Post-GG and Pre-AA Rambling Thoughts

Saturday February 23, 2008

Well, the 2008 Golden Globes are history. And so is the dreaded writer's strike. The GG's answered the question: What if they had an award show and no one showed other than a bunch of journalists. With the strike history, the only Academy Awards casualty looks like The Vanity Fair party. However, if THE annual awards show itself was cancelled, it truly would have been a disaster because, as it turns out, 2007 was a year chock full of absolutely amazing cinema. So, just in time, comes a highly anticipated awards show that will go on full blast tomorrow as scheduled.

The Globes are supposed to be a valid predictor of the upcoming Academy Awards. However, in a year with such an amazing array of top quality films (the closest to the '70's since, well, the '70's), it will be hard to look at the GG winners and place any amount of money on the AA's based on those awards. In one respect, the Hollywood Foreign Press (HFP) tries to gets it right in breaking out the categories according to genre. I mean, how in the world can you lump such great films together such as the romantic "Atonement" and the serious adult drama "Michael Clayton" (which I considered 2 of the 3 best films of 2007, the other being the unnominated "The Savages"). Then throw in the ultra violent "No Country For Old Men" and the epic "There Will Be Blood". The 5th nominated film is none other than the trifle indie "comedy" "Juno" (which, in my humble, but correct opinion, shouldn't even be close to being on the list if you read my review in this blog-but that's another story). "American Gangster" should CLEARLY be included on the best picture list and it is truly a head shaker that "Juno" is listed ahead of this great film.

So, what do I think of the major winners chosen by the HFP and do I think they will correspond to an AA statuette? Well, I have to say they got it right with "Atonement" as the top drama. I would have been just as happy with "Michael Clayton" but considering the overall emotional and visual impact delivered by "Atonement", this one was a virtual no-brainer by the HFP. However, the odds-on favorite for the AA's seems to be "No Country". Although a quality effort by the Coen Brothers, the film to me was a one-note (violent) bombardment. "Atonement", I feel, succeeded on so many other levels that it clearly deserves the top award. "There Will Be Blood" was all about Daniel Day-Lewis (who won the top actor award by the HFP). They should just mail the Oscar to him by the way. His was one of the greatest performances, not only this year, but for all of cinematic history!

Also the odds-on favorite for best actress is Julie Christie for "Away From Her". Her performance was excellent in a film that left me dry. However, as my sentimental choice, I would LOVE to see Laura Linney win for "The Savages". I feel she gave a wonderfully brilliant subtle performance in conveying a woman who grapples to find her self respect as well as gaining acknowledgement and approval from her abusive mentally deteriorating father, and from her distant sibling (played by the phenomenal, always dependable Philip Seymour Hoffman-up once again for an AA in the Best Supporting category for "Charlie Wilson's War". And how could The Academy not recognize Philip Bosco's amazing supporting performance as the abusive parent suffering from dementia?). There always seems to be at least one big surprise winner and this one could be it, but I doubt that the Academy voters are going to deny Christie considering her longevity. However, because she did win before (although it's been 42 years since she won as best actress for "Darling"), maybe this could be THE upset of this year's awards. Linney, who gives standout after standout performance in everything she's in, will definitely be at the podium someday if tomorrow is not that day. Or maybe Marion Cotillard ("La Vie En Rose") will be the upset in this category. She did win the GG in this category (they got it right!) without even nominating Christie. In my opinion, she is equally deserving as her performance in channeling the French self-destructive songstress Edith Piaf was, in a word, uncanny. Unfortunately, how many of the Academy members would have plopped down in front of a TV to take the time to view a foreign language film about a long deceased French singer-albeit the most famous one in their history? The Academy Awards is long noted for being somewhat of a popularity contest instead of Academy members casting its votes based solely on true merit.

The other slam dunk is the best supporting actor category. Mail it to Javier (who won a GG) for his monstrous portrayal in "No Country". His character will go down in cinema history along side Hannibal Lecter as the 2 most scariest most sinister dudes ever portrayed on the silver screen. No one else will come close to winning it (although Tom Wilkerson was wonderful in "Michael Clayton", wonderful doesn't compare to memorably historic).

I would love to see Tilda Swinton win the best supporting actress award for "Michael Clayton", which the HFP awarded to Cate Blanchett (in the almost unwatchable "I'm Not There"). This is probably the weakest represented category so I feel Tilda has a shot since "I'm Not There" may be another film The Academy might not have seen in droves.

As for best director, you have to figure The Coen Brothers will be the front runners. However, The Academy loves to split the best picture and director awards (don't ask me why-I mean, no one has ever satisfactorily explained to me how one could win without the other!). So look for either Tony Gilroy ("Michael Clayton"), Paul Thomas Anderson ("There Will Be Blood") or, my pick, the GG winner, Julian Schnapel for the amazing "The Diving Bell And The Butterfly". And how the hell do they leave out Ridley Scott for "American Gangster" (correctly nominated for a GG)?! .

I am hoping best song goes to the melodic "Falling" from the wonderful indie film "Once". You have to figure the 3 songs from "Enchanted" will cancel each other out leaving the song from "August Rush (did anyone see this stinker?).

Now for the category that has traditionally been the most problematic for The Academy. The Foreign Language Film category has 5 nominees none of which were mentioned by the HFP, who got it right again. I have not seen any of the films nominated by The Academy, however, I have seen "The Diving Bell And The Butterfly" and "La Vie En Rose" and could easily have agreed if they were in the Best Picture category much less in the best FLF! And, I have read great reviews of both "4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days" (New York Times reviewer A. O. Scott listed it as his #1 film of 2007!) and "Persepolis" and cannot for the life of me believe that any of these 5 nominated "unknown" films landed ahead of these 4! What gives?!!

However, The Academy appears to have finally realized that the best documentary should now include works by established documentary filmmakers. This is one tough group notable for 2 of the most scathing documents on the Bush Administration: 'No End In Sight" (the Iraq war), and "Taxi To The Dark Side" (post 9/11 war on terror policy). Bother are disturbingly excellent (especially the former) but will probably cancel each other out. Michael Moore has lately become the darling of the liberal minded Academy, but the controversy surrounding "Sicko" might eliminate him. My pick is the incredibly moving "War/Dance" which has been a huge hit on the festival circuit across the country last year.

So there you have it, my thoughts and picks for the AA. Now let's see if the over 3 month long writer's strike have given the writers enough time to create a masterpiece for Jon Stewart to match the overall quality of films up for recognition tomorrow night.

Post-AA Ramblings

Monday March 3, 2008

Random thoughts on the 2008 Awards extravaganza:

-The Show: Typical. 2 1/2 stars at best. Is anyone else tired of seeing that caricature, Jack Nicholson, in the front row with those inane sunglasses? I don't get it. And how about the orchestra cutting in before Marketa Irglova could co-accept for the winning song "Falling Slowly"? What may have been a first was Stewart bringing her back out after the commercial break to give her speech. Classy!

-The Host: Jon Stewart did an admirable job. I'd give him 3 stars (out of 4). I actually laughed out loud a number of times. However, clips of past emcees (namely Johnny Carson and even, Bob Hope) made me yearn for someone more in tune with the Hollywood folks. As expected, his schtick turned more than once to the political arena which seemed a bit out of place.

-Best supporting Actor: As expected, they could have mailed the Oscar to Javier. One of the biggest slam dunks in Oscar history. Hopefully he won't be typecast for that role because he is one of the better actors on the planet. (If you haven't seen it, check him out in the great "The Sea Inside" where he plays the middle age(!) famous Spanish paraplegic writer, Ramon Sampedro. The film won the Best Foreign Language Film last year. He should have been nominated for Best Actor!)

-Best Supporting Actress: As I predicted (see above), this was the upset category of the night. Although my heart was with Linney, I absolutely totally agree with The Academy on choosing Marion Cotillard's performance. I didn't think enough members would have seen it. Also, what is even more amazing is that this French film came out in early June, way before the "Oscar season" which is typically after the summer blockbusters. Kudos to The Academy!

-Best Actor: The other slam dunk of the night. Daniel Day-Lewis' performance ranks up there with the all time best in my opinion. Totally deserving, it's a shame the dude has only made about 13 films in his career which spans some 28 years.

-Best Actress: I loved this selection which I picked with both my heart and head. Tilda's character was the driving force behind "Michael Clayton" and her acting was superb. She is one of the most underrated actresses around and I'm thrilled she was finally, justly acknowledged and rewarded!

-Best Film: What can I say? The odds-on favorite, I was disappointed that "Atonement" (which won for original score) got virtually shut-out. Once the show got deep into the night without any momentum at all I knew it wouldn't come close to winning any of the top awards. My same feelings for "Michael Clayton", both of which were superior to "Old Country For Old Men".

-Best Director: At least The Academy did the right thing by handing out the best director award to the Coens. Again, how can you not select the director(s) of the Best Picture?

-Best Animated: "Ratatouille" should have been nominated for Best Picture. At the very least ahead of the awful "Juno".

-Best Documentary: I was REALLLY rooting for "War/Dance" but "Taxi To The Dark Side" was an admirable pick and not surprising considering the political slant of the Hollywood community. Again, every American needs to see this before the next election-along with "No End In Sight"! Alex Gibney is one of the premiere documentary filmmakers around and I was glad to see him win after missing last year with the amazing "Enron: The Smartest Guys In The Room".

-Best Original Screenplay: The 3rd slam dunk went to Diablo Cody. Most people on the planet, for some reason, loved "Juno" so this was the expected "bone" they threw to it. This selection was a total sham as the screenplays for the other 4 nominees: "Lars And The Real Girl", "Michael Clayton", "The Savages", and the amazing "Ratatouille (which was an animated screenplay for lord's sake!!!) were all so vastly superior to this winner it's ridiculous! Thank the lord it didn't win best picture.

-Best Original Song: "Falling Slowly" is not only the best original song of the year, it is in one of the best movies of the year. A minor masterpiece, rent "Once" now!!!

Final tally: I got 9 out 14 of the major categories (it would have been 10 out of 14 if I had chosen OCFOM as the best picture. However, I did have The Coen Brothers as Best Directors). I missed on Lead Actress (I went with Christie-but not because I thought she deserved it), Cinematography (I thought "Atonement" would get it), Documentary, & Foreign Language Film (a guess). My total tally was 14 out of 24.

On to 2008!

"Juno" * 1/2

I sincerely wanted to love this movie-I mean, as of this writing, it had gotten 19 out of 20 positive Rotten Tomatoes (RT) reviews. A writer to Roger Ebert's answer man column even mentioned that it received a long standing ovation at the end at the Toronto Film Festival screening. So, the only negative review so far on RT is by a "cream-of-the-crop" reviewer Kyle Smith (film critic for The New York Post). After screening it last night, I was extremely curious as to what he had to say, because, I absolutely HATED THIS MOVIE-and for all the reasons he, Christian, and EB (who posted comments to Kyle's review-as did I) have expounded. Their points are totally, excuse the archaic expression, right-on. And, to mention this film in the same breath as "Knocked-up" is ludicrous beyond words. Wow, I didn't know that the subject of a 16 year old pregnant girl could be so light and frivolous! Besides that, nothing in this film is real or funny. I've never seen so many annoying characters in one film. I was literally cringing when it appeared that the 30ish Jason Bateman character was possibly making a play for the very pregnant and very young Juno. Oh, and how about ditching Jennifer Garner to live out his dream of being a comic loving rock star? PULLEEESE!!! A very disappointing 2nd film by Jason Reitman, after his brilliant debut with "Thank You For Smoking". Also, another annoying aspect of this mess is the promotional tactic dreamed up by Fox Searchlight. In order to drum up support they are offering a contest to all who attended the screening by offering additional free screenings and the person who obtains the most "points" receives their own private screening with cast members and a free guitar. They even gave away free t-shirts to everyone (different collector t-shirts given away at each screening). I asked one of the helpers there why the promotion was so ambitious and I was told the studio wanted to create another "Napoleon Dynamite". Good luck! That film at least made it on its own without the in-your-face promotion this one is attempting. I can't imagine sitting through this one again. I want those 96 minutes back!!!

"Inception" (***-148 minutes)

Tuesday July 13, 2010

The most highly anticipated film of the summer (which, folks, let's be honest, that ain't saying much this year!) is also one of the most unique original films ever created. Director/screenwriter Christopher Nolan ("Memento"; "Insomnia";"The Dark Knight") had the idea knocking inside his head (dreams?) for about 10 years and the results are ingenious, spectacular, thought provoking, intriguing, entertaining, and yet, stupefying. If a film ever required multiple viewings this one is at the top of the list. And a bit of a warning: Do not, I repeat, DO NOT, walk into this one not prepared to give it your 100% attention. And if you need to make a bathroom run (please note the running time), you can forget about it. That being said, this is one amazing trip into the landscape of dreams-yours and everybody else's.

The basic premise: Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio successfully playing yet another character who is in constant anguish & angst) is a master of dream sharing &, therefore, is capable of stealing ideas from the minds of others-corporate mind thievery or espionage. An extractor, if you will. We quickly find out, also, that his wife is dead and that he's on the lam, internationally, unable to return to the U.S. to see his children-other than in his dreams.

He's given the opportunity to get into the U.S. safely by Saito (Ken Watanabe) who believes, by using his techniques, he can, instead of stealing an idea, implant an idea (inception) into a rival's dreams in order to change the course of his conscious actions when the rival's rich father dies. If Cobb agrees and ultimately succeeds, Saito knows enough people who can get him through customs and back to his children.

Got it? Well, that's the basic set-up. What follows next is the recruitment and placement of the "heist" team that will accomplish this task by entering/creating a dream within a dream within a dream. In other words, three levels down. The target? Robert Fischer Jr. (Cillian Murphy), who is about to inherit his father's empire. Saito intends to benefit if Fischer is convinced to split up his newly acquired energy empire. Still with me? Although the premise is straight forward, the execution not as much so. There is a lot of explanations as to time warping between levels (one level down, 5 minutes of dreaming becomes 1 hour-but 3 levels down, those 5 minutes turn into years); consequences of dying in your dream; how to wake up from the dreams; objects taken with you that can reveal whether you are in the real or dream state; etc. All the dialogue demands total attention and then some to piece together & make sense of the logic in Nolan's mind (hence my suggestion of repeated viewings).

The supporting cast is generally terrific but I had wished more time was available for richer character development. Joseph Gordon-Levitt (most recently starring in last year's terrific "500 Days of Summer") is Arthur, Cobb's point man and confidante; Tom Hardy is Eames, master of disguises; Yusef (Dileep Rio) is the chemist who is responsible for the strong sedatives needed for the operation; and, the weakest link in the group, Ellen Page (What?? Juno?!) is Ariadne, the young architect recruited to "build" the dream mazes in each of the levels. Playing Cob's deceased wife, Mal, is Academy Award winner Marion Cotillard ("La Vie En Rose") who provides the emotional thread that drives Cobb's motivations throughout. She tries to convince Cob to join her forever and ever in dreamland by constantly reappearing, uninvited, in all of his dreams. Not a good idea when you are three levels down and continually interfering with the mission. Competent cameos are provided by veterans Michael Caine and Tom Berenger.

For me, there are a couple of problems-the most annoying of which involves the soundtrack. There is no question that Hans Zimmer, who has composed scores for countless films and who has been nominated for 58 awards while winning 48 (including the AA for "Lion King"), is at the top of his game. However, for some reason, his music is placed incessantly throughout almost every frame-often rivaling and practically drowning out the dialogue. It eventually became, for me, an unwanted character. In a film requiring total concentration, this was a huge distraction. Also, the decision to make each dream sequence an individual action movie in itself seems preposterous (mine do have quiet moments from time to time). However, it does succeed in sustaining one's interest. Sort of. The final reel involving a shootout in the mountains goes on way too long and I found myself practically zoning out. Cutting this one by 1/2 hour at least would have been my preference. Also, in the end, I didn't have the emotional connection I should have felt after spending so much time in dreamland.

During my initial visit to Sundance in January 1999, I happened upon The Treasure Mountain Inn on Main street-home of the alternative film festival in Park City-Slamdance. They were presenting the major award winners chosen the the night before. I hunkered down in a room with about 75 folding chairs for 4 consecutive screenings, one of which was a fabulous small black and white film entitled "Following" which had won the Cinematography Award (put that on your rental list-it is wonderful). Afterward, the blond haired English director conducted a Q&A for this, his first feature film made for a paltry $6,000.

Despite the minor flaws, how he put on screen ideas that originated right around the time I was sitting in that small room in Park City is pure genius. However, it will be interesting to see how widespread the appeal will be with the viewing audience. Although "Inception" is an action movie at heart, there all so many intellectually challenging convolutions to deal with, that, I fear, this film might be lost on a major segment of the target audience.

(from l to r) The heist gang: Yusef (Dileep Rio), Eames
(Thomas Hardy), Arthur (Joseph Gordon-Levitt),
Dom (Leonardi DiCaprio), & Ariande (Ellen Page)
with Saito (Ken Watanabe)

Mal (Marion Cotillard) & Dom (Leonardo DiCaprio)
Share a quite moment in dreamland

Shared dreaming demonstrated in Paris

Director/screenwriter Christopher Nolan

"Up In The Air" *** 1/2 (109 minutes)

Monday November 30, 2009

Cary Grant is alive & well, and his name is George Clooney. There are not many actors who can play such a disagreeable lout as Ryan Bingham with such aplomb and come off smelling like a rose. But Clooney is now making a career putting out that charisma in bucketfuls on the silver screen and, as a result, look for an Oscar nomination (and my early prediction to win it for the 2nd time) to come his way yet again. In fact, I count at least 6 noms (picture, directing, acting, and screenplay) for this smart, biting, intelligent look into the larger world of corporate firings and the smaller world of personal comeuppance, based on the 2001 novel by Walter Kirn.

Ryan is a guy who loves his work. His company supplies folks who do the dirty work for corporations who are employee downsizing. Instead of doing it themselves, it is much cleaner to have someone like Alex "gently" come in and fire the employees for them. Fact is, he spends 260+ days of year traveling (he's asked on one of his myriad airline flights where his home is and he deadpans "Here.") and he couldn't be happier. His only pursuit in life: to become the 7th person on the planet to accumulate 10 million airline miles which will earn him a special card, a dedicated line, and a personal conversation with the airlines #1 pilot.

When he's not doing this job, he travels the country giving self help-type motivational speeches about how to uncomplicate ones life by emptying their cluttered "backpack" of things & relationships they have accumulated. Funny. The dude definitely has practiced what he's preached-keeping his life as uncluttered and uncomplicated as possible by never having connected with anyone in his life for very long (including family).

However, all of that is about to change when, in a hotel lounge, he meets his match: Alex Goran (later on she tells him she's him with a vagina). Ryan & Alex (given a perfect spot-on performance by Vera Farmiga from "The Departed" & "The Boy in the Striped Pajamas") connect instantly. In fact, our hero might be wavering as he reluctantly relents to attend his younger sister's wedding (Melanie Lynskey, who started acting opposite a young Kate Winslet in the terrific "Heavenly Bodies"). He invites Alex to be his date-instead of having their usual tryst in a hotel room. Their relationship forms one part of the story.

The other part is his relationship with fresh faced, spunky, just-out-of-Cornell-and-ready-to- conquer-the-world Natalie Keener portrayed by Anna Kendrick ("Rocket Science" & "Twilight") that will also surely earn her a supporting Oscar nomination. She has come to Ryan's boss, Craig (ably played by Jason Bateman) with a novel idea: why not save thousands in unnecessary traveling airline fees by firing people via online video hookups instead of face-to-face.

When Craig calls everyone off "the road" to introduce the new employee and to inform them they are all about to be permanently grounded, Ryan is appalled. He sees his pat life flash before his eyes as it is about to come crashing to earth-literally & figuratively. In order to show that his way is the decent, sensitive, "morale" approach of doing business, he and Natalie takes to the road together to show her the ropes of the trade, as he desperately tries to stay "up in the air".

Director Jason Reitman is making quite a name for himself. The son of Ivan Reitman ("Ghostbusters") has made 3 standout films. He wrote & directed his first film, 2006's indie hit "Thank You for Smoking" and co-wrote this script (along with Sheldon Turner who penned the remake of "The Longest Yard"). His sophomore effort, "Juno", although not one of my personal favorites, was a huge Oscar-nominated hit last year. (I prefer his writings much more than Cody Diablo's-so I won't hold it against him.) He actually had this film in mind before the others and produced a script that is relevant to these trying economic times while intelligently reflecting on the modern human condition that tends to be devoid of human commitment & empathy. The screenplay is, hands-down, one of the smartest for any film I've seen this year.

Rolfe Kent has provided the perfect low-key unobtrusive music as he had for 2004's phenomenal "Sideways", "Thank You For Smoking", & a myriad of other films during a cinematic musical career that began in 1998.

All in all a terrific start to the December onslaught of films vying for Mr. Oscar.

The Paramount film starts platforming around the country on December 4th.

Ryan (George Clooney) & Natalie (Anna Kendrick)

Alex (Vera Farmiga)

"The Curious Case of Benjamin Button"- Revisited

Wednesday December 17, 2008

I've been known to take in a film multiple times. Some people I know, don't like to see films more than once saying something like, "I know the plot. What's the point?" I like to answer that, for me, sometimes a film improves immeasurable upon repeated viewings. Actually knowing a plot allows me to focus on subtle nuances I may have initially missed the first time around. It could have been the acting, an image, a sound-something I missed or felt that wasn't present in my mind after the lights came on. And sometimes, how I felt about the film is changed-despite the familiarity of the plot lines. I might have been in a bad mood; something else occupying my mind and thoughts may have clouded my judgment that day (I always said that someday I might revisit "Juno" just for this purpose). I have especially found that there is something new and special to behold when seeing films again that I particularly enjoyed. Case in point: "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button". Don't get me wrong. I thoroughly enjoyed Fincher's epic tale, initially giving it 3 1/2 stars (see below). However, I am now ready to modify this to a solid 4 stars after screening it again 15 days later. What I missed on the second go-around was how simply the tale was told, how matter of fact was the narrative and, how profound the message was behind the words and pictures. And Brad Pitt, through facial expressions and manner of speech was so beautifully understated as the main character who lived his life in reverse without questioning his fate in the end. It's a bravura performance that didn't hit me the same way the first time. Certainly the best role and acting he has ever done. I was completely overwhelmed and moved the second time around that also allowed me to marvel even more in the set design and technology that created the amazing images on the screen. And I was able to concentrate on the incredible score by Alexandre Desplat which appropriately understated the action. Hitting on universal themes of life and time, everyone will relate to the journey each character takes. That being said, I have placed this on my list of the best films this year. And if you have a chance, see it more than once and let me know if you agree that it gets better and better each time. Nationwide release is in 3 days.

"ME AND EARL AND THE DYING GIRL" - *1/2 (104 minutes)

 

Wednesday May 20, 2015

 

As a longtime champion of independent cinema (as my attendance at Sundance for seven years can attest) it was with great anticipation when I sat down for a preview of this years Dramatic Grand Jury and Audience Award winner at Robert Redford's festival last January.  Unfortunately, anticipation melded into utter perplexity.  For me, "Me and Earl and The Dying Girl" is this years "Juno".  You can count me in the minority of critics who gave thumbs down on that 2007 Jason Reitman directed Indie that incredibly made its way to the Academy's Best Picture list. 

 

Alfonso Gomez-Rejon directed the coming-of-age cliché-ridden script by newcomer Jesse Andrews that focuses on teenager Greg (Thomas Mann), whose annoying narration explaining his thoughts and actions throughout had me cringing nearly the entire length of this disappointing film.  We follow Greg, a self-professed self-indulged loner and geek, who is persuaded by mom (Connie Britton) to pay a visit to Rachel (Olivia Cooke) who happens to be dying of cancer -  a classmate he has never met.  When he shows up, he is greeted at the door by Rachel's boozed-up mom (ex-Saturday Night Live veteran, Molly Shannon) whose character can best be described as creepy as she fawns over the teenager at her door - and throughout the film .  

 

Greg and Rachel's meeting is naturally awkward -  especially when Greg reveals he is only visiting as a charity request by his parent.  Of course, this leads to a inspirational platonic relationship where Rachel "teaches" Greg to be a more caring grown-up human being. 

 

Introduced into the story is Greg's African-American friend since childhood,  Earl (RJ Cyler) whom he refers to as his "co-worker".  It seems both have interpreted the world through old film classics and went about creating satirical videos (e.g. The 400 Bros, The Sockwork Orange, and 2:48 p.m. Cowboy).  Their humorous work is scattered throughout, and are the highlights of the movie. 

 

It is ironic that the word "honest" is mentioned during the film to describe the principals.  However, for me, Me and Earl and The Dying Girl is chock full of  characters that are not fully drawn and was, ultimately, a letdown. 

You can accurately predict where the narrative is leading and, in the end, I could have cared less - other than when it would all end. 

 

The movie opened nationwide on June 12.

UPCOMING:  The Indie AI Sci-Fi  "Ex Machina"
 

 

Rachel (Olivia Cooke), Greg (Thomas Mann) and Earl

(CJ Cyler)

"The Hangover" (** 1/2) (100 minutes)

Wednesday May 27, 2009

You would have thought they were giving out multiple canisters of laughing gas to the preview audience on their way in. I never heard such collective laughter in a theater since I've been attending movies! Me? Well, I counted 3 chuckles and one laugh out loud. Maybe it was because I saw an extended 3 minute trailer on TV a week before the screening-which showed every major joke contained in the feature length product. Maybe it was because I didn't find Zack Galifiankas' borderline pedophile character very funny. Maybe it was my mood. Whatever the reason, for me, this was this year's "Juno".

I must admit, the premise and setup looked promising. Four dudes (Bradley Cooper, Ed Helms, Galifiankas, & Justin Bartha) travel to Vegas to celebrate Bartha's bachelor party. Once there, each is unknowingly slipped a roofie and wake up the next morning with that "hangover" in which no one can remember the night before. Not only that, they wake up to find a tiger in the bathroom, a baby in the closet, & a tooth missing from the mouth of one of the participants. Oh, and the groom is nowhere to be found. When they start to investigate they give their car keys to the attendant who proceeds to bring them a police car. The rest of the film has them trying to piece together the events that would explain all this-all the while trying to find the groom who is scheduled to be married the next day.

Add to the mix Heather Graham's heart-of-gold stripper character (who nerdy Helms finds himself married to the next day) and a cameo by Mike Tyson (playing his 'ol heart-of-gold self). However, the film never convinced me to laugh anywhere close to the hysterics around me.

Director Todd Phillips barely distinguished himself with his previous comedic efforts (2000's "Road Trip, 2003's "Old School", and 204's "Starsky & Hutch"). The same can be said for co-screenwriter Scott Moore, whose most recent effort is "Ghosts of Girlfriends Past". However, this one should put them all on the map-if based on the response I heard this night.

A sequel is already in the works. Can't wait.

Pre-AA Rambling Thoughts/Predictions

Saturday February 26, 2011

-The Red Carpet this year should be interesting amidst reports that it might be snowing tomorrow night, and, if not, it is predicted to be unusually cool (40's) come game time. So don't expect extended interviews on the carpet in beautiful L.A.

-Hollywood is going with the 2-host version again, but steering away from the tried and true. With last year's duo of Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin you could expect a lot of humor. Will Anne Hathaway (at 28 she's the youngest host ever) and James Franco equally pull it off? Stay tuned. At least, from my perspective, these 2 (especially Anne) will be much easier on the eyes.

-I suppose The Academy deemed last year's decision to double the Best Picture nominations a success. We certainly have a well represented genre list this year from a small independent (the Sundance hit "Winter's Bone"), to an animation classic ("Toy Story 3"), to an expansive (albeit convoluted) sci-fi extravaganza ("Inception"), to a indy comedy ("The Kids are All Right") to a western ("True Grit"), to a psychological thriller ("Black Swan"), to a British historical drama ("The King's Speech") to . . . well-you get the picture. Personally, the 10 film list idea is more to give credence and respect to more than the usual five (hey-isn't it an honor just to be nominated?). What it comes down to, as in most years, are only two, possibly three having any chance of winning the top prize.

-Biggest surprise: Christopher Nolan NOT being nominated for Best Director. Nolan was absolutely robbed. His 10-year vision and creation of one of the most intelligent mind-blowing films in the last ten years should have been a no-brainer! Although four of the five on the list are well deserving of the nom, David O'Russell did, at best, a pedestrian directing job directing "The Fighter". Unbelievable.

-2nd biggest surprise: Putting 12-year-old Hailee Steinfield in the Best Supporting category-which might have robbed Melissa Leo of the Oscar. Hailee? A SUPPORTING actress??! She was practically in every scene, as well as the driving force in "True Grit". Someone will have to explain that one to me.

-Biggest Disappointment: Ryan Gosling not being nominated for "Blue Valentine". The Academy got it right nominating Michelle Williams, but Gosling equally deserved to be nominated. Although, frankly, all fire nominees were well deserving so someone had lose out and, unfortunately, it was Gosling. A terrific acting job by one of the best young actors in the business.

-2nd Biggest Disappointment: Snubbing Emma Stone ("Easy A") for best actress. She'll have her chances in the future, but her break-out acting in this comedy was mind-boggling. I would have put her miles ahead of Jennifer Lawrence ("Winter's Bone"). The argument that "Easy A" was a small teen comedy, certainly didn't keep Ellen Page ("Juno") from being nominated in 2008 and, IMHO, Stone gave a more superior effort in this wonderful film.

-So, here I go with my annual who will/should win list covering the major categories. One note of caution: several of my picks are toss-ups this year. Therefore, for some of these, I will be guessing along with you so, please, don't call your bookie to bet your mortgage on my selections.

The envelope, please. . .

BEST PICTURE:
What will win: "The King's Speech"
What should win: "The Social Network"
As most folks who have been following the movie scene over the past 6 months know, "The Social Network" was the hands-down leader up until December. However, the momentum gained by this small British historical drama has seemingly swept away any chance of TSN winning. I wouldn't be shocked if Fincher's film is announced, but surprised, considering the numerous awards "The King's Speech" has been raking in the past couple of months. That said, for me, "The Social Network" was the more satisfying and complete from production values, to score to acting to script-not to mention the topicality of the film. However, "The King's Speech" is a very close 2nd in my book .

BEST DIRECTOR:
Who will win: David Fincher
Who should win: David Fincher
I figure the voters will split the vote and throw Fincher this major bone. I rarely agree with splitting these two categories (and it wouldn't be split if I got my way-see above). But in this instance, his film should garner at least one of the top prizes and the director that should have received it 2 years ago for "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button", will finally get his well-deserved due.

BEST LEADING ACTOR:
Who will win: Colin Firth
Who should win: Colin Firth
You can mail him the Oscar! One of the three biggest locks of the night. A verrrrry close second, however, is James Franco. Like Ryan Gosling, this dude will win his share down the road. However, Colin's performance (he, arguably, could have won last year for "A Single Man" over Jeff Bridges) was as close to perfect as any I've ever seen on the screen. Riveting & poignant, his interpretation of the stuttering king is unforgettable.

BEST LEADING ACTRESS:
Who will win: Natalie Portman
Who should win: Natalie Portman
Oh boy! This is probably the toughest one to pick. OK. I'm flipping a coin. Here goes: Although Bening is wonderful in "The Kids are All Right", how can you keep Portman from winning? Her portrayal of Nina as she slowly descends into the pits of hell as the troubled ballerina is mesmerizing and totally believable. She trained for 10 month and it shows it. However, that being said, Bening is long overdue and the voters love to impart the golden statue to actors in those situations. Also, Portman is just beginning what will be a long distinguished career. However, she deserves the Oscar just the same. It'll be interesting.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR:
Who will win: Christian Bale
Who should win: Geoffrey Rush
Another tough one! Here's my reasoning. I preferred Rush's performance over, for me, Christian's, slightly over the top acting. Rush is the glue that holds TKS together. And his interpretation of the therapist who tries to cure King George VI of his stuttering is a joy to behold and admire. However, Hollywood is gaga over first time nominee Bale and, no doubt, admires what physical pains he went through to portray the crackhead ex-fighter. And since they'll award the BP to "The King's Speech", this major award will go to Bale. Don't get me wrong, he's a truly accomplished actor who will get his reward down the road; however, the voters will get it wrong if he wins the statuette tomorrow.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS:
Who will win: Melissa Leo
Who should win: Hailee Steinfeld
Melissa was clearly the odds-on favorite before they, unjustly, put Hailee in this category. And, Hollywood might be fuming over the self-congratulatory ad Melissa placed in the Hollywood trades. However, I'm going out on a limb and predict she'll still win the award. Leo is a great actress (who maybe should have won in 2009 for "Frozen River",) who puts everything in her role as the mother/manager of Mickey Ward in "The Fighter". However, for me, although she is clearly in the wrong category, Hailee's acting is more expansive and believable. The voters don't often give major awards to child actors but it has been done in the past and could well happen again-but I doubt it. Amy Adams is the dark horse in this category, and gets an honorable mention for her tough-as-nails portrayal as Mickey Ward's gal, but Amy doesn't figure to get the Oscar this time around.

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE FILM:
Who will win: "Toy Story 3"
Who should win: "Toy Story 3"
The 2nd biggest lock of the night. One day, the unbelievably talented folks at Pixar might win Best Picture. (As one of the 10, I was close to saying it should win the BP award.) However, Hollywood would probably be crucified if they picked an animation film-even though this one took me through the full gamut of emotions that most films can't even come close to doing. This was my one of my favorite film of the year so, TS3, here's your bone.

BEST FOREIGN FILM:
Having not screened all the foreign nominees, I'm excluding my pick this year. (Although the buzz is on "In a Better World".) However, I smiled when I saw "Dogtooth" on the list. One of the most amazing films in this or any other year, this is a wonderful honor to bestow on this Greek masterpiece. The film stayed with me for months.

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY:
Who will win: "The King's Speech"
Who should win: "The King's Speech"
Another major award to the little film that could. A terrific screenplay that clearly defines the diverse personalities of the actors that voiced the words. A close second is "The Kid's are All Right". Christopher Nolan's script, although totally original, the problem is few people could understand it-at least without multiple viewings.

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY:
Who will win: "The Social Network"
Who should win: "The Social Network"
The 3rd mortal lock of the night. Aaron Sorkin's script is so powerful it becomes a character in the story. It will be a well-deserved win for one of the industry's most talented writers. Again, a verrrrry close 2nd to Joel & Ethan Coen's adaptation of Charles Portis' novel. I loved the language they used in the film-as much as the acting! However, Sorkin's script in "The Social Network" is in a class by itself.

BEST DOCUMENTARY:
Who will win: "Inside Job"
Who should win: "Restrepo"
The Matt Damon narrated film about the 2008 financial crises should take home the big prize. However, the amazing, you-are-there-in-the-middle-of-the-conflict-in-Afghanistan film, is my personal favorite this year.

There you have it. Now, here's hoping the extravaganza doesn't last much past the 3 1/2 hour schedule time. However, I wouldn't bet the house on that one either.

Stop back for my post-AA report next week.