(Here are 3 reviews from my 2007 Sundance Film Festival Diary, originally posted to Harry Knowles ain't it cool news, that opened this past week in Baltimore. Of these three, I'd say don't miss "Teeth".)
“SNOW ANGELS” (***)
Included in the dramatic competition, Director and screenwriter David Gordon Green’s latest is a powerful film about failed relationships. Although the film is relentless and totally depressing in portraying the dynamics of the interactions of the characters, the script and acting are completely mesmerizing. Sam Rockwell (who also stars at Sundance in the psychological thriller “Joshua”-see below) and Kate Beckinsale are both riveting as divorced parents trying to deal with themselves and each other. However, Rockwell is the special standout as he subtly spirals down from a happy-go-lucky dude trying to reconnect with his wife to someone who totally loses control after a series of tragic events. Very realistic and powerful.
“CHAPTER 27 (**)
This premier by director/screenwriter Jarrett Schaefer has teenage heartthrob actor and musician Jared Leto portraying Mark David Chapman, who gained an astounding 70 pounds for the role. He literally hides behind the weight to portray Chapman’s three day stint in New York prior to his assassination of John Lennon. This film lays totally flat as the droll narration by Leto combines with his inane activities to try and explain the human behind the monster as he slowly becomes his idol Holden Caulfield (from J.D. Salinger’s “Catcher in the Rye”). Although I’m sure the filmmaker had sincere intentions, I personally found it totally unnecessary and disgusting to immortalize this utterly worthless human being forever in film. One bit of advice: be sure to get plenty of caffeine before you view this one!
“TEETH” (***)
First time director Mitchell Lichtenstein creates a John Waters-like montage: part comedy and part horror story about a virgin teenager (the wonderful Jess Weixler who happened to win a special jury prize for acting) who discovers that her private parts have the capability of “dismembering” the male organ if she is provoked. This one must be seen to be believed and is sure to make the heartiest man squirm for hours! Look for it soon as it has been picked up by Lionsgate.
"Her Life Before Her Eyes" * 1/2
Sunday April 13th, 2008
What a mess! The guest moderator at Cinema Sundays at The Charles mentioned that it was ambiguous. I will add that it is an ambiguous mess!! I was hesitant from the start as the early reviews were verrry mixed (3 out 7 positive at the time on Rotten Tomatoes) but I so loved Vadim Perelman's first film (2003's great "The House Of Sand And Fog"), and was a fan of Evan Rachel Ward ("13"), and Uma is always nice on the eyes. But, ALAS, I should have heeded my initial feelings. The screening wasn't a total $$$ loss: The after discussion was well worth the price of admission. For the first time that I can remember, host, Jonathan Palevsky disagreed with this week's speaker, forensic psychologist Dr. Larry Raifman, as to what the hell the movie was even about! And that was after both of them had just screened it for the second time!! After Jonathan expounded his interpretation, nearly everyone in the crowd wanted to question his "logic". The bottom line question: Was it worth the 90 minutes to even try and figure this one out? Based on a novel by Laura Kasischke, the focus is on 17 year old high schooler Diana (Wood) who is confronted with a Columbine-type gunman in the ladies room with her best friend (a nice turn by Susan Sarandon's daughter, Eva Amurri). She then must choose who lives between the two of them. Flash forward 15 years to an older Diana (Thurman), who has settled into a family with her professor husband and child. It is approaching the 15 year anniversary of the tragedy and we see Diana slowly dissolve into angst and depression as the day approaches. Meanwhile, the story is flashing backwards and forwards throughout as we learn bits and pieces about the developing relationship between wild gal Diana and her goody 2 shoes friend, Maureen, as well as the relationship Diana is having with her family. So, you may be wondering, why all the discussion? That would involve spoilers so all I'll say is that it might have looked great on paper, but the screenplay and it's execution (despite the better than average photography and score by James Horner) is, well, a mess.
What a mess! The guest moderator at Cinema Sundays at The Charles mentioned that it was ambiguous. I will add that it is an ambiguous mess!! I was hesitant from the start as the early reviews were verrry mixed (3 out 7 positive at the time on Rotten Tomatoes) but I so loved Vadim Perelman's first film (2003's great "The House Of Sand And Fog"), and was a fan of Evan Rachel Ward ("13"), and Uma is always nice on the eyes. But, ALAS, I should have heeded my initial feelings. The screening wasn't a total $$$ loss: The after discussion was well worth the price of admission. For the first time that I can remember, host, Jonathan Palevsky disagreed with this week's speaker, forensic psychologist Dr. Larry Raifman, as to what the hell the movie was even about! And that was after both of them had just screened it for the second time!! After Jonathan expounded his interpretation, nearly everyone in the crowd wanted to question his "logic". The bottom line question: Was it worth the 90 minutes to even try and figure this one out? Based on a novel by Laura Kasischke, the focus is on 17 year old high schooler Diana (Wood) who is confronted with a Columbine-type gunman in the ladies room with her best friend (a nice turn by Susan Sarandon's daughter, Eva Amurri). She then must choose who lives between the two of them. Flash forward 15 years to an older Diana (Thurman), who has settled into a family with her professor husband and child. It is approaching the 15 year anniversary of the tragedy and we see Diana slowly dissolve into angst and depression as the day approaches. Meanwhile, the story is flashing backwards and forwards throughout as we learn bits and pieces about the developing relationship between wild gal Diana and her goody 2 shoes friend, Maureen, as well as the relationship Diana is having with her family. So, you may be wondering, why all the discussion? That would involve spoilers so all I'll say is that it might have looked great on paper, but the screenplay and it's execution (despite the better than average photography and score by James Horner) is, well, a mess.
"Horton Hears A Who" *** 1/2
Thursday April 3, 2008
Most parents will probably stay away unless they take the kids, but, believe me, this one crosses over the line beautifully and is a delight to behold! Although the film doesn't approach the skill and brilliancy of last year's "Ratatouille", this one is worth seeing for it's wonderful script by Ken Daurio and Cinco Paul as well as the visuals utilizing the computer-animated talents of Chris Wedge's Blue Sky Studios (who gave us "Robots" and "Ice Age"). Add to that the wonderful voice overs by Jim Carrey, Steve Carell, and Carol Burnett (!) who dutifully and expressively tell this Dr. Seuss Tale of Horton the elephant who discovers the community of Whoville-which just so happens to live on a speck of pollen. The fun is in how Horton (Carey) tries to convince his jungle buds that there exists living things even though they can't be seen. Conversely, the mayor of Whoville (Carell) tries to convince the citizens of Whoville that there exists an elephant in the sky. Burnett plays the "evil" kangaroo who tries to organize the jungle animals to destroy the speck before the heresy expounded by Horton goes too far. Daurio and Paul utilize Seuss' poetry throughout the proceedings while the animation in the Whoville universe retains the style and whimsy of the books. The only negative for me was that the animation goes off track at times in the "real" world but, overall, this is great fun for all ages!
Most parents will probably stay away unless they take the kids, but, believe me, this one crosses over the line beautifully and is a delight to behold! Although the film doesn't approach the skill and brilliancy of last year's "Ratatouille", this one is worth seeing for it's wonderful script by Ken Daurio and Cinco Paul as well as the visuals utilizing the computer-animated talents of Chris Wedge's Blue Sky Studios (who gave us "Robots" and "Ice Age"). Add to that the wonderful voice overs by Jim Carrey, Steve Carell, and Carol Burnett (!) who dutifully and expressively tell this Dr. Seuss Tale of Horton the elephant who discovers the community of Whoville-which just so happens to live on a speck of pollen. The fun is in how Horton (Carey) tries to convince his jungle buds that there exists living things even though they can't be seen. Conversely, the mayor of Whoville (Carell) tries to convince the citizens of Whoville that there exists an elephant in the sky. Burnett plays the "evil" kangaroo who tries to organize the jungle animals to destroy the speck before the heresy expounded by Horton goes too far. Daurio and Paul utilize Seuss' poetry throughout the proceedings while the animation in the Whoville universe retains the style and whimsy of the books. The only negative for me was that the animation goes off track at times in the "real" world but, overall, this is great fun for all ages!
"Shine A Light" ****
Tuesday April 1, 2008
Rode over to the glorious art-deco Senator Theater to see Martin Scorcese's latest concert masterpiece. Creator of 1978's critically acclaimed "The Last Waltz" (which documents The Band's last performance at San Fran's Winterland and is considered, in many circles, the greatest concert film ever made), Martin has succeeded once again to produce, what I feel, will be the definitive Rolling Stone concert film. The first 5 minutes or so gives you a glimpse into the chaos that is The Stones as Marty tries to handle the logistics of the venue (New York's famed Beacon Theater in the fall of 2006) and with the group itself in trying to capture the raw energy and exuberance that only Mic and the boys can produce. Captured initially in B&W, you get the feeling that the crew will be flying from the seats of their collective pants trying to get it all right (e.g., Scorsese is practically held clueless until the last minute as to what will be the opening song in order to position his cameras for the right shot). Then, before you know it, the opening strains of "Jumpin' Jack Flash" fill the theater and off you go to experience one of the most impressive rock & roll shows you will ever see-whether it be live or on film. I know. I've seen them live at least 5 times from 1968 until February 2007 (the first and last times at the same venue-The Baltimore Civic Center/Arena). Interspersed are a smattering of mainly archival interview snippets that depict what these old rockin' dudes were like over 35 some years ago. There was some criticism I've read/heard that more recent interviews would have been nice to see and hear. I say, NO WAY! This isn't a interview film. It's a concert film (as Gumby would say) "DAMNIT!" Asked by Dick Cavett in 1972 whether he pictured himself doing this at 60, Jagger answered as quickly as he could, "Yes"! and the next shot is a 63 old Jagger doing his thing. Another criticism I've read/heard: too much Mic. Again, I say hogwash. The Stones ARE Mic Jagger. After 2 hours of watching you won't believe how exhausted you'll be, much less this 63 year old human marvel who moves more now than when he was 20! You get enough of the other guys to know their importance to the whole, but the show is all about Jagger and his mystique. The show includes 3 numbers in which Mic & the boys are joined by Jack White, Christine Aguilera, and Buddy Guy and, particularly the latter 2, don't disappoint or subtract from the mix. When I saw them last year, I said that would be it. I didn't want to see any of them keel over on stage-that I wanted to be certain that I would be left with a pleasant musical memory that would last forever. After seeing this, though, I want to see them again! It is that good!! Special note: Be certain you catch it at a theater well equipped to handle the sound. The Senator, with its state-of-the-art sound system, is the perfect venue that captures the 2 hour vitality that will have you thoroughly entertained-and exhausted!!!
Rode over to the glorious art-deco Senator Theater to see Martin Scorcese's latest concert masterpiece. Creator of 1978's critically acclaimed "The Last Waltz" (which documents The Band's last performance at San Fran's Winterland and is considered, in many circles, the greatest concert film ever made), Martin has succeeded once again to produce, what I feel, will be the definitive Rolling Stone concert film. The first 5 minutes or so gives you a glimpse into the chaos that is The Stones as Marty tries to handle the logistics of the venue (New York's famed Beacon Theater in the fall of 2006) and with the group itself in trying to capture the raw energy and exuberance that only Mic and the boys can produce. Captured initially in B&W, you get the feeling that the crew will be flying from the seats of their collective pants trying to get it all right (e.g., Scorsese is practically held clueless until the last minute as to what will be the opening song in order to position his cameras for the right shot). Then, before you know it, the opening strains of "Jumpin' Jack Flash" fill the theater and off you go to experience one of the most impressive rock & roll shows you will ever see-whether it be live or on film. I know. I've seen them live at least 5 times from 1968 until February 2007 (the first and last times at the same venue-The Baltimore Civic Center/Arena). Interspersed are a smattering of mainly archival interview snippets that depict what these old rockin' dudes were like over 35 some years ago. There was some criticism I've read/heard that more recent interviews would have been nice to see and hear. I say, NO WAY! This isn't a interview film. It's a concert film (as Gumby would say) "DAMNIT!" Asked by Dick Cavett in 1972 whether he pictured himself doing this at 60, Jagger answered as quickly as he could, "Yes"! and the next shot is a 63 old Jagger doing his thing. Another criticism I've read/heard: too much Mic. Again, I say hogwash. The Stones ARE Mic Jagger. After 2 hours of watching you won't believe how exhausted you'll be, much less this 63 year old human marvel who moves more now than when he was 20! You get enough of the other guys to know their importance to the whole, but the show is all about Jagger and his mystique. The show includes 3 numbers in which Mic & the boys are joined by Jack White, Christine Aguilera, and Buddy Guy and, particularly the latter 2, don't disappoint or subtract from the mix. When I saw them last year, I said that would be it. I didn't want to see any of them keel over on stage-that I wanted to be certain that I would be left with a pleasant musical memory that would last forever. After seeing this, though, I want to see them again! It is that good!! Special note: Be certain you catch it at a theater well equipped to handle the sound. The Senator, with its state-of-the-art sound system, is the perfect venue that captures the 2 hour vitality that will have you thoroughly entertained-and exhausted!!!
"Flawless" ***
Tuesday March 25, 2008
I had better luck the next day with the latest vehicle by talented director Michael Radford (2004's "William Shakespeare's The Merchant Of Venice", "1984", and 1995's wonderful "Il Postino") starring Demi Moore and the always interesting Michael Caine. The story details a fictional 1960 diamond heist of Britain's (and the world's) largest Diamond corporation. Caine plays the building janitor (!) with the plan who enlists Moore, who appears to be the only female executive in the corporation. When he overhears that she is about to be fired, he convinces her to go along with his proposal. Although the plan and its aftermath are completely preposterous, your interest is kept humming along as you try and figure out how this 75 year old dude could seemingly empty a vault full of diamonds in minutes without enlisting the aid of David Copperfield. Radford so lovingly recreates a 1960 feel that, at times, I expected Audrey Hepburn to emerge from the shadows. However, a major problem for me was that the film seemed to drag in parts as you eagerly awaited the inevitable outcome (I won't spoil it for you to tell you that the story begins in present day London and is narrated by the "95 year old" Moore). The narrative says a lot about how money affects us all and what ultimately is most important in life.
I had better luck the next day with the latest vehicle by talented director Michael Radford (2004's "William Shakespeare's The Merchant Of Venice", "1984", and 1995's wonderful "Il Postino") starring Demi Moore and the always interesting Michael Caine. The story details a fictional 1960 diamond heist of Britain's (and the world's) largest Diamond corporation. Caine plays the building janitor (!) with the plan who enlists Moore, who appears to be the only female executive in the corporation. When he overhears that she is about to be fired, he convinces her to go along with his proposal. Although the plan and its aftermath are completely preposterous, your interest is kept humming along as you try and figure out how this 75 year old dude could seemingly empty a vault full of diamonds in minutes without enlisting the aid of David Copperfield. Radford so lovingly recreates a 1960 feel that, at times, I expected Audrey Hepburn to emerge from the shadows. However, a major problem for me was that the film seemed to drag in parts as you eagerly awaited the inevitable outcome (I won't spoil it for you to tell you that the story begins in present day London and is narrated by the "95 year old" Moore). The narrative says a lot about how money affects us all and what ultimately is most important in life.
"21" ** 1/2
Monday March 24, 2008
I wasn't optimistic about this one beforehand based on the track records of director Robert Luketic (his latest was the almost universally panned Jane Fonda vehicle "Monster-In-Law") and co-writer Peter Steinfeld ("Be Cool" & "Analyze That"). Another instance where the trailer was terrific but the product wasn't. Although not terrible, there was something missing from this "based on real events" tale (from Ben Mezrich's best-selling book "Bringing Down The House"). Kevin Spacey and Lawrence Fishburne lend credibility to this project about a "nerdy" (who just happens to look like Tom Cruise down to his "Rainman" hair due) MIT undergrad (played earnestly by Jim Sturgess-"Across The Universe") who is enlisted by his professor (Spacey) to join a group of fellow students to beat the house counting cards in Vegas. The film is given the typical Hollywood glitz by including, as the only female in the outfit, easy-on-the-eyes Kate Bosworth ("Superman Returns"). The obvious love interest ensues and the, at times, music video look of the film adds nicely to the Vegas locale. Unfortunately, the script doesn't give the actors very much room to maneuver and, because of that, doesn't allow the talents of Spacey and Fishburne to rise to the level of their capabilities. There are a couple of plot twists that, if you're paying attention, you will have figured out for the most part. Throw in the cliche characters (the heavy set nerdy friend, for example) and you're left with a film that is quickly forgotten after the lights go up.
I wasn't optimistic about this one beforehand based on the track records of director Robert Luketic (his latest was the almost universally panned Jane Fonda vehicle "Monster-In-Law") and co-writer Peter Steinfeld ("Be Cool" & "Analyze That"). Another instance where the trailer was terrific but the product wasn't. Although not terrible, there was something missing from this "based on real events" tale (from Ben Mezrich's best-selling book "Bringing Down The House"). Kevin Spacey and Lawrence Fishburne lend credibility to this project about a "nerdy" (who just happens to look like Tom Cruise down to his "Rainman" hair due) MIT undergrad (played earnestly by Jim Sturgess-"Across The Universe") who is enlisted by his professor (Spacey) to join a group of fellow students to beat the house counting cards in Vegas. The film is given the typical Hollywood glitz by including, as the only female in the outfit, easy-on-the-eyes Kate Bosworth ("Superman Returns"). The obvious love interest ensues and the, at times, music video look of the film adds nicely to the Vegas locale. Unfortunately, the script doesn't give the actors very much room to maneuver and, because of that, doesn't allow the talents of Spacey and Fishburne to rise to the level of their capabilities. There are a couple of plot twists that, if you're paying attention, you will have figured out for the most part. Throw in the cliche characters (the heavy set nerdy friend, for example) and you're left with a film that is quickly forgotten after the lights go up.
"The Counterfeiters" ** 1/2
Jumped over to the AFI Siver in Silver Spring for a members-only preview of the Academy Award Foreign Language Film winner hosted by the Austrian Embassy. Written and directed by Stephan Ruzowitzky, the Austrian-German produced entry is worth seeing but certainly isn't close to being the best Foreign Language film of 2007! (Several that were better weren't even nominated in this category. See my more detailed thoughts on that in my previous AA posts.) This morality tale is based on fact and details the Nazi's plan to destroy the world economy by flooding the market with counterfeit pounds and dollars. At the crux of the plan is the captive Jewish counterfeiter, Salomon Sorowitsch (played serenely and stoically by Karl Markovics who gives a wonderful muted performance) who is forced by his captors to head a group of some 150 artisans. In return for their efforts, they are given ample food and a decent bed to keep them "happy". The story becomes essentially a moral dilemma when several of the workers want to sabotage the plan but are thwarted by those who want to go along with the program in order to save their own necks. The filmmakers constantly employ the cinema verite shaky-cam to give you a sense of being there. And the realistic sets and grainy quality of the film lend itself to that end. However, ultimately, I was left dry at the conclusion-not really connecting with any of the characters and caring, really who, lived or died. Also, a prologue would have been nice to update viewers on the fates of the principals who survived. Maybe I'm just Holocausted-out.
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!
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!
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.
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.
"Taxi To The Dark Side" ****
February 19, 2008
This totally amazing and absorbing documentary made by famed director Alex Gibney (director of the 2006 Oscar nominated "Enron: The Smartest Guys In The Room" and executive producer of last year's "No End In Sight" which is currently nominated for an AA) will fully explain the USA's involvement in the torture atrocities carried out at Afghanistan's Bagram Prison, Iraq's Abu Gharib Prison, and the current prison at Guantanamo. This unflinching document will put the final nail in the coffin of the Bush administration and, along with "No End In Sight", will no doubt have you pondering the depths to which this administration has fallen in their war on terror initiated after 9/11. You will be totally outraged and disgusted when you hear from those who were directly involved in the tortures (prison guards), higher-ups in the Bush administration, as well as State Department and FBI employees who pound away at procedures that were followed that not only go directly against the directives of the Geneva Convention, but also total human decency. When you hear that the U.S. torturers were "only following orders" you will have flash backs to incidents the world witnessed over 50 years ago in WWII. What is even more incredulous is that none of those who directed these atrocities were ever fully investigated-until now. What is even more amazing is that the facts that emerge in this work is not based on any left wing slant by the filmmaker. This is a topnotch investigative effort that expands on that which was initially reported in 2002 by New York Times reporter Carlotta Gall who uncovered a death certificate and autopsy report that stated that a U.S. detained Afghani taxi cab driver, named Dilawar, was murdered after being tortured to death while in U.S. captivity. Although it was never determined that he had any involvement in terrorist activities, the point is that the U.S. is shown to be culpable of performing deeds that we perceived as happening only in 3rd world countries. The coverups are too numerous to cite here and the blame has never escalated to the higher eschelons of the U.S. government where, after seeing this film, it is clear who should be burdening that blame! This should be seen by every American on the planet-especially before the November election!!
This totally amazing and absorbing documentary made by famed director Alex Gibney (director of the 2006 Oscar nominated "Enron: The Smartest Guys In The Room" and executive producer of last year's "No End In Sight" which is currently nominated for an AA) will fully explain the USA's involvement in the torture atrocities carried out at Afghanistan's Bagram Prison, Iraq's Abu Gharib Prison, and the current prison at Guantanamo. This unflinching document will put the final nail in the coffin of the Bush administration and, along with "No End In Sight", will no doubt have you pondering the depths to which this administration has fallen in their war on terror initiated after 9/11. You will be totally outraged and disgusted when you hear from those who were directly involved in the tortures (prison guards), higher-ups in the Bush administration, as well as State Department and FBI employees who pound away at procedures that were followed that not only go directly against the directives of the Geneva Convention, but also total human decency. When you hear that the U.S. torturers were "only following orders" you will have flash backs to incidents the world witnessed over 50 years ago in WWII. What is even more incredulous is that none of those who directed these atrocities were ever fully investigated-until now. What is even more amazing is that the facts that emerge in this work is not based on any left wing slant by the filmmaker. This is a topnotch investigative effort that expands on that which was initially reported in 2002 by New York Times reporter Carlotta Gall who uncovered a death certificate and autopsy report that stated that a U.S. detained Afghani taxi cab driver, named Dilawar, was murdered after being tortured to death while in U.S. captivity. Although it was never determined that he had any involvement in terrorist activities, the point is that the U.S. is shown to be culpable of performing deeds that we perceived as happening only in 3rd world countries. The coverups are too numerous to cite here and the blame has never escalated to the higher eschelons of the U.S. government where, after seeing this film, it is clear who should be burdening that blame! This should be seen by every American on the planet-especially before the November election!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
