stage to film (it happens sometimes). If that happens, it may seem underwhelming in the wake of other performances in films based on plays. Such as...
3. Phillip Seymour Hoffman in Doubt
I don't know why more people aren't predicting Hoffman for a nomination. I understand that there's some grey area about how big this role is and whether it will be placed in supporting or lead. But after his throwaway nomination last year in supporting for Charlie Wilson's War, it feels like Hoffman can be nominated for just about anything. So what if he's playing a child molester? I don't understand this whole "Oscar doesn't like unlikable characters" logic that a lot of people seem to adopt, especially since it doesn't really hold up. Sample some of the roles that Oscar has rewarded in the last ten years. Aileen Wuornos, Idi Amin, Daniel Plainview, Anton Chigurh, Karen Crowder, Alonzo (Training Day), Velma Kelly, Jimmy Markum. These characters are all (in some way or another) murderers, by the way and represent samplings from all four acting categories. Just saying.
4. Richard Jenkins in The Visitor
This small indie opened to very good reviews (both for Jenkins's performance and the film itself). Will the minor buzz sustain until year's end? It might. It will certainly take an aggressive FYC campaign on the part of the studio.
5. Brad Pitt in The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
This trailer is absolutely gorgeous. It's a thing of beauty and should be in a museum. And Fincher has been a force to be reckoned with for a long time (when will the AMPAS finally embrace him?) Pitt hasn't been invited back to the party since his nomination in the supporting category for 12 Monkeys (and that was a long time ago). Will they nominate him this year? The idea of Brad and Angelina both getting Oscar nominations seems like a media frenzy the likes of which the Academy can't pass up...How else do you explain Miley (sp.) Cyrus being a presenter last year?
Don't Count Out...
6. Leonardo DiCaprio in Revolutionary Road
He has two roles this year. It would probably be smart to put him in the top five, right? Maybe. But Leo's been getting nominated pretty consistently since The Aviator. It's a little bit presumptuous to assume that he'll be nominated every two years, dont'cha think? He has the heavily publicized Titanic-reunion with Kate to build up some buzz. If anything, pairing the two together will show how much both have grown as actors, especially Leo who has improved his craft nearly tenfold. But a domestic drama? Directed by Sam Mendes? Could it feel too "been there, done that?"
7. Leonardo DiCaprio in House of Lies
Ridley Scott is a hack. That's why I put Revolutionary Road first. That is all.
8. Benicio del Toro in Che
This performance will have to be very well received for it to receive some attention. del Toro already has a statue and a subsequent nod, so it's not like they're itching to reward him. He is being directed by the Oscar-winning Soderbergh here and it is a biopic, so it warrants some attention.
9. Viggo Mortensen in The Road
The reception of this film will truly tell if cinema-watchers still have a boner for Cormac McCarthy following the success of No Country for Old Men. But I love me some Viggo and would love to see him back at the plate again after his nomination for Eastern Promises last year. And finally...
10. Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight
Because Warner Bros. studios are riding high off this movie's acclaim, which has reached a ridiculous fevered pitch (I settled on a B+ for The Dark Knight, by the way). This may cause them to commit flagrant category fraud and campaign Ledger in lead since he does "dominate" the film. It's possible, but I doubt it because category fraud usually goes in the other direction (leads placed in supporting).
Monday, August 25, 2008
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Vicky Cristina Barcelona
Vicky Cristina Barcelona is like a sumptuous buffet, decadent in more ways than one. The players are sexy beyond the telling of it (even Scarlett Johansson, whose appeal I definitely understand, even if I'm kind of immune to it), the cinematography is gorgeous, taking voracious bites out of Spain's scenery and the music is repetitive and sensuous. You wouldn't think that all of these elements would make for such a cerebral movie-going experience. A question that's going to be lingering in the mind of any attentive movie-goer is "How cerebral is too cerebral? Is this film too cerebral?" I don't think so, but I can definitely understand how people would go there.Let me back up for a moment to the film's premise, which finds old college buddies Vicky (Rebecca Hall) and Cristina (Scarlett Johansson) vacationing in Spain. The trip serves as an escape mechanism for both women. Cristina recently spent a good chunk of her time making a short film that she ultimately hated and is looking for new direction, while Vicky is engaged to Doug (the very underrated Chris Messina), a man she only has lukewarm feelings for. While on the trip, along comes the almost inhumanly suave Juan Antonio (Javier Bardem), who offers to take them to the Spanish island of Oviedo where they will make love, drink wine, etc. Vicky is reluctant for obvious reasons, but Cristina wants to go. It's ridiculous, yes. Yet only believable in these circumstances. Who else but Javier Bardem would a stranger have to look like to sweep two women off to a foreign island? Of course, Juan Antonio is still in love with his ex-wife, the fiery and passionate Maria Elena (a phenomenal Penelope Cruz). And you can guess what happens next...
Or maybe you won't. This film (at least for me) was not as much about plot and narrative structure as it was about watching these gorgeous people fall in and out of lust, climb in and out of bed with one another. Say what you will about Woody Allen (and people often do) but he always crafts incredibly interesting characters--especially female characters. I cannot think of another male writer/director who consistently creates interesting female characters. One of the film's weaknesses (?) is that it is weighed down by very ponderous narration
, which at times feels intrusive. Narration is a tricky device, one that should be used carefully and precisely. Here, the narration is very akin to that in Little Children. You wonder if the film can stand without it, and you're almost certain that it can. Scarlett Johansson continues to occupy her position as Woody Allen's muse-du-jour. She was fine here. Much as she is just fine in most of her roles (I think she's incredibly overrated in general). Regarding relative newcomer Rebecca Hall, I'd have to see more before I can decide whether I'm passing. There was something grating and obnoxiously self-aware about this performance, and I can't decide if Hall is to blame, or the way the character is written, or some combination of the two. Finally, Penelope Cruz proves once again (after All About My Mother and Volver) that she truly shines when acting in her own language. But although many of her lines are spoken in Spanish, even those delivered in English carry the bite and sharpness of Maria Elena's insanity and passion. Consider a scene in which Maria Elena calls Cristina on the fact that she's been vacationing in Spain for some time, yet still speaks virtually no Spanish. She's intimidating, forceful. And, when she hears Cristina speaking in Chinese, she is very unimpressed, all of which Cruz plays beautifully.Woody Allen has created another well-written comedy-drama, rife with witty, verbose dialogue and characters who like to live in their heads (well, most of them anyway). Will VCB go down in history as the most memorable Allen film? Probably not. But it's a nice addition to the pantheon anyway.
Grade: B+
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Top Ten--Things I Wish
I wish...
10. ...Ellen DeGeneres and Portia de Rossi all the happiness in the world. They seem very good together. While I'm somewhat offended by the notion that it should take two lovely, high-profile celebs to convince this country that everyone is entitled to marriage rights and (by extension) love and happiness, the sentiment remains. A toast to them and to love, in all of its fetching, beautiful complexities.
9. ...That John McCain would stop pandering to Conservative Christians. "I will chase Osama bin Laden to the gates of Hell if I have to in order to bring him to justice." People who say that he's different than George W. Bush may be right. But when it comes to simple, reductive language like this, that positions righteous and evil extremes and is designed to impress and appease simpletons, they are two of the same.
8...That black people would be more wary of Barack Obama. Yes, he looks like you. But before everything else, the man is still a politician. A politician who managed to win the nomination of a major political party for President of the United States. Thus, he should be approached (at best) with cautious optimism.
7. ...That black people would be more wary of John McCain. It's not a done deal. McCain can still win. Obama doesn't have a double-digit lead. In order for McCain to lose, Obama needs to win every state that Kerry and Gore won, plus a few others. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's not a done deal. McCain may still win. Stop acting like we've made it to the mountaintop.
6...That black people would be more wary in general. And of the right things...
5. ...That Tyler Perry would come out of the closet. The man's films have camp value of epic proportions. I'm not a fan, but if he were honest with himself, he could totally redefine his fanbase, becoming a sort of black John Waters. Wouldn't that be (at the very least) fun to watch?
4. ...That Eddie Murphy would stay in the closet. Forever. Gay people already have crazy Tom Cruise and crazy/disgusting Larry Craig forever tarnishing the good name. Why have another lunatic bringing down the cause?
3. ...That there were more interesting black filmmakers. Spike Lee's great, but he's pretty much all we have to look up to. It's really disheartening trying to break into an industry where it seems like the road isn't paved for you simply because of the color of your skin.
2. ...That Jane Campion would make a comeback. I believe she's got another masterpiece in her. The Piano was so beautiful and we need more great women directors
1. ...That people were more considerate of others in general.
10. ...Ellen DeGeneres and Portia de Rossi all the happiness in the world. They seem very good together. While I'm somewhat offended by the notion that it should take two lovely, high-profile celebs to convince this country that everyone is entitled to marriage rights and (by extension) love and happiness, the sentiment remains. A toast to them and to love, in all of its fetching, beautiful complexities.
9. ...That John McCain would stop pandering to Conservative Christians. "I will chase Osama bin Laden to the gates of Hell if I have to in order to bring him to justice." People who say that he's different than George W. Bush may be right. But when it comes to simple, reductive language like this, that positions righteous and evil extremes and is designed to impress and appease simpletons, they are two of the same.
8...That black people would be more wary of Barack Obama. Yes, he looks like you. But before everything else, the man is still a politician. A politician who managed to win the nomination of a major political party for President of the United States. Thus, he should be approached (at best) with cautious optimism.
7. ...That black people would be more wary of John McCain. It's not a done deal. McCain can still win. Obama doesn't have a double-digit lead. In order for McCain to lose, Obama needs to win every state that Kerry and Gore won, plus a few others. I'm not saying it's impossible, but it's not a done deal. McCain may still win. Stop acting like we've made it to the mountaintop.
6...That black people would be more wary in general. And of the right things...
5. ...That Tyler Perry would come out of the closet. The man's films have camp value of epic proportions. I'm not a fan, but if he were honest with himself, he could totally redefine his fanbase, becoming a sort of black John Waters. Wouldn't that be (at the very least) fun to watch?
4. ...That Eddie Murphy would stay in the closet. Forever. Gay people already have crazy Tom Cruise and crazy/disgusting Larry Craig forever tarnishing the good name. Why have another lunatic bringing down the cause?
3. ...That there were more interesting black filmmakers. Spike Lee's great, but he's pretty much all we have to look up to. It's really disheartening trying to break into an industry where it seems like the road isn't paved for you simply because of the color of your skin.
2. ...That Jane Campion would make a comeback. I believe she's got another masterpiece in her. The Piano was so beautiful and we need more great women directors
1. ...That people were more considerate of others in general.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Early Oscar Predictions--Best Actress
If you haven't figured out by now, I have a weird obsession with the Oscars that borders on pathological. I'll be posting a few thoughts on the state of the race (as I see it) in all four of the acting categories, as well as directing and best picture. At this point, much of it is speculation and we won't really have some concrete answers until at least September. There are some I feel confident about already, but when it comes to the sport of predicting Oscars, you never know what will happen and everything is for sale. This is true before the nominations are announced right up until the winners are announced.
Best Actress
If this were my personal wishlist, it'd comprise of...nevermind. I have to forget about my personal tastes, and consider those of the big O. Because we rarely see eye-to-eye, especially in the Best Actress category. In the past ten years, when I think about my ballot versus who Oscar nominates, the most we've ever had was a 3/5 match. But alas, the past is the past. Looking forward to the rest of 2008, I have a very hard time foreseeing a list that doesn't include at least one (if not more) of the following (in this order)
1. Meryl Streep in Doubt
Conventional wisdom says that if you have Streep in a lead role (one that isn't in an adaptation of a stage musical comprised of ABBA music) that Oscar prognosticators should pay attention. Both this performance and the project in show a lot of promise. Adapted from John Patrick Shanley's (Oscar winner for penning the screenplay for Moonstruck, dontcha know) award-winning Broadway play, some are predicting that Doubt will not only bring Streep's nomination total to 15, but will bring the actress her third statue. If the film's good enough, fine. Love the Streep. But I'd kind of like to see Winslet win her first, before Meryl gets three. Especially if she's more deserving.
2. Angelina Jolie in The Changeling or The Exchange
I almost didn't include Jolie, but the fact remains that the buzz for this performance and this film are deafening at this point. And it's directed by Clint Eastwood, a man who has taken (wait for it) five performers to Oscar wins, and another two to nominations (three if you include himself). Plus, she's having a good personal year and who doesn't want to see her up on podiums, gushing happily about Brad and the kids (I mean, I personally don't, but there are a lot of people who eat up that sort of thing.) Plus, people seem to forget that beneath the media frenzy and the world treks and the huge harem that Angelina Jolie is ultimately a talented actress. More talented than she receives credit for. And she was on the cusp of a nomination last year for A Mighty Heart. All of this makes the possibility for a nod for Ms. Jolie very good.
3. Kate Winslet in Revolutionary Road
Yeah, yeah. It's been years since American Beauty. Sam Mendes has lost the magic. Depending on who you talk to, he never had it. But it's Winslet as a troubled housewife (something she does very well) based on a book that's beloved in certain circles. She's also being directed by her hubby and it reunites her with Titanic cast-mates Leonardo DiCaprio and Kathy Bates. Hopefully the Titanic connection will help overcome the fact that adult dramas about marital strife are a little elevated and not exactly rife for mass public consumption. But Winslet, a five-time nominee already, will probably be sitting pretty with a sixth, regardless of whether the film itself goes all the way to the final five. Consider that back in 2006, it seemed that Little Children was the film that time forgot. Heavily hyped as Todd Field's follow-up to his taught, intelligent debut In the Bedroom, this film puttered. It got a paltry release, and even though the Globes nominated it for best picture, they didn't even show a clip for it like they did for the other nominees! Yet despite all this, Winslet's name never left people's lips as a lock for a nomination...she's that good (though, to be fair, all the nominees that year were locks and had been for several months leading into the ceremony). Though, like Little Children, I see few people being enthusiastic about this film to the point that they'll give Winslet the statue. Where's the gimmick? She's not ugly-ing herself up. She's not playing a famous, recently deceased person. She's playing an attractive fictional character, and if the incredible Julie Christie-tease of 2007 is any indication, the Academy is done with that sort of thing...for now.
4. Emily Blunt in The Young Victoria
Follow my insane logic here. They will nominate either Emily Blunt or they will nominate Keira Knightley for The Duchess, or they will nominate neither. They won't nominate both. There's usually only room for one uptight, corset-y period piece in best actress these days (and honestly, it's kind of a category the AMPAS has been shying away from, save Cate Blanchett's inexplicable throwaway nomination for Elizabeth: The Golden Age). I'm predicting Blunt because she's been on the radar as one to watch since My Summer of Love, and she's the type of rising star who is bound to get herself a nomination one day.
5. Dakota Fanning in The Secret Life of Bees
Okay. This is my total, out-of-left-field prediction, but hear me out. Fanning, like Blunt, is totally headed for a nomination one day and we all know it. The film is based on a kind of beloved (though somewhat facile and digestible) novel. The material is certainly there for the makings of the type of child performance the AMPAS usually nominates (when they do nominate children). Beyond that, I don't really have any other reason for this prediction (but those are pretty good reasons, right?) And to everyone who always predicts lineups at the beginning of the season full of already nominated (or winning) stars in big-bait roles, remember the Ellen Pages, the Keisha Castle Hughes's, the Catalina Sandino Morenos and the (God, I can barely type it) Helen Hunts (*shudder*). They aren't your usual Oscar-fare, yet they do get nominated...and sometimes they win.
Also in Contention:
6. Anne Hathaway in Rachel Getting Married
There are a lot of reasons why I didn't include Ms. Hathaway in the top five. Although things are kind of changing, the ratio of comedic performances to dramatic performances among Oscar nominees is still relatively low. Jonathan Demme may be an Oscar-winning director, but for every Silence of the Lambs, there are four or five Manchurian Candidates and The Truth About Charlies in his filmography. Translation: he doesn't have the best track record for getting actors nominated, both of late and in the grand scheme of thing. Why the title change? Dancing with Shiva was a great title! Finally, I really REALLY love Anne Hathaway and (in my twisted mind) I don't want to jinx her by putting her in the top five this prematurely. That being said, the trailer looks fantastic and the cast is a character-actor's dream (Anna Deavere Smith? I'm so there...) Plus, I'm really excited about the potential comeback of Debra Winger. Please return to us...
7. Sally Hawkins in Happy Go Lucky
Two potential comedic nods in one year (Hawkins and Hathaway)? It could happen. It happened last year (Laura Linney and Ellen Page). Sally Hawkins is enjoying some very good early buzz for her performance. Plus, director Mike Leigh has a fairly good track record for getting nominations for his leading ladies (Brenda Blethyn and Imelda Staunton). There are obvious obstacles in place. She has to overcome the lack of name recognition and it's a small film. But stranger things have happened. We'll have to see how the year progresses, but honestly, Hawkins feels like a very likely bet.
8. Melissa Leo in Frozen River
I think this can happen if Sony Pictures Classics runs a thorough and aggressive campaign. Melissa Leo has a lot of hurdles to overcome. Often times, there are small releases early to mid-year with perceived strong lead performances that garner mumblings of Oscar buzz. And then, by year's end, they've all but faded from consideration. Case in point, Keri Russell in Waitress (a performance I wouldn't have nominated in a film I didn't particularly enjoy, but it's the same idea). In 2006, Gretchen Mol's very respectable star turn in The Notorious Bettie Page went wildly unnoticed. This could very well happen to Leo if the studio doesn't play its cards right. The iron is pretty hot right now, with Ebert giving the performance and the film his seal of approval (I have a feeling it'll end up on his top ten list). But it's an uphill battle for a (mostly) unknown actress.
8. Nicole Kidman in Australia
A nomination for her wouldn't surprise me for obvious reasons. Baz Luhrmann took her to her first Oscar-nominated role. But Academy hasn't revisited Kidman since her win for The Hours back in 2002. After her egregious snub last year for Margot at the Wedding, it doesn't look like they're too eager to rekindle their love affair with her. Unless Australia really impresses in a big way (and I'm hoping that it does--love Luhrmann) Kidman is not a safe pony to bet on.
9. Kerry Washington in Lakeview Terrace
I don't know why I read the synopsis for this film and thought it could hold Oscar possibilities for Washington, one of my favorite actresses. The trailer is ridiculous and it seems to be the Samuel L. Jackson show anyway. Maybe it was just wishful thinking. But who knows...the film may be a huge breakthrough for her and bring her to her first nomination...I can dream, right?
10. Julianne Moore in Blindness
The new Fernando Meirelles film didn't get the best buzz when it opened at Cannes earlier this year. This may leave Julianne Moore's chances dead in the water, unless the film sees some kind of resurgence. Remember that Babel opened to fairly mixed reviews initially, but had its awards flame reignited pretty much because of the Golden Globes. Plus, who doesn't want to see Moore finally win an Oscar?
Best Actress
If this were my personal wishlist, it'd comprise of...nevermind. I have to forget about my personal tastes, and consider those of the big O. Because we rarely see eye-to-eye, especially in the Best Actress category. In the past ten years, when I think about my ballot versus who Oscar nominates, the most we've ever had was a 3/5 match. But alas, the past is the past. Looking forward to the rest of 2008, I have a very hard time foreseeing a list that doesn't include at least one (if not more) of the following (in this order)
1. Meryl Streep in Doubt
Conventional wisdom says that if you have Streep in a lead role (one that isn't in an adaptation of a stage musical comprised of ABBA music) that Oscar prognosticators should pay attention. Both this performance and the project in show a lot of promise. Adapted from John Patrick Shanley's (Oscar winner for penning the screenplay for Moonstruck, dontcha know) award-winning Broadway play, some are predicting that Doubt will not only bring Streep's nomination total to 15, but will bring the actress her third statue. If the film's good enough, fine. Love the Streep. But I'd kind of like to see Winslet win her first, before Meryl gets three. Especially if she's more deserving.
2. Angelina Jolie in The Changeling or The Exchange
I almost didn't include Jolie, but the fact remains that the buzz for this performance and this film are deafening at this point. And it's directed by Clint Eastwood, a man who has taken (wait for it) five performers to Oscar wins, and another two to nominations (three if you include himself). Plus, she's having a good personal year and who doesn't want to see her up on podiums, gushing happily about Brad and the kids (I mean, I personally don't, but there are a lot of people who eat up that sort of thing.) Plus, people seem to forget that beneath the media frenzy and the world treks and the huge harem that Angelina Jolie is ultimately a talented actress. More talented than she receives credit for. And she was on the cusp of a nomination last year for A Mighty Heart. All of this makes the possibility for a nod for Ms. Jolie very good.
3. Kate Winslet in Revolutionary Road
Yeah, yeah. It's been years since American Beauty. Sam Mendes has lost the magic. Depending on who you talk to, he never had it. But it's Winslet as a troubled housewife (something she does very well) based on a book that's beloved in certain circles. She's also being directed by her hubby and it reunites her with Titanic cast-mates Leonardo DiCaprio and Kathy Bates. Hopefully the Titanic connection will help overcome the fact that adult dramas about marital strife are a little elevated and not exactly rife for mass public consumption. But Winslet, a five-time nominee already, will probably be sitting pretty with a sixth, regardless of whether the film itself goes all the way to the final five. Consider that back in 2006, it seemed that Little Children was the film that time forgot. Heavily hyped as Todd Field's follow-up to his taught, intelligent debut In the Bedroom, this film puttered. It got a paltry release, and even though the Globes nominated it for best picture, they didn't even show a clip for it like they did for the other nominees! Yet despite all this, Winslet's name never left people's lips as a lock for a nomination...she's that good (though, to be fair, all the nominees that year were locks and had been for several months leading into the ceremony). Though, like Little Children, I see few people being enthusiastic about this film to the point that they'll give Winslet the statue. Where's the gimmick? She's not ugly-ing herself up. She's not playing a famous, recently deceased person. She's playing an attractive fictional character, and if the incredible Julie Christie-tease of 2007 is any indication, the Academy is done with that sort of thing...for now.
4. Emily Blunt in The Young Victoria
Follow my insane logic here. They will nominate either Emily Blunt or they will nominate Keira Knightley for The Duchess, or they will nominate neither. They won't nominate both. There's usually only room for one uptight, corset-y period piece in best actress these days (and honestly, it's kind of a category the AMPAS has been shying away from, save Cate Blanchett's inexplicable throwaway nomination for Elizabeth: The Golden Age). I'm predicting Blunt because she's been on the radar as one to watch since My Summer of Love, and she's the type of rising star who is bound to get herself a nomination one day.
5. Dakota Fanning in The Secret Life of Bees
Okay. This is my total, out-of-left-field prediction, but hear me out. Fanning, like Blunt, is totally headed for a nomination one day and we all know it. The film is based on a kind of beloved (though somewhat facile and digestible) novel. The material is certainly there for the makings of the type of child performance the AMPAS usually nominates (when they do nominate children). Beyond that, I don't really have any other reason for this prediction (but those are pretty good reasons, right?) And to everyone who always predicts lineups at the beginning of the season full of already nominated (or winning) stars in big-bait roles, remember the Ellen Pages, the Keisha Castle Hughes's, the Catalina Sandino Morenos and the (God, I can barely type it) Helen Hunts (*shudder*). They aren't your usual Oscar-fare, yet they do get nominated...and sometimes they win.
Also in Contention:
6. Anne Hathaway in Rachel Getting Married
There are a lot of reasons why I didn't include Ms. Hathaway in the top five. Although things are kind of changing, the ratio of comedic performances to dramatic performances among Oscar nominees is still relatively low. Jonathan Demme may be an Oscar-winning director, but for every Silence of the Lambs, there are four or five Manchurian Candidates and The Truth About Charlies in his filmography. Translation: he doesn't have the best track record for getting actors nominated, both of late and in the grand scheme of thing. Why the title change? Dancing with Shiva was a great title! Finally, I really REALLY love Anne Hathaway and (in my twisted mind) I don't want to jinx her by putting her in the top five this prematurely. That being said, the trailer looks fantastic and the cast is a character-actor's dream (Anna Deavere Smith? I'm so there...) Plus, I'm really excited about the potential comeback of Debra Winger. Please return to us...
7. Sally Hawkins in Happy Go Lucky
Two potential comedic nods in one year (Hawkins and Hathaway)? It could happen. It happened last year (Laura Linney and Ellen Page). Sally Hawkins is enjoying some very good early buzz for her performance. Plus, director Mike Leigh has a fairly good track record for getting nominations for his leading ladies (Brenda Blethyn and Imelda Staunton). There are obvious obstacles in place. She has to overcome the lack of name recognition and it's a small film. But stranger things have happened. We'll have to see how the year progresses, but honestly, Hawkins feels like a very likely bet.
8. Melissa Leo in Frozen River
I think this can happen if Sony Pictures Classics runs a thorough and aggressive campaign. Melissa Leo has a lot of hurdles to overcome. Often times, there are small releases early to mid-year with perceived strong lead performances that garner mumblings of Oscar buzz. And then, by year's end, they've all but faded from consideration. Case in point, Keri Russell in Waitress (a performance I wouldn't have nominated in a film I didn't particularly enjoy, but it's the same idea). In 2006, Gretchen Mol's very respectable star turn in The Notorious Bettie Page went wildly unnoticed. This could very well happen to Leo if the studio doesn't play its cards right. The iron is pretty hot right now, with Ebert giving the performance and the film his seal of approval (I have a feeling it'll end up on his top ten list). But it's an uphill battle for a (mostly) unknown actress.
8. Nicole Kidman in Australia
A nomination for her wouldn't surprise me for obvious reasons. Baz Luhrmann took her to her first Oscar-nominated role. But Academy hasn't revisited Kidman since her win for The Hours back in 2002. After her egregious snub last year for Margot at the Wedding, it doesn't look like they're too eager to rekindle their love affair with her. Unless Australia really impresses in a big way (and I'm hoping that it does--love Luhrmann) Kidman is not a safe pony to bet on.
9. Kerry Washington in Lakeview Terrace
I don't know why I read the synopsis for this film and thought it could hold Oscar possibilities for Washington, one of my favorite actresses. The trailer is ridiculous and it seems to be the Samuel L. Jackson show anyway. Maybe it was just wishful thinking. But who knows...the film may be a huge breakthrough for her and bring her to her first nomination...I can dream, right?
10. Julianne Moore in Blindness
The new Fernando Meirelles film didn't get the best buzz when it opened at Cannes earlier this year. This may leave Julianne Moore's chances dead in the water, unless the film sees some kind of resurgence. Remember that Babel opened to fairly mixed reviews initially, but had its awards flame reignited pretty much because of the Golden Globes. Plus, who doesn't want to see Moore finally win an Oscar?
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Rant Time...Amy Winehouse
I feel a bit like Chris Crocker here, defending a troubled pop icon. But I honestly feel like the public scrutiny of Amy Winehouse has gotten out of hand. Am I a huge fan? No. Hardly, in fact. But I feel like people need to just acknowledge the fact that Amy Winehouse is messed up, accept it and move on. It didn't start with Perez Hilton, but I would be pretty confident in saying that the blogger features at least a dozen weekly posts about Winehouse's (or Wino as he "cleverly" calls her) misadventures, complete with unflattering photos.
This is an aside, and I could actually do an entire post on the subject if I wanted to: I'll admit that I sometimes find myself perusing his blog (so I guess I'm part of the problem), but seriously, Perez Hilton is completely ridiculous. And not in the fun "John Waters" way. I am not one of those "If you have nothing nice to say, say nothing at all," people. I love my Kathy Griffin, who is known for making disparaging remarks about celebs. But at least she does it with a modicum of wit and timing. Plus, being somewhat of a Hollywood insider, Griffin sort of has insight into these things. Hilton is just...ridiculous. He constantly calls TR Knight a pervert, because he is in a committed relationship with a man who happens much younger than him. Then he turns around and talks (repeatedly) about how sexy Zac Efron and the Jonas Brothers are (Perez Hilton is 30, by the way. And the youngest Jonas Brother is 15.) He has this completely irrational hatred of Rumer Willis, constantly talking about how ugly she is, as if she were some pop culture figure being rammed down our throats and not an unassuming and (by all accounts) level-headed young woman who just happens to have famous parents. Hilton (who himself is gay) constantly makes disparaging and borderline hateful comments when speculating about Lindsay Lohan's supposed lesbian relationship, and he constantly refers to Miley Cyrus as a slut. "Slutty Cyrus" is what he calls her. Clever, Perez. Does it feel good to be a thirty-year-old man calling Miley Cyrus a slut? Let's hope so, for your sake. Perez Hilton rant over.
Back to Amy Winehouse. Yes, she's a drug user. Yes, she smokes and drinks heavily, is in and out of rehab and the hospital and shows no signs of stopping. But I'm so sick of hearing people dealing with Winehouse like she's a punching bag, rather than a human being who's obviously very troubled. To all the entertainment magazines, blogs, gossip columns, and you Winehouse-critics at home, get over it already. Amy Winehouse is a popular singer who has sold a lot of records, and thus, has acquired some measure of wealth (I'm assuming) and celebrity. She chose to use the advantages of said lifestyle not to better, but to worsen herself. Fine. That's her choice. Get over it. I'm so sick of the way that Winehouse is constantly taken to task for her drug use and other issues. How many of us can honestly say that we've never engaged in behavior that we knew could be harmful to ourselves or (God forbid) others? Whether it's smoking that cigarette or eating that cheeseburger. Most people engage in some kind of harmful excessive behavior on a daily basis. Amy Winehouse happens to take it to the extreme, but again that's her decision. Get over it and stop trying to moral majority everyone.
This is an aside, and I could actually do an entire post on the subject if I wanted to: I'll admit that I sometimes find myself perusing his blog (so I guess I'm part of the problem), but seriously, Perez Hilton is completely ridiculous. And not in the fun "John Waters" way. I am not one of those "If you have nothing nice to say, say nothing at all," people. I love my Kathy Griffin, who is known for making disparaging remarks about celebs. But at least she does it with a modicum of wit and timing. Plus, being somewhat of a Hollywood insider, Griffin sort of has insight into these things. Hilton is just...ridiculous. He constantly calls TR Knight a pervert, because he is in a committed relationship with a man who happens much younger than him. Then he turns around and talks (repeatedly) about how sexy Zac Efron and the Jonas Brothers are (Perez Hilton is 30, by the way. And the youngest Jonas Brother is 15.) He has this completely irrational hatred of Rumer Willis, constantly talking about how ugly she is, as if she were some pop culture figure being rammed down our throats and not an unassuming and (by all accounts) level-headed young woman who just happens to have famous parents. Hilton (who himself is gay) constantly makes disparaging and borderline hateful comments when speculating about Lindsay Lohan's supposed lesbian relationship, and he constantly refers to Miley Cyrus as a slut. "Slutty Cyrus" is what he calls her. Clever, Perez. Does it feel good to be a thirty-year-old man calling Miley Cyrus a slut? Let's hope so, for your sake. Perez Hilton rant over.
Back to Amy Winehouse. Yes, she's a drug user. Yes, she smokes and drinks heavily, is in and out of rehab and the hospital and shows no signs of stopping. But I'm so sick of hearing people dealing with Winehouse like she's a punching bag, rather than a human being who's obviously very troubled. To all the entertainment magazines, blogs, gossip columns, and you Winehouse-critics at home, get over it already. Amy Winehouse is a popular singer who has sold a lot of records, and thus, has acquired some measure of wealth (I'm assuming) and celebrity. She chose to use the advantages of said lifestyle not to better, but to worsen herself. Fine. That's her choice. Get over it. I'm so sick of the way that Winehouse is constantly taken to task for her drug use and other issues. How many of us can honestly say that we've never engaged in behavior that we knew could be harmful to ourselves or (God forbid) others? Whether it's smoking that cigarette or eating that cheeseburger. Most people engage in some kind of harmful excessive behavior on a daily basis. Amy Winehouse happens to take it to the extreme, but again that's her decision. Get over it and stop trying to moral majority everyone.
Margaret Cho is Amazing...And other Thoughts
Hello to the three people who read this blog (seriously, there have been like three comment posts in the entire history of this blog, so that's what I'm assuming the readership is) still plan to post a full review of Pineapple Express within the next couple of days. I've just been really busy shooting a movie (which has been going very well, btw.) I don't want to just slap together a quick review, free of any real insight into the film, ya know? These things take time. At any rate, I'm leaning towards a B-/B grade for the film...I plan to address the subtle, yet rampant homophobia at work in the Apatow-brand comedy once I've decided exactly how I feel about it.
Regarding the title of this post, I was at Outwrite Books today in Atlanta and I picked up a copy of "I Have Chosen to Stay and Fight" by Margaret Cho. I began skimming through it and I was unable to put it down. So much so that I bought it right on the spot (and I and NOT an impulse shopper at all) and I almost read through the whole thing in one sitting. As a comedienne, Cho is generally kind of hit or miss with me (though her bit about Gwen washing her vagina is hilarious) but damned if her book isn't bursting with brilliance on nearly every page. Margaret Cho really explains the frustration of being a minority (any minority) into words that I've been searching for almost all my life. It's that feeling of walking through a world where everything you do or say is filtered through a "minority lens." And all the while reading this book, I kept thinking, "Wow. You know who would really benefit from reading this? Elisabeth Hasselbeck." I know a lot of people hate her (I'm not too fond of her sometimes) but I do believe that Elisabeth Hasselbeck is generally a good person who means well (as far as conservatives go). I'm just really sick of this whole "I know racism is bad, and I GET that it's difficult for minorities, but..." thing that she has going on. It annoys me because as well meaning as she is, she neither "knows" nor "understands." And this book puts it in plain calm language for people like her.
I especially love the section where Cho calls Ann Coulter on her bullshit. So great and totally the typical "liberal" rant you'd expect on the subject. She comes at everything from such a fresh unique perspective and I'm loving it.
Regarding the title of this post, I was at Outwrite Books today in Atlanta and I picked up a copy of "I Have Chosen to Stay and Fight" by Margaret Cho. I began skimming through it and I was unable to put it down. So much so that I bought it right on the spot (and I and NOT an impulse shopper at all) and I almost read through the whole thing in one sitting. As a comedienne, Cho is generally kind of hit or miss with me (though her bit about Gwen washing her vagina is hilarious) but damned if her book isn't bursting with brilliance on nearly every page. Margaret Cho really explains the frustration of being a minority (any minority) into words that I've been searching for almost all my life. It's that feeling of walking through a world where everything you do or say is filtered through a "minority lens." And all the while reading this book, I kept thinking, "Wow. You know who would really benefit from reading this? Elisabeth Hasselbeck." I know a lot of people hate her (I'm not too fond of her sometimes) but I do believe that Elisabeth Hasselbeck is generally a good person who means well (as far as conservatives go). I'm just really sick of this whole "I know racism is bad, and I GET that it's difficult for minorities, but..." thing that she has going on. It annoys me because as well meaning as she is, she neither "knows" nor "understands." And this book puts it in plain calm language for people like her.
I especially love the section where Cho calls Ann Coulter on her bullshit. So great and totally the typical "liberal" rant you'd expect on the subject. She comes at everything from such a fresh unique perspective and I'm loving it.
Friday, August 8, 2008
Pineapple Express
I suppose Pineapple Express is yards away from being a terrible movie. But it's not one to get terribly excited about either, even when you compare it to other films in the Apatow-crowd catalogue. From things I've been hearing from critics and average movie goers alike, I was expecting a sort of stoner-film renaissance, but was left surprisingly underwhelmed. Not to say that the film isn't funny. But there are a few things I'd like to address here.
First of all, David Gordon Green, the film's director. I've loved him since 2003 when he made the quietly affecting All the Real Girls. It prompted me to go back and watch his 2000 debut, George Washington (great). I plan to revisit the rest of his filmography, and I look forward to seeing Snow Angels (also released this year), though it hasn't made its way to Atlanta yet (to give you an idea of how frustrating it is, Atlanta's official "arthouse" theater only has 8 screens, and four of them are currently dedicated to Pineapple Express, Mamma Mia! and The Dark Knight.) I'm totally digressing, my point being that David Gordon Green is about the last person I'd expect to direct a Judd Apatow-produced stoner film.
I can't really describe it any better than to say that, even as far as stoner films go, Pineapple Express feels pretty...off. The film starts off with an opening flashback sequence, which takes place in the late 1930s and involves Bill Hader. The entire scene is unfunny, is a huge miscalculation, and (unless I'm missing something here) is only tangentially related to the plot of the movie. It only serves to bog down the movie, which would have been off to a slow start anyway, even without the ponderous opening scene.
I'm really sick of hearing how James Franco is comic genius in this film and how it's so great to see him playing "against type." Franco's very funny here, sure. But anyone saying that he's playing against type obviously hasn't seen a little show called Freaks and Geeks. Pineapple Express's Saul is more or less an extrapolation of Freaks and Geeks's Daniel Desario.
Also, regarding Judd Apatow and the claims of homophobia in his films...they pretty much hold up. But how forgivable is it? Well, it's the type of homophobia where the audience is asked to laugh at the male camaraderie because the idea of two men loving each other is so bizarre/funny/abhorrent...I could continue with much worse adjectives, but you get the picture. I'm not going to get up on a soapbox about the evils of homophobia and how stupid and dangerous masculinity is in general and how even though femininity is stupid too, it's very much informed negatively by its relationship to masculinity and doesn't stifle forward thinking and encourage aggression and bigotry in the same way that masculinity does (whoops, I guess I just did get up on a soapbox. Oh, well). Here's my verdict about homophobia in Judd Apatow films. It abounds no more or less than it does in most films, which are told from the perspective of the heterosexual male. So I'm not particularly inclined to condemn Judd Apatow. To condemn him is to condemn them all, you know what I mean?
Back to the movie. Seth Rogen doesn't really up his game here, though it's interesting to see him play the straight man to Franco's total stoner/fuckup (or interesting in conception, rather). And Danny McBride, who has been every where this past year. To me, he will always be "Bust-Ass" in All the Real Girls, and I'm not sure how I feel about the manner in which he's becoming famous. But he has a dopey, clueless quality about him that's somewhat endearing.
What of the movie's plot? Well it's needlessly intricate in a manner that borders on tedious. The action sequences provide some laughs along the way (a particularly lengthy fight scene between Rogen, Franco and McBride is one of the funniest things I've seen at the movies this year) but there sure is a lack of connectivity between the chuckles, which are mostly modest at best. And this film is violent...very violent. Seriously, not that it offended me. I was just surprised at the gruesome way in which a lot of character bite the bullet.
Overall, Pineapple Express is fun, if completely missable summer fare. You could do a lot worse, but you could do a whole lot better too.
Grade: B-
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Random Thoughts...Again
I'll be coming with a longer post pretty soon. Just a few talking points:
- In my spare time (which admittedly hasn't been in abundance since I started working/filming my movie) I've been obsessively watching "Jon & Kate Plus 8." I find it utterly and completely fascinating. It should be called "People Aspiring to Be Young Parents: Beware." (An ungainly title, yes. But the sentiment still stands). I don't say that I'll never have children simply because I don't know how I'll feel ten/fifteen/twenty years down the road. But watching this show makes me appreciate my life free of that kind of responsibility. Though I must say, if the show was just about Aaden (the tuplet with the glasses) I'd still watch the show. He's awesome.
- I saw Pineapple Express last night and will talk about it later.
- Maybe it's just that I'm getting older and more cynical, but I truly believe that with each Presidential election, America loses more of its ability to engage in critical discussion and debate. Fox News has always been a joke...but it's not so bad, because I think (in a really twisted way) they almost own it. You can practically see them winking at the screen when they say "Fair and Balanced." But CNN is getting (has been) pretty ridiculous as well. My feelings about BOTH presidential candidates on a given day range from annoyance to disgust and I'm just ready to fast forward to November so this whole thing can be over.
- More to come. Peace, love and pretension.
Friday, July 25, 2008
Gossip Girl--Sturm und Drang
It would seem that the new ads for the CW series "Gossip Girl" have stirred up a mild controversy (pretty much the only level of controversy that anything connected to the CW could hope to elicit). The ads feature pull quotes from various sources condemning the show for its supposedly overtly sexual content. Like this one, featuring star Blake Lively looking titillated as an unseen male nuzzles her neck, with the words "Every Parent's Nightmare" plastered across the ad. The ads themselves have been called everything from "desperate" to "disgusting." And as you can see below, people seem to have a few choice words to say about the show as well.
It's because I've never watched "Gossip Girl" (and probably never will for reasons far beyond its supposed lewd nature) that I can't say whether the show is "offensive" (I really hate that word). I probably wouldn't find it offensive in the strictest sense of the word. I'm not sure I disagree entirely with the notion that the ads themselves are kind of desperate (but isn't advertising by nature always desperate on some kind of level?). I can say that I love the idea of taking our (mostly) stupid hangups regarding sexuality and turning them (somewhat) on their ear. Our culture definitely exhibits this weird skittishness when it comes to contemplating female sexuality--teenage female sexuality even more so. This would be fine if it weren't for the fact that teenage male sexuality is viewed with a playful "Boys will be boys! Get 'em, Tiger!" attitude (not teenage male homosexuality, mind you. But that's another discussion entirely). I know I'm hardly breaking new ground when I bring up the double standard as it relates to men, women, and sex. But I think that the reasons behind the double standard, and tangentially, the hubbub over "Gossip Girl" are much more interesting and insidious. It even starts from birth--pink for girls, blue for boys. Studies have been conducted for years regarding the connotation of certain colors on a subconscious level. Guess which color (blue or pink) is regarded with more seriousness and importance?
Let's say (for argument's sake) that "Gossip Girl" really does encourage sexual activity among teenage girls. Is that so much worse than the messages young girls receive, not just from the media, but from those around them? Call me crazy (and you're welcome to) but I think that our society in general encourages women to commodify themselves in ways that men are never expected to. Even virginity pledges for girls are often a way of commodifying them. "Who's going to buy the cow when they can get the milk for free?" I still hear that and it frightens me because it positions women as things that need to be kept shiny and new so they can attract the best buyer (or in this case caregiver). And yet virginity is almost valued inversely for men. How can we still have these attitudes, and then say that women have more choices today? We're conditioned (in the best case scenarios) to view women as inferior to men and (in the worst case scenarios) hate them. If you think I'm overreaching or being too sweeping, ask yourself (if you're a parent) if you have ever asked your daughter to sacrifice more than your son. Observe how single motherhood is framed in our culture versus single fatherhood (scorned versus uplifted and revered. True, yes?) Think about how people are reacting to female teenage sexuality on "Gossip Girl" and look how the world reacted to male teenage sexuality in a film like Superbad. I know what you're thinking--one's a television show, the other's a movie. Fine. But what if Superbad had been about two female high school seniors on a quest to buy liquor, so they could go to a party and have sex with the boys of their respective dreams? The public outcry would have been so massive...actually, it wouldn't. Because Hollywood would never dream of producing such a film. Because girls don't sometimes have sexual feelings, right? They aren't allowed to. For girls, sex is a way for them to gain power and influence men, right? Again, commodification of women. Even look on the supposed fringes of Hollywood at an independent film about a certain pregnant heroine. Juno, despite all of its supposed strengths, ultimately lacks the balls (sorry, Diablo Cody) to address the issue of Juno (Ellen Page) initiating sex with Paulie (Michael Cera), or the reasons behind said action with any semblance of depth or insight. Because, once again, the idea of a woman (teenage or otherwise) enjoying sex is still viewed as taboo in the twenty-first century.
Ultimately, I'm not writing this to say that I am in favor of teenagers (male or female), giving in to every biological impulse. But, it doesn't matter what I think. Nor does it matter what anyone else thinks. Teenagers are going to have sex, as they have since the beginning of time. Is it really useful to portray teenage sex as being slightly more acceptable for boys than for girls? I'd say, it's pretty damn harmful, not to mention stupid and illogical. After all, who are all these teenage boys having sex with? There are definitely problems with the things we tell young girls about their own sexuality. No one is fed more mixed-messages in our culture than girls. But an attempt to remedy the situation, or even spark a mere discussion should neither start nor end with a trifle of a show like "Gossip Girl" in mind. Please, somebody just wake me when our culture regains its ability to engage critically in discussion and debate, stops being so reactionary and puritanical and stops focusing on surface-y bullshit that really isn't that important in the grand scheme of things. I think I'll die of shock when that happens.
It's because I've never watched "Gossip Girl" (and probably never will for reasons far beyond its supposed lewd nature) that I can't say whether the show is "offensive" (I really hate that word). I probably wouldn't find it offensive in the strictest sense of the word. I'm not sure I disagree entirely with the notion that the ads themselves are kind of desperate (but isn't advertising by nature always desperate on some kind of level?). I can say that I love the idea of taking our (mostly) stupid hangups regarding sexuality and turning them (somewhat) on their ear. Our culture definitely exhibits this weird skittishness when it comes to contemplating female sexuality--teenage female sexuality even more so. This would be fine if it weren't for the fact that teenage male sexuality is viewed with a playful "Boys will be boys! Get 'em, Tiger!" attitude (not teenage male homosexuality, mind you. But that's another discussion entirely). I know I'm hardly breaking new ground when I bring up the double standard as it relates to men, women, and sex. But I think that the reasons behind the double standard, and tangentially, the hubbub over "Gossip Girl" are much more interesting and insidious. It even starts from birth--pink for girls, blue for boys. Studies have been conducted for years regarding the connotation of certain colors on a subconscious level. Guess which color (blue or pink) is regarded with more seriousness and importance?
Let's say (for argument's sake) that "Gossip Girl" really does encourage sexual activity among teenage girls. Is that so much worse than the messages young girls receive, not just from the media, but from those around them? Call me crazy (and you're welcome to) but I think that our society in general encourages women to commodify themselves in ways that men are never expected to. Even virginity pledges for girls are often a way of commodifying them. "Who's going to buy the cow when they can get the milk for free?" I still hear that and it frightens me because it positions women as things that need to be kept shiny and new so they can attract the best buyer (or in this case caregiver). And yet virginity is almost valued inversely for men. How can we still have these attitudes, and then say that women have more choices today? We're conditioned (in the best case scenarios) to view women as inferior to men and (in the worst case scenarios) hate them. If you think I'm overreaching or being too sweeping, ask yourself (if you're a parent) if you have ever asked your daughter to sacrifice more than your son. Observe how single motherhood is framed in our culture versus single fatherhood (scorned versus uplifted and revered. True, yes?) Think about how people are reacting to female teenage sexuality on "Gossip Girl" and look how the world reacted to male teenage sexuality in a film like Superbad. I know what you're thinking--one's a television show, the other's a movie. Fine. But what if Superbad had been about two female high school seniors on a quest to buy liquor, so they could go to a party and have sex with the boys of their respective dreams? The public outcry would have been so massive...actually, it wouldn't. Because Hollywood would never dream of producing such a film. Because girls don't sometimes have sexual feelings, right? They aren't allowed to. For girls, sex is a way for them to gain power and influence men, right? Again, commodification of women. Even look on the supposed fringes of Hollywood at an independent film about a certain pregnant heroine. Juno, despite all of its supposed strengths, ultimately lacks the balls (sorry, Diablo Cody) to address the issue of Juno (Ellen Page) initiating sex with Paulie (Michael Cera), or the reasons behind said action with any semblance of depth or insight. Because, once again, the idea of a woman (teenage or otherwise) enjoying sex is still viewed as taboo in the twenty-first century.
Ultimately, I'm not writing this to say that I am in favor of teenagers (male or female), giving in to every biological impulse. But, it doesn't matter what I think. Nor does it matter what anyone else thinks. Teenagers are going to have sex, as they have since the beginning of time. Is it really useful to portray teenage sex as being slightly more acceptable for boys than for girls? I'd say, it's pretty damn harmful, not to mention stupid and illogical. After all, who are all these teenage boys having sex with? There are definitely problems with the things we tell young girls about their own sexuality. No one is fed more mixed-messages in our culture than girls. But an attempt to remedy the situation, or even spark a mere discussion should neither start nor end with a trifle of a show like "Gossip Girl" in mind. Please, somebody just wake me when our culture regains its ability to engage critically in discussion and debate, stops being so reactionary and puritanical and stops focusing on surface-y bullshit that really isn't that important in the grand scheme of things. I think I'll die of shock when that happens.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Favorite Opening Sequences...
I just felt compelled to talk about some really great opening sequences from films. This top ten list would probably not even be my absolute "favorite" if I really sat down and thought about it, but they're really good anyway. Some of them come from films that I only feel so-so about.
10. Junebug (2005)
When I saw this film for the first time back in '05, it was after it had reached hype hysteria of epic proportions (hey, has anyone seen The Dark Knight or better yet, read my review of it?). Once you get some distance from the film, it definitely improves on subsequent viewings. You may still have trouble convincing me of this film's brilliance, but it boasts some wonderful performances and a great opening sequence. Madeleine (Embeth Davidtz) meets George (Alessandro Nivola) in a an art gallery. A look, a few words and as the credits role, they make love playfully in the empty gallery (could you help yourself if you were either of them?) The wonderful sequence ends with a breathless Madeleine asking George "Where do you come from?" And with a smile (God, that smile) he replies "Pfaftown, North Carolina." So little is said, yet it sets the tone for the rest of the movie. Plus, aren't you already booking your ticket to Pfaftown?
9. Carrie (1976)
"You eat shit, Carrie!" Such strong hateful words that tell you everything you need to know about what yo
u're in for here. From a gym class volleyball game, to a panning shot of locker room naughtiness. And then there's the score...I've seen Carrie more times than I can count and I still can't figure out if the soap-operish flute music is the smartest score or the most misplaced score I've ever heard. But as we see Carrie, bathing majestically in the shower, there's that critical shot of blood running down her legs that turns the scene on its ear. And of course leads us to one of the most immortal phrases in cinema history..."Plug it up!"
8. Gummo (1997)
Like Junebug, I'm not sure how I feel about Gummo. It's definitely jarring and I've had to re-watch it several times just to try to form some opinion of it. At the very least, it's fascinating (like the squirrely little director, Mr. Harmony Korine himself). Its opening credits are some of the most haunting I've ever seen. That female crooner, singing about her rooster going "cock-a-doodle-do" over the image of that creepy kid with his rabbit ears...always gets me.
7. The Shining (1980)
Okay, confession time. I'm a big Kubrick-phile, so right away I'm biased. I had to pick which of his films would make this list, and obviously, it had to be The Shining with its panoramic shot of a mountain road over a lake with some of the best horror-movie music ever composed. If you're somehow stumped as to how Kubrick got that shot, there's a big giveaway if you pay attention to some tell-tale shadows in the frame.
6. The Sweet Hereafter (1997)
I don't often cry at the movies. It's happened only a few times. Silkwood (how can you not?) and The Sweet Hereafter are two examples. This movie still gets to me. Upon first observation, it would probably seem like there's not a lot going on in this opening sequence. It's just a panning overhead shot of a couple sleeping in bed with their child. But it's actually one of the most powerful, important images in the film as it gets right to the heart of the film's themes--Our need as a society to protect our children, and the ultimate failure and desolation that is felt when that need is not met (for whatever reason). That, combined with Mychael Danna's lovely score (seriously, he might just be the most underrated composer working in film today) make this one for the books.
5. Boogie Nights (1997)
I'm a huge PT Anderson fan.
Ultimately, even though it's still very fresh in my mind, I think that There Will Be Blood will be the masterpiece he's remembered for. But of all of his films, I enjoy the opening for Boogie Nights the most. It beats the vast open silence of There Will Be Blood's opening and the overly philosophical musings of Magnolia's opening. I love the tracking shot through Maurice's club, played beautifully against The Emotions' "Best of My Love." It's busy, but it's profound. We meet the eclectic cast of characters, including the lovely Amber Waves (Julianne Moore), Roller Girl (Heather Graham), porn-king Jack Horner and our hero Dirk Diggler (Mark Wahlberg). One of the most important themes of this film is getting swept up, in one way or another, and no opening sequence sweeps you into the action better than this one.
4. The Graduate (1967)
Having just graduated from college, I don't feel as adrift as Benjamin Braddock, but I surely identify with the malaise brought on by the constant questioning from those around you..."So, what now?" The opening sequence, set to Simon and Garfunkel's "Sound of Silence" (which bookends the film, no pun intended) has our antihero drifting aimlessly on moving sidewalks through an airport. Is it the most subtle metaphor in American cinema? Probably not. But it's still poignant anyway.
3. Blue Velvet (1986)
I have no problem with bizarre. I don't even explicitly have a problem with bizarreness for its own sake. But David Lynch definitely pushes it, which stops me from worshiping at his altar. But I definitely love the first scene of blue velvet, which showcases fucked up, overly-clean suburban Lumberton and the creepy critters that dwell beneath--quite literally, actually. Again, not the most subtle of images. But remember, it was 1986--before suburban satire had been done to death.
2. The Royal Tenenbaums (2001)
The Royal Tenenbaums is truly the dysfunctional family done up right. Normally, I'm not a huge fan of narration. But in this case, Wes Anderson made the decision to explain most of the history of the fucked up Tenenbaums in a short five minute opening sequence. Lik
e all Wes Anderson films, it's beautifully art-directed (seriously, why no Oscar noms for art direction for his films?) and well-acted by the child performers. And it's played nicely against a string version of the Beatles' "Hey Jude." Awesome.
1. Do the Right Thing (1989)
Wake up! Wake up! Wake up! Up your wake! Up your wake! Up your wake! No film announces its intentions clearer or louder than Spike Lee's Do the Right Thing, which opens to the loud bombastic sound of Public Enemy's "Fight the Power," while Rosie Perez dances forcefully. I love, love, love this opening sequence.
10. Junebug (2005)
When I saw this film for the first time back in '05, it was after it had reached hype hysteria of epic proportions (hey, has anyone seen The Dark Knight or better yet, read my review of it?). Once you get some distance from the film, it definitely improves on subsequent viewings. You may still have trouble convincing me of this film's brilliance, but it boasts some wonderful performances and a great opening sequence. Madeleine (Embeth Davidtz) meets George (Alessandro Nivola) in a an art gallery. A look, a few words and as the credits role, they make love playfully in the empty gallery (could you help yourself if you were either of them?) The wonderful sequence ends with a breathless Madeleine asking George "Where do you come from?" And with a smile (God, that smile) he replies "Pfaftown, North Carolina." So little is said, yet it sets the tone for the rest of the movie. Plus, aren't you already booking your ticket to Pfaftown?
9. Carrie (1976)
"You eat shit, Carrie!" Such strong hateful words that tell you everything you need to know about what yo
u're in for here. From a gym class volleyball game, to a panning shot of locker room naughtiness. And then there's the score...I've seen Carrie more times than I can count and I still can't figure out if the soap-operish flute music is the smartest score or the most misplaced score I've ever heard. But as we see Carrie, bathing majestically in the shower, there's that critical shot of blood running down her legs that turns the scene on its ear. And of course leads us to one of the most immortal phrases in cinema history..."Plug it up!"8. Gummo (1997)
Like Junebug, I'm not sure how I feel about Gummo. It's definitely jarring and I've had to re-watch it several times just to try to form some opinion of it. At the very least, it's fascinating (like the squirrely little director, Mr. Harmony Korine himself). Its opening credits are some of the most haunting I've ever seen. That female crooner, singing about her rooster going "cock-a-doodle-do" over the image of that creepy kid with his rabbit ears...always gets me.
7. The Shining (1980)
Okay, confession time. I'm a big Kubrick-phile, so right away I'm biased. I had to pick which of his films would make this list, and obviously, it had to be The Shining with its panoramic shot of a mountain road over a lake with some of the best horror-movie music ever composed. If you're somehow stumped as to how Kubrick got that shot, there's a big giveaway if you pay attention to some tell-tale shadows in the frame.
6. The Sweet Hereafter (1997)
I don't often cry at the movies. It's happened only a few times. Silkwood (how can you not?) and The Sweet Hereafter are two examples. This movie still gets to me. Upon first observation, it would probably seem like there's not a lot going on in this opening sequence. It's just a panning overhead shot of a couple sleeping in bed with their child. But it's actually one of the most powerful, important images in the film as it gets right to the heart of the film's themes--Our need as a society to protect our children, and the ultimate failure and desolation that is felt when that need is not met (for whatever reason). That, combined with Mychael Danna's lovely score (seriously, he might just be the most underrated composer working in film today) make this one for the books.
5. Boogie Nights (1997)
I'm a huge PT Anderson fan.
Ultimately, even though it's still very fresh in my mind, I think that There Will Be Blood will be the masterpiece he's remembered for. But of all of his films, I enjoy the opening for Boogie Nights the most. It beats the vast open silence of There Will Be Blood's opening and the overly philosophical musings of Magnolia's opening. I love the tracking shot through Maurice's club, played beautifully against The Emotions' "Best of My Love." It's busy, but it's profound. We meet the eclectic cast of characters, including the lovely Amber Waves (Julianne Moore), Roller Girl (Heather Graham), porn-king Jack Horner and our hero Dirk Diggler (Mark Wahlberg). One of the most important themes of this film is getting swept up, in one way or another, and no opening sequence sweeps you into the action better than this one.4. The Graduate (1967)
Having just graduated from college, I don't feel as adrift as Benjamin Braddock, but I surely identify with the malaise brought on by the constant questioning from those around you..."So, what now?" The opening sequence, set to Simon and Garfunkel's "Sound of Silence" (which bookends the film, no pun intended) has our antihero drifting aimlessly on moving sidewalks through an airport. Is it the most subtle metaphor in American cinema? Probably not. But it's still poignant anyway.
3. Blue Velvet (1986)
I have no problem with bizarre. I don't even explicitly have a problem with bizarreness for its own sake. But David Lynch definitely pushes it, which stops me from worshiping at his altar. But I definitely love the first scene of blue velvet, which showcases fucked up, overly-clean suburban Lumberton and the creepy critters that dwell beneath--quite literally, actually. Again, not the most subtle of images. But remember, it was 1986--before suburban satire had been done to death.
2. The Royal Tenenbaums (2001)
The Royal Tenenbaums is truly the dysfunctional family done up right. Normally, I'm not a huge fan of narration. But in this case, Wes Anderson made the decision to explain most of the history of the fucked up Tenenbaums in a short five minute opening sequence. Lik
e all Wes Anderson films, it's beautifully art-directed (seriously, why no Oscar noms for art direction for his films?) and well-acted by the child performers. And it's played nicely against a string version of the Beatles' "Hey Jude." Awesome.
1. Do the Right Thing (1989)
Wake up! Wake up! Wake up! Up your wake! Up your wake! Up your wake! No film announces its intentions clearer or louder than Spike Lee's Do the Right Thing, which opens to the loud bombastic sound of Public Enemy's "Fight the Power," while Rosie Perez dances forcefully. I love, love, love this opening sequence.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
The Dark Knight
I still don't feel like I have enough distance from Christopher Nolan's The Dark Knight to speak about it with any semblance of objectivity--that's how haunting it is. It gets underneath your skin and festers, making you ponder things that you never thought you'd be pondering, while walking out of a comic book movie. I'm trying to get beyond the hyperbolic praise that's been floating around, both of the film and of Heath Ledger's tour-de-force, writ-large performance. But ultimately, it's hard to do so for a film that so richly lives up to months (years, actually) of hype, ever since the end of 2005's Batman Begins, where audiences first caught glimpse of the Joker card. It's been said so many times that it will seem trite at this point, but make no mistake--The Dark Knight completely re-writes the rules of the comic-book/superhero-film. This is the one that all others will be judged against from now on.A few things one should know about this film--it's incredibly dark (no pun intended). And I do mean dark in every sense of the word. Literally, there's a lot of harsh light and dark contrasts going on here, a lot is heavily shadowed (though if you ask me, Joker is never more terrifying than when he's out in broad daylight...more on that later). Content wise, this is a very dark, downbeat movie. No cheesy, Spiderman-style one-liners for the kids. No cutesy romances. And no wrap-it-up cleanly ending. To put it plainly, this film will fuck with your head in ways that no glowing review can prepare you for.
First of all, I want to talk about a few key aspects of this film that make it particularly inspired. The casting of Maggie Gyllenhaal, as Rachel Dawes, for one. I love that she was cast in place of Katie Holmes for several reasons. When I was watching Holmes in Batman Begins, I didn't really get the air of an As
sistant District Attorney so much as a young actress all dressed up in her mommy's clothes. Gyllenhaal brings a certain adult sexiness and personality to the role that Holmes never could have (perhaps because Holmes isn't really sexy and lacks a discernible personality of any kind ever since Tom Cruise had that part of her brain removed.) Gyllenhaal elevates Dawes beyond a traditional female reflector, transforming her into a character that we truly care about (something very key for this film).Secondly, I want to talk about Heath Ledger's Joker. All that's been said about that is accurate. This is his movie. He commands every single scene he's in, and a few he's not since the Joker is always a looming, menacing presence in this film. Y
ou never know when he's going to show up, and when he does, it's terrifying. Beyond Ledger, I think a key aspect of the success of his performance can be credited to writer-director Christopher Nolan and his decision not to sexualize the Joker. It would have been so easy to go there, I think. There's one thing I know, and that's men need sex, whatever variety it may be. There's a key scene in the film where the Joker has a confrontation with Rachel Dawes. It is here that you truly see how he can't be bought. Compare this to Tim Burton's Batman, where Joker (played by Jack Nicholson) is so easily duped and seduced by Vicki Vale. Ledger's Joker is so not interested--not in money, nor women, nor any other earthly delights you can throw at him. He thrives on chaos and destruction, and even then, it has to be on his terms. And Ledger plays the insanity and the hysteria beautifully. Yet, you cannot watch the performance without feeling a lingering sadness. If the impact of Ledger's death hasn't hit yet, the huge amount of talent that was lost last year is on full display here and makes this already dark film that much darker.Christian Bale is better here than he was in Batman Begins. This time around, he allows himself to be both Batman and Bruce Wayne, making the latter into a fully-formed, well-rounded character, rather than delving too headlong into gruff, monotone smolder. That is why we feel more deeply for Wayne. We sense his pain and his dilemma. His desire not to be Batman, because he knows what he must sacrifice, is at odds with his inability to give up his mask and cape because he knows too deeply what's at stake. He's human here. I can't help but picture Christopher Nolan behind the camera saying to Bale "Bruce Wayne, not John Wayne." And he gets it right.
Finally, I was actually the most blindsided by Aaron Eckhart, who brings a depth to District Attorney Harvey Dent that I wasn't expecting. It would have been more easy and simplistic to make Dent the man that Rachel Dawes was seeing simply because she couldn't have Bruce Wayne (at least not the way she wanted). But you understand, not only why she's with him, but that she does in fact love him and that is due very much to Eckhart's sympathetic portrayal. Not only does he make you believe in Harvey Dent, he gives off the air of a Harvey Dent who believes in himself, which makes a later plot-twist all the more effective.
Everything about this film, the top-notch cinematography, to its wonderful score by James Newton Howard and Hans Zimmer (two of my favorites), will command the attention of an astute watcher of cinema. A lot of talk has been flying around about Oscar consideration, mainly for Heath Ledger. Not since Peter Finch (Network) has a performer won a posthumous Academy Award. There are a lot of hurdles to overcome. Early release date. This film, for all of its triumphs, does happen to exist in a genre that doesn't typically garner major awards consideration--and the Academy is very slow to change, as we all know. I will have to see how the year progresses before I decide whether I'm completely for an Oscar-win for Ledger, but I can't imagine him not making my final five, come year's end. A nomination is almost assured, though a win...I'm not so sure. Even if he is deserving (and he very well might be) I doubt that this is the type of performance that the Oscars would reward if Ledger were alive. I would submit that if the studio campaigns strategically, it could even land a best picture or best director nod--especially if some of the highly anticipated heavy hitters being released at year's end are disappointments. This is already shaping up to be a disappointing year in cinema (I don't think we have another 2007 on our hands). My point is this, if Gladiator and The Departed could win best picture (the latter of with I have a fondness for, though I downright loathe the former), then why can't The Dark Knight sidestep all of the aforementioned barriers and at least land a nomination? This is the best film of the year so far, and is certain to be a place-holder on several critics top ten lists--the ones who are paying attention, anyway.
Grade: A- (though leaning towards B+) We'll see
Friday, July 18, 2008
It's Been a While
Okay, so I haven't posted in over a month...I said I would do this and I'm going to keep at it. But life has been calling me. I'm diving headlong into shooting my feature film, which is going well (all things considered). That's all I'm going to say on the matter (I don't want to get too personal here.)
I just came back from a midnight screening of The Dark Knight. It is almost like the No Country for Old Men of comic book movies...let that mean for you whatever it needs to. I'll be posting a full review sometime this weekend once I've given it a chance to marinate a little. Honestly, I still don't know exactly how I feel about it, beyond the initial...wow. It's an incredibly haunting film. If you thought Batman Begins was dark, you are in for a surprise. And Heath Ledger's performance does actually deserve most (if not all) of the hyperbolic praise being thrown its way. I won't dedicate the full review to singing his praises, because there is a lot of other good to be talked about. Also, watching Ledger's Joker, it fills you with an overwhelming sadness for the obvious reasons...
More to come later...
Love, Peace, and Pretension
I just came back from a midnight screening of The Dark Knight. It is almost like the No Country for Old Men of comic book movies...let that mean for you whatever it needs to. I'll be posting a full review sometime this weekend once I've given it a chance to marinate a little. Honestly, I still don't know exactly how I feel about it, beyond the initial...wow. It's an incredibly haunting film. If you thought Batman Begins was dark, you are in for a surprise. And Heath Ledger's performance does actually deserve most (if not all) of the hyperbolic praise being thrown its way. I won't dedicate the full review to singing his praises, because there is a lot of other good to be talked about. Also, watching Ledger's Joker, it fills you with an overwhelming sadness for the obvious reasons...
More to come later...
Love, Peace, and Pretension
Sunday, June 15, 2008
More to Come...
I haven't been posting as much as I'd like to. I've been seriously busy and it doesn't look like it's slowing down any time soon. Yesterday, I started principal photography on the film I'm directing. I had so many nightmares the night before about all the things that would go wrong, but it went surprisingly smoothly and I'm sure now more than ever that this is what I want to do with the rest of my life. It was such a high. But enough about me...
- I saw The Happening on Friday and will be posting a review shortly. It's definitely not Shyamalan's worst movie to date. But sadly, that's not saying much at all. Honestly, it'd be pretty tough to top Lady in the Water in that arena.
- Scratch that. I don't have it in me to revisit The Happening in the way I would need to to write a full review.
Grade: C-. I'll post a mini review much much later. - I recently watched Evening for the first time. I (wisely) missed it when it came out last year. Man, that movie is a mess. How they can assemble so much talent in one place and come up with...that is a testament to bad writing/directing.
- This is just a general sentiment. Something I need to get off my chest. Normally, I'm not very easily offended. And this is no exception. What I'm about to say comes less from my being offended than it does from my being annoyed/unamused. Fuck Carlos Mencia. There I said it. I happened to have Comedy Central on in the background and since I don't have a remote, and therefore have to get up to change the channel, in the process of doing so, I happened to catch a little bit of his show. Fuck him. "Hillary Clinton can't win because she's not hot enough." He actually said that. No clever double-entendres. Nothing else witty to add. That was the joke. The audience loved it. Excuse me while I fucking projective vomit. Fuck Carlos Mencia right up his ugly, developmentally challenged ass. He's like a composite of every single socially retarded, homophobic, racist guy I went to elementary/high school with and the fact that he's made it onto television makes me lose faith in the world in ways I never thought possible. Again, not easily offended here. George Carlin, who is often homophobic/racist was one of my favorite comedians. Judd Apatow's stuff is also often offensive in the same way. You know why I like these people? Because they're...wait for it: FUNNY! Carlos Mencia is neither funny nor clever enough to get away with half the shit he gets away with saying. He's like that kid who giggles every time he hears the word "booby." Fuck him. He's. Not. funny. Fuck him. Fuck him. Fuck him. Fuck. Him.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Random Thoughts
Okay. So I'm a bit late in addressing the MTV Movie Awards , which were held almost two weeks ago. I had initially planned on ignoring them altogether, like I always do, but a recent comment from an acquaintance prompted me to address something tangentially related to the MTV Awards.
I was on campus this week and ran into someone who I haven't seen since I was a lowly freshman. We got to chatting, about school/life, etc. When he found out I had graduated from the film/video program, the conversation veered towards movies. He asked me if I had watched the MTV Awards, which I replied "no." Then he said something about it being better than the Oscars, because "at least [he] had actually heard of most of the movies." That really made me think...
Are the movies nominated for Oscars always better than those nominated for MTV Movie Awards? Well, the short answer is yes. Anyone who knows me knows that I find the Academy Awards fascinating. I love the spectacle. I love when they get it right and I love arguing when they get it wrong (which is more often than not). I think about my favorite movies of the past decade or so:
2007: No Country for Old Men
2006: Children of Men
2005: Brokeback Mountain
2004: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
2003: In America
2002: Far from Heaven
2001: The Royal Tenenbaums
2000: Requiem for a Dream
1999: Fight Club
1998: American History X
1997: Boogie Nights
Of those titles, only two were actually nominated for best picture, and only one took home the title. My point? Both the Academy Awards and the MTV Movie Awards often show a lack of imagination/discernment when it comes to their choices. But yes, I would rather take the Academy Awards' selections over the MTV Awards' selections any day of the week, and I don't think that makes me a snob. Maybe it does. I don't care. Transformers won best movie this year. It boggles my mind that more people voted for that film than any of the other films released in 2007. This is unforgivable for so many reasons, not the least of which was that No Country for Old Men was not even nominated! Seriously. Maybe my social circle is a little skewed because I've been hanging out with film students for the past four years, but you'd be hard pressed to show me a more zeitgeist-y movie from 2007 than No Country. It certainly wasn't unpopular, and certainly not among young people. And if the MTV crowd is going for action, that's fine. But Transformers? A movie made by the egomaniacal Michael Bay that, while definitely a step up from previous efforts, was still a muddled, overlong mess? Why not go for something like The Bourne Ultimatum or even 28 Weeks Later both of which were action-packed, intelligent and well-made? It's choices like these that remind me of that student in one of my classes who told me that Ryan Gosling was her favorite actor. Yet when I asked if she had seen Half Nelson or The Believer or (to a lesser extent) Lars and the Real Girl, she replied "no." That irks me. And people like her exist by the thousands. And they aren't doing good actors like Ryan Gosling any favors by only seeing him when he makes commercial, yet pedestrian efforts like The Notebook. Do you see where I'm going with this? Maybe you don't...
What's the point of this rant? It's that you're not going to be told what movies are good or bad by awards shows. You have to search to find the great titles, which is becoming increasingly easy with information being at our fingertips. Don't take what's force fed to you. Seek out quality in every piece of culture that you consume. Be it the coverage you choose to follow about the presidential election, the books you read, the music you listen to, the television you watch (though I recently discovered that Desperate Housewives is actually a pretty smart show underneath all the mainstream hype...who knew?) and the movies you see. Seek out quality!
I was on campus this week and ran into someone who I haven't seen since I was a lowly freshman. We got to chatting, about school/life, etc. When he found out I had graduated from the film/video program, the conversation veered towards movies. He asked me if I had watched the MTV Awards, which I replied "no." Then he said something about it being better than the Oscars, because "at least [he] had actually heard of most of the movies." That really made me think...
Are the movies nominated for Oscars always better than those nominated for MTV Movie Awards? Well, the short answer is yes. Anyone who knows me knows that I find the Academy Awards fascinating. I love the spectacle. I love when they get it right and I love arguing when they get it wrong (which is more often than not). I think about my favorite movies of the past decade or so:
2007: No Country for Old Men
2006: Children of Men
2005: Brokeback Mountain
2004: Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
2003: In America
2002: Far from Heaven
2001: The Royal Tenenbaums
2000: Requiem for a Dream
1999: Fight Club
1998: American History X
1997: Boogie Nights
Of those titles, only two were actually nominated for best picture, and only one took home the title. My point? Both the Academy Awards and the MTV Movie Awards often show a lack of imagination/discernment when it comes to their choices. But yes, I would rather take the Academy Awards' selections over the MTV Awards' selections any day of the week, and I don't think that makes me a snob. Maybe it does. I don't care. Transformers won best movie this year. It boggles my mind that more people voted for that film than any of the other films released in 2007. This is unforgivable for so many reasons, not the least of which was that No Country for Old Men was not even nominated! Seriously. Maybe my social circle is a little skewed because I've been hanging out with film students for the past four years, but you'd be hard pressed to show me a more zeitgeist-y movie from 2007 than No Country. It certainly wasn't unpopular, and certainly not among young people. And if the MTV crowd is going for action, that's fine. But Transformers? A movie made by the egomaniacal Michael Bay that, while definitely a step up from previous efforts, was still a muddled, overlong mess? Why not go for something like The Bourne Ultimatum or even 28 Weeks Later both of which were action-packed, intelligent and well-made? It's choices like these that remind me of that student in one of my classes who told me that Ryan Gosling was her favorite actor. Yet when I asked if she had seen Half Nelson or The Believer or (to a lesser extent) Lars and the Real Girl, she replied "no." That irks me. And people like her exist by the thousands. And they aren't doing good actors like Ryan Gosling any favors by only seeing him when he makes commercial, yet pedestrian efforts like The Notebook. Do you see where I'm going with this? Maybe you don't...
What's the point of this rant? It's that you're not going to be told what movies are good or bad by awards shows. You have to search to find the great titles, which is becoming increasingly easy with information being at our fingertips. Don't take what's force fed to you. Seek out quality in every piece of culture that you consume. Be it the coverage you choose to follow about the presidential election, the books you read, the music you listen to, the television you watch (though I recently discovered that Desperate Housewives is actually a pretty smart show underneath all the mainstream hype...who knew?) and the movies you see. Seek out quality!
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Review--The Strangers
The Strangers is a film that was never going to live up to its trailer. That shot of Liv Tyler standing unknowing in the kitchen, while a mysterious man with a bag over his head stands in the background is probably infamous by now. And sadly, nothing beats seeing that for the first time. I went into this film thinking that it would be genuinely creepy. The trailer for another film titled Bagman really says it best. "There's nothing more frightening than a guy looking in your window with a bag on his head." Not sure if that's true, but it's still pretty scary anyway. And yet, I'm shocked by how...meh this movie was.The Strangers is both written and directed by newcomer Bryan Bertino. The film's direction is just as it should be. He has a real eye and he knows how to direct the viewer's eye. It's the writing part that I might leave to someone else next time around, if I were him. The screenplay is incredibly hollow, though I guess I appreciate what he was trying to do here...is appreciate the right word? I'll just say that I understand. He's trying to strip away typical cliches of the "slice 'em up" horror-genre by first introducing these two characters and their hazy backstory. Essentially, Liv Tyler and Scott Speedman play a couple who are clearly going through a rough patch. He has recently proposed to her, and she's rejected. The tension's so thick you could cut it with a knife, no pun intended. Also he's kind of behaving like a petulant child, if you ask me. Of course this all becomes irrelevant when they go to his family's summer home in the middle of East Jesus Nowhere (thank you Diablo Cody) and the pair soon find themselves under siege by three masked attackers. Fine. But there are so many plotholes, it's almost embarrassing that whoever read this screenplay and chose to finance didn't catch them. For instance, if she rejected his proposal, why then would he still take her up to his summer house with rose petals on the bed and champagne at the ready? Why not just go home? Why do characters in horror movies always tell each other "you must have imagined it," or "that didn't happen" or some variation on that sentiment? If someone tells me that an intruder came into the house, then we're leaving, whether it's true or not. Why chance it?
I would be more forgiving of little things such as these if the movie were actually scarier. Not to say that there aren't some genuinely frightening moments. For instance, the first time one of the strangers knocks on the door and asks for "Tamara." She's not masked, but her face is obscured by the darkness. They tell her she has the wrong house, and she responds with a menacing "See ya later." But for the most part, the movie pretty much blows its wad during the first third, leaving the last two parts kind of stagnant and predictable. And there was no reason whatsoever for this story (which I seriously doubt is "based on true events" ) to unfold the way it did when you have a group of two perfectly capable adults versus a group of three perfectly capable adults, the former of which has a loaded shotgun at their disposal.
Grade: C+
I was actually excited about this film, which is saying a lot, because I rarely get excited about, or even have the desire to see horror films. But it was so richly disappointing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)