2007 was a cynical and depressing year. I loved it! Two of the film nominees from this year were listed in Rolling Stone magazine's top 10 films of the decade. That wasn't a compliment, because I read that article and it's crap. As many know, I hate when things I like are talked about as being better than they are, because then it causes me to notice the things that are bad about it and that makes me mad. But, I thankfully still like them in this instance so let's get to it.
First on the list is appropriately my least favorite on the list, but not because I don't like it. The film is Atonement and I had very mixed feelings about it, because if it was just slightly (and I do mean slightly) different it could've been a lot better. The film centers around a romance in World War II era England and to make a long story (about 20 minutes longer than it should've been) short, the dude is sent away by being implicated in a crime he didn't commit. He is implicated by the younger sister of the dude's girlfriend. Why, you ask? It could be because she was in love with him, and was jealous of her sister. It could be because she thought he was a sex fiend. It could be because she was a brat. I like the third explanation most, but it was probably the first one. Whatever the reason, the big twist in the story is: (need I say SPOILER ahead? It should be implied) that the dude ended up dying in the war and the older sister ending up dying in a flood during the war, never having been able to get married. The reason this is a twist is because we see them living out their lives as they should've been, but this turns out to be just a story the younger sister wrote when she got older to Atone (get it?) for sending him away. Sounds pretty cool right? Too bad all we get to see of this atonement is a five minute scene where she apologizes to her sister and a 30 second scene of the couple on the beach at the end. So it boils down to roughly: 1 hour and 40 minutes real, depressing story. 5 minutes made up story which contains an apology but not much living the life they should've had. 5 minutes explanation that she wrote a book on the happiness. 30 seconds beach scene and then end credits. So basically, the explanation of the story is actually more powerful than the delivery, because we never truly get to witness much of the atonement. The movie is pretty well done overall, it just could've been better. Oh and Keira Knightley is hot, just saying.
Juno, on the other hand, is pretty much as good as it could have possibly been and it's awesome. I do think that Best Picture nominee is a bit of a stretch, but since the film had no shot of winning and they kind of just wanted to tip their hats to it for being original and quirky, that's cool with me. This is a classic example of how delivery is almost always better than an initial idea. If all you have is a good idea, then it can run out of steam early on in a film. But you can start with an idea that's completely unoriginal and make it awesome. Not that there are a whole lot of movies that are completely centered on teen pregnancy, but it certainly happens often enough in real life that it's obviously not an "original" idea. The movie is instead about the characters, who come alive through the quirky dialogue. I personally find quirky and funny dialogue to be the most realistic in movies. This is a big part of why I love Tarantino. Would bank robbers sit around all the time talking about robbing banks and torturing cops? No. Madonna songs and tipping waitresses? Definitely. To the same effect, many claim that characters in movies like Juno are far more articulate and clever than people in real life but I disagree. Cleverness by way of dialogue is the crux of human friendship and camaraderie. So when you're watching Juno (who is named after the Greek goddess Hera, whose Roman name was Juno. That little sidenote is for my mythologically illiterate readers) interact with her friends and her sort-of boyfriend (the always wonderfully awkward Michael Cera. The awkward thing is getting old, but it fits here) you feel like you really get to know them because they get along in much the same way that you do with your own friends. So major props to Diablo Cody for her awesome script and for being the only fun movie in a year full of depressing movies.
Know what would've been awesome? If one of the two most depressing movies was next on the list after I said that. But alphabetization (cruel mistress that she is) demands that I next talk about Michael Clayton: by no means a cheery movie, but it carries no existential loneliness or feelings related to the darkness of the human soul. So that's nice. This movie features yet another George Clooney playing himself type idea, which is fine because George Clooney is the fricking man! Although I will say he's a bit more intense in this movie: a taut legal thriller about a lawfirm's fixer who gets in over his head. I've seen better movies that deal with similar themes, but that doesn't take away from the quality of this film. Because any movie or show about a character outsmarting a bunch of other people and getting them to shoot themselves in the foot is certainly good in my book. As I've mentioned in the past, that is often what makes some iconic villains so likeable sometimes. And when a man spends his whole life making morally questionable decisions to cover up misdeeds, why would you try to pull a fast one on him and cover it up? Not smart. So while it ends the way you figure it will and the movie is a bit slow at times, the final scene alone is well worth the viewing. Not as good as the year's two best, but a solid movie to be sure.
When I say "the year's two best," I mean of the ones that received a nomination. There are almost always films that come out in a given year that never receive recognition but are often some of the best releases. Not that I can think of any for 2007...but in 2006 The Prestige should've been on there somewhere. But that's a tale for my next entry. For now, we can talk about a truly great film that certainly did deserve a nomination: There Will Be Blood. This was (if memory serves) Rolling Stone's top movie of the decade. And to that I say HA! But just because Rolling Stone wouldn't know the best movie of a decade if it took a ring to Mount Doom right in front of them for three years doesn't mean it's not a great movie. The defining feature of the movie of course being Daniel Day-Lewis' frighteningly good performance as the lead character, oil baron and industrial revolution supervillain Daniel Plainview. The reason I object to it being called the best film of the decade is really because the true argument could be made that it was the best performance of the decade. The words that Daniel Day-Lewis are given to speak aren't always inherently good, he makes them good. The story of a man rising to power and becoming corrupted has been done and re-done and re-re-done. So even though the delivery is certainly good, it's not particularly different or better than it has been in the past. It's a well-directed film with some great supporting performances (Paul Dano is especially brilliant) and a hauntingly creepy musical score. Definitely Oscar material, no question. But really, Rolling Stone? Really, Entertainment Weekly? Missed Lord of the Rings did we? Didn't see Million Dollar Baby huh? Ever heard of Traffic? Munich? I guess not.
And this now brings us to 2007's winner, a suspenseful, unusual, and great film: No Country for Old Men. I go back and forth on whether I agree with the Academy on which one was better, this or the one with the oil baron (I'm tired of using the italics button, it's annoying). I guess I agree at the end of the day because this one is a bit more original. It's your classic "chasing down a crazed lunatic" story, so pretty much like a modern Western, but the title of the movie says it all. Tommy Lee Jones' character never even comes into contact with Javier Bardem's character (who is so scary that if I saw the actor in real life I'd run screaming in the other direction. Right after I ran screaming toward him looking for an autograph of course). The reason being that in all walks of life, whether they be medical, legal, whatever, change drastically over time. When Tommy Lee Jones was young he probably could've caught anybody in record time. His skills haven't necessarily diminished over time, but the game has changed and he can't keep up. He's a PS2 in a PS3 world. It's not his fault he's been moved out of the system, it's just inevitable. The film explores a great many other themes such as fate and existentialism, but it'd take too much time to go into it all and I'm not even sure I remember how it exhibited a lot of those things. My only minor complaint about the filmmakers in general, is that they don't seem to be giving their movies proper endings recently. This one just kind of ends, and so does their recent one about the guy with the bad luck (not touching that italics button, not even once more). The abrupt endings are appropriate in both cases, but if their next movie does the same thing I'm going to smack them. Still in all, this movie is certainly an impressive piece of movie history and their choice to have almost no music of any kind causes the whole film to just kind of sit there, becoming more suspenseful all the while (because the music isn't there to tell you what's coming). I forget where it was on the Rolling Stone list, too high probably, but I'm certainly a big fan.
Well there you have it, certainly one of the better selections of films in recent years (2001? Yikes!) and though I feel that some of the films garnered more praise than they deserved they were still good. I haven't watched all of 2006 yet, but I only have 1 left so that entry will come up soon. And then I can do all of 2005, 04, and onto 03. I know, I broke the rules. So does Jack Bauer. So there. And though I haven't finished it, I can tell you the next installment includes 4 languages for "boring," underage stripping, and Leonardo DiCaprio getting shot in the face.
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
2008: The Year that the Rat Beat the Bat
If you've spoken with me for more than five minutes, then you know that I think the fact that The Dark Knight wasn't nominated for Best Picture is a tragedy within both film and human history. Back when it happened, I assumed that all of the nominees weren't as good. But now I know for certain. Still, that's not what this blog entry is about. So I'll just point out my thoughts on the films that were nominated, I won't mention Batman again. I promise.
Know what the curious case of Bruce Wayne is? He's never been in a Best Picture nominee. Tragic, I know. However, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button was put to film, and though he doesn't fulfill the requirements of a summer action movie archetype while simultaneously dealing with issues like the duality of man and the morality of how far one can and should go for the greater good, it's still a good movie. I actually felt a bit strange when finishing the tale about Brad Pitt living his life in reverse. The movie was really well done in a classical style. By that I mean that for some reason the style reminded me of a movie from the 50s (in a good way). It never really pulled me in and made me part of the story. There's no real deeper meaning to the film (at least not that I could ascertain) but it was certainly visually stunning and well-acted. I suppose the point of the film is that he comes to appreciate everything he has in life because he starts off in the worst physical shape of his life and becomes stronger. Or maybe there's no point to the film other than to entertain. I have no idea, but whichever way you look at it I feel like it was mostly nominated because it was classy and came out in December. It's a good movie, but it's not overly great.
Want to know what my favorite scene in The Dark Knight is? It's coincidentally the same as the director's: the interrogation scene. Well, Frost/Nixon isn't quite on that level, but it is really good though (as interrogations go). As it is based on a stage play (and real events, but mostly the stage play) the film is almost entirely fueled by acting. And Michael Sheen and Frank Langella really deliver as David Frost and Richard Nixon, respectively. On top of that, I liked the angle from which the film approached Nixon. Because something that I dislike within films is inaccuracy due to bias. Did Nixon do some pretty shady stuff? Sure, no one's arguing he wasn't. But that wasn't everything that he did when he was president. So the movie really gives the audience a chance to recognize with the man and see the Watergate situation from his perspective. It also gives him a chance to talk about the good things that he did before his paranoia took over. So I really liked that the film offered multiple views on the situation, to the point that you don't see it as Frost vs. Nixon (which is why I love that the movie has a slash in the title) but you instead see the similarities between the two men and how they come to respect each other. The acting is also fueled by an excellent script and tight, intense directing from Ron Howard. Out of the films that were actually nominated, this was easily my second favorite after the year's winner.
Know what has more calcium than Milk? Batman's bones. Nice segue, right? I thought so too, well I'm referring of course to Milk which is the biopic that follows the life of Harvey Milk, the first openly gay politician to be elected in California. The story didn't particularly pull me in, because once you've seen one movie about overcoming oppressive societal issues, you've seen them all (from a film perspective anyway, not having lived through any of the events in the film it's tough to see it from any other viewpoint). What really impressed me was Sean Penn's performance. And that takes a lot for me to say because I think that Sean Penn is a whiny jerk, and I highly enjoyed seeing puppet Sean Penn being slaughtered in Team America. But, you've got to give him props for his performance in this movie, it really is quite good. The film itself has some strong moments, including a particularly well-framed death scene for Milk, but I feel like the performance was more deserving of praise than the film itself was. In order for a film to be nominated, everything has to click. And by that I mean: the acting, music choices (or lack thereof, in a case like No Country for Old Men), directing, dialogue, and everything should be as top notch as possible. I felt that Milk was a slightly above average film with a way above average performance. So I'm glad Sean Penn was recognized, but the other elements didn't quite live up to that standard.
Know who's the only dude driven enough to resist the wiles of Kate Winslet? Batman. (also Sam Mendes, apparently) Well, 15-year-old German kid isn't either of those people, as the first 45 minutes of The Reader prove. And prove. And prove some more. Ever seen porn with good acting? You have if you've seen this movie (or HBO). The first 45 minutes are solely based on this kid's infatuation with Kate Winslet, which is certainly understandable (especially if he's seen Titanic) but is it particularly necessary? The important aspect to the movie is supposed to be the fact that he reads to her and allows her to be open to an entire world of imagination and art that she previously had no exposure to. The fact that she allows him to carry on with her in exchange for reading her a book basically makes her a hooker. Then later on in the movie when the kid is in law school, we see her on trial for war crimes because she was also a Nazi. So she's a Nazi hooker. And we're supposed to feel sympathy for this woman because she can't read. If she was only a Nazi or only a hooker I probably could, the fact that she's both is pushing things a bit (and this coming from me, the guy who has shed tears for Benjamin Linus the mass murderer and Lex Luthor the criminal mastermind). I don't know whether it's the fact that they didn't portray her in such a way that we felt pity for her, or the fact that the end result of the movie was: "he taught a Nazi to read. Yay?" but either way, I wasn't sure what to think of the film. On one hand, certain aspects of it were well done. On another hand, it was pretty creepy. I should point out that Ralph Fiennes does a great job as the kid as an adult (don't feel like looking up the name) but I do have a hard time viewing him as a protagonist. See now, if the romance had involved the adult and Kate that would've made more sense. Voldemort and a Nazi? Adorable.
Know what's awesome? A playboy billionaire who fights crime. Know what's also awesome but not as much? A Slumdog Millionaire who needs to brush up on his Dumas. I really wanted to dislike this movie, because everyone told me to watch it when I was fuming about the Oscars. I really wanted to dislike it up until five seconds into watching it and then I loved it. Of the nominated films, I definitely agree that it was the best one. It's funny, touching, uplifting, all of these things without overdoing any of them. I would actually compare the movie to M. Night Shyamalan's last great outing: Signs. The point of Signs was that even bad things can happen for a greater good in the long run. It was a movie meant to inspire hope in the shadow of 9/11. Well, Slumdog is similar in that it shows how all of the moments of suffering that the boy endured in his life led to him being able to answer the questions to a game show he shouldn't have been able to win. First off, who doesn't love a story about someone who's been put down sticking it to the man? I know we've seen it a gazillion times, but there's something far more interesting about a character who's been marked from birth as inferior, or as a "rat" in this case (that's where my blog title comes from: characters' feelings in the movie. Not my being a racist. Please don't ACLU me). To make an obscure pop culture reference, in the original Metal Gear Solid video game, the twin with the superior genes (hard to explain, just roll with it) grew up thinking he was the inferior one. As such, he pushed himself to becoming an expert in all of the talents he didn't think he had. Had he grown up knowing he was superior, he probably would've been a bum (also an easier boss fight). So since the characters in the film have all been put down from birth as outcasts of high society, this creates a setup for poetic justice at its best. Because the experiences of oppression that the main character lived through were the very things that allowed him to overcome this oppression. From high society's point of view, it's the classic Greek tragedy situation where the person you put down rises up but only because you fought so hard to put him down. The film is creatively done, wonderfully directed, and as I said before, it makes all of its points without having to strap the audience down and explain its meaning. When a film's meaning is screamed too loudly, it becomes an agenda. And thus: annoying. I'm looking at you James Cameron.
Well, that's the roundup for 2008. As though my agenda hasn't been clear (I recognize my hypocrisy), The Dark Knight not being nominated is right up there with Hitchcock not winning anything and Jimmy Cagney not even being nominated for White Heat (that was when the Academy started going downhill, and that was years ago). But, Batman will live on in our hearts. And of the 5 films actually nominated, 2 were definitely deserving, 1 might've been, 1 had an excellent performance, and 1 had Kate Winslet. So that's more than I can say for other years I suppose. Next blog entry: oil, Michael Ceran offspring, and Keira Knightley. Sweet.
Know what the curious case of Bruce Wayne is? He's never been in a Best Picture nominee. Tragic, I know. However, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button was put to film, and though he doesn't fulfill the requirements of a summer action movie archetype while simultaneously dealing with issues like the duality of man and the morality of how far one can and should go for the greater good, it's still a good movie. I actually felt a bit strange when finishing the tale about Brad Pitt living his life in reverse. The movie was really well done in a classical style. By that I mean that for some reason the style reminded me of a movie from the 50s (in a good way). It never really pulled me in and made me part of the story. There's no real deeper meaning to the film (at least not that I could ascertain) but it was certainly visually stunning and well-acted. I suppose the point of the film is that he comes to appreciate everything he has in life because he starts off in the worst physical shape of his life and becomes stronger. Or maybe there's no point to the film other than to entertain. I have no idea, but whichever way you look at it I feel like it was mostly nominated because it was classy and came out in December. It's a good movie, but it's not overly great.
Want to know what my favorite scene in The Dark Knight is? It's coincidentally the same as the director's: the interrogation scene. Well, Frost/Nixon isn't quite on that level, but it is really good though (as interrogations go). As it is based on a stage play (and real events, but mostly the stage play) the film is almost entirely fueled by acting. And Michael Sheen and Frank Langella really deliver as David Frost and Richard Nixon, respectively. On top of that, I liked the angle from which the film approached Nixon. Because something that I dislike within films is inaccuracy due to bias. Did Nixon do some pretty shady stuff? Sure, no one's arguing he wasn't. But that wasn't everything that he did when he was president. So the movie really gives the audience a chance to recognize with the man and see the Watergate situation from his perspective. It also gives him a chance to talk about the good things that he did before his paranoia took over. So I really liked that the film offered multiple views on the situation, to the point that you don't see it as Frost vs. Nixon (which is why I love that the movie has a slash in the title) but you instead see the similarities between the two men and how they come to respect each other. The acting is also fueled by an excellent script and tight, intense directing from Ron Howard. Out of the films that were actually nominated, this was easily my second favorite after the year's winner.
Know what has more calcium than Milk? Batman's bones. Nice segue, right? I thought so too, well I'm referring of course to Milk which is the biopic that follows the life of Harvey Milk, the first openly gay politician to be elected in California. The story didn't particularly pull me in, because once you've seen one movie about overcoming oppressive societal issues, you've seen them all (from a film perspective anyway, not having lived through any of the events in the film it's tough to see it from any other viewpoint). What really impressed me was Sean Penn's performance. And that takes a lot for me to say because I think that Sean Penn is a whiny jerk, and I highly enjoyed seeing puppet Sean Penn being slaughtered in Team America. But, you've got to give him props for his performance in this movie, it really is quite good. The film itself has some strong moments, including a particularly well-framed death scene for Milk, but I feel like the performance was more deserving of praise than the film itself was. In order for a film to be nominated, everything has to click. And by that I mean: the acting, music choices (or lack thereof, in a case like No Country for Old Men), directing, dialogue, and everything should be as top notch as possible. I felt that Milk was a slightly above average film with a way above average performance. So I'm glad Sean Penn was recognized, but the other elements didn't quite live up to that standard.
Know who's the only dude driven enough to resist the wiles of Kate Winslet? Batman. (also Sam Mendes, apparently) Well, 15-year-old German kid isn't either of those people, as the first 45 minutes of The Reader prove. And prove. And prove some more. Ever seen porn with good acting? You have if you've seen this movie (or HBO). The first 45 minutes are solely based on this kid's infatuation with Kate Winslet, which is certainly understandable (especially if he's seen Titanic) but is it particularly necessary? The important aspect to the movie is supposed to be the fact that he reads to her and allows her to be open to an entire world of imagination and art that she previously had no exposure to. The fact that she allows him to carry on with her in exchange for reading her a book basically makes her a hooker. Then later on in the movie when the kid is in law school, we see her on trial for war crimes because she was also a Nazi. So she's a Nazi hooker. And we're supposed to feel sympathy for this woman because she can't read. If she was only a Nazi or only a hooker I probably could, the fact that she's both is pushing things a bit (and this coming from me, the guy who has shed tears for Benjamin Linus the mass murderer and Lex Luthor the criminal mastermind). I don't know whether it's the fact that they didn't portray her in such a way that we felt pity for her, or the fact that the end result of the movie was: "he taught a Nazi to read. Yay?" but either way, I wasn't sure what to think of the film. On one hand, certain aspects of it were well done. On another hand, it was pretty creepy. I should point out that Ralph Fiennes does a great job as the kid as an adult (don't feel like looking up the name) but I do have a hard time viewing him as a protagonist. See now, if the romance had involved the adult and Kate that would've made more sense. Voldemort and a Nazi? Adorable.
Know what's awesome? A playboy billionaire who fights crime. Know what's also awesome but not as much? A Slumdog Millionaire who needs to brush up on his Dumas. I really wanted to dislike this movie, because everyone told me to watch it when I was fuming about the Oscars. I really wanted to dislike it up until five seconds into watching it and then I loved it. Of the nominated films, I definitely agree that it was the best one. It's funny, touching, uplifting, all of these things without overdoing any of them. I would actually compare the movie to M. Night Shyamalan's last great outing: Signs. The point of Signs was that even bad things can happen for a greater good in the long run. It was a movie meant to inspire hope in the shadow of 9/11. Well, Slumdog is similar in that it shows how all of the moments of suffering that the boy endured in his life led to him being able to answer the questions to a game show he shouldn't have been able to win. First off, who doesn't love a story about someone who's been put down sticking it to the man? I know we've seen it a gazillion times, but there's something far more interesting about a character who's been marked from birth as inferior, or as a "rat" in this case (that's where my blog title comes from: characters' feelings in the movie. Not my being a racist. Please don't ACLU me). To make an obscure pop culture reference, in the original Metal Gear Solid video game, the twin with the superior genes (hard to explain, just roll with it) grew up thinking he was the inferior one. As such, he pushed himself to becoming an expert in all of the talents he didn't think he had. Had he grown up knowing he was superior, he probably would've been a bum (also an easier boss fight). So since the characters in the film have all been put down from birth as outcasts of high society, this creates a setup for poetic justice at its best. Because the experiences of oppression that the main character lived through were the very things that allowed him to overcome this oppression. From high society's point of view, it's the classic Greek tragedy situation where the person you put down rises up but only because you fought so hard to put him down. The film is creatively done, wonderfully directed, and as I said before, it makes all of its points without having to strap the audience down and explain its meaning. When a film's meaning is screamed too loudly, it becomes an agenda. And thus: annoying. I'm looking at you James Cameron.
Well, that's the roundup for 2008. As though my agenda hasn't been clear (I recognize my hypocrisy), The Dark Knight not being nominated is right up there with Hitchcock not winning anything and Jimmy Cagney not even being nominated for White Heat (that was when the Academy started going downhill, and that was years ago). But, Batman will live on in our hearts. And of the 5 films actually nominated, 2 were definitely deserving, 1 might've been, 1 had an excellent performance, and 1 had Kate Winslet. So that's more than I can say for other years I suppose. Next blog entry: oil, Michael Ceran offspring, and Keira Knightley. Sweet.
Monday, March 29, 2010
The Oscar-Induced Resurgence: The Sequel (The Return of Death, in Space, Part 7. This Time It's Personal.)
It is time to begin part 2 of my epic 2-part rundown of the 2009 Oscars. Unfortunately for me, the setup is usually better than the delivery. Take Star Trek: TNG as an example. Season three finale: Picard gets captured by the Borg, becomes Borg, and Riker is forced to fire an ultimate weapon at the Borg cube and if it works Picard will be dead. The end of the season: "Mr. Worf, fire." That was awesome. Season 4 premiere: the weapon doesn't do anything and they rescue Picard and find some screwy sci-fi way to save him. Not nearly as cool.
Well now that I've lowered your expectations, it's time to talk about the toughest movie to watch: Precious. This is appropriate because a large reason for why I enjoyed the film was my low expectations. I thought it was going to be melodrama on top of more melodrama. But that's not what it was at all (and let me put a sidenote that I refuse to put the whole title of the movie, which includes the novel title, because that's just ridiculous). The film is more about the performances than anything else, and I must admit that Mo'nique did an incredible job as the abusive mother of Precious. You'd think that given her previous roles she wouldn't have been too good, but she was incredible. She makes you hate her for the whole movie and then in the last five minutes she humanizes the character and makes you feel sympathy for her. The movie itself is well-done and well-written but it's the performances that really stand out. It surprised me the most of any of the films, because I thought I wouldn't enjoy it at all. Let me point out: me saying I was wrong about this film illustrates that I do admit when I'm wrong. This further shows I'm not wrong very often, so there.
Another strange addition was A Serious Man, probably chosen for the list due to the fact that it's a Coen brothers movie. Which also points to how good the movie is, although it's certainly not for everybody. It's about as dark of a comedy as you can find, but it's also hilarious. It actually reminds me of my own life a bit too much. When I was watching the main character's wife divorcing him for no given reason and the debacle with his student (who bribes him for an A, he refuses the bribe, the student sneaks the money into his desk and then threatens legal action for accepting a bribe. So he blackmails him for giving in to blackmail, even though he didn't. That's awesome) I couldn't help but think of my dearly-departed fish tank, my unfortunately overlooked graduation speech, and my tire-smashed car. The film shows that the guy's family is just cursed, no two ways about it. But it also shows that given the circumstances, you can either laugh at it or let it bother you. So I say that if laughing is the only power over it you can have, go for it. With these themes in mind, it's not an award-worthy film but it's quite an enjoyable one.
People may scoff, but one of the best movies of the year was Up. Pixar is fricking amazing. Every time they have a trailer for a movie I say to myself, "meh, that doesn't look too interesting. But it's Pixar so I'll see it." And every single time they pretty much make me cry. I cried like three times during this movie. It's so touching and tragic and inspiring and all kinds of good things. All of these factors are heavily influenced by Michael Giacchino's excellent music score, for which he won an Oscar. And it's about time I say, I've been a fan since like 2001. I'm frankly tired of people treating animated or CG films as though they aren't real movies. A director has to put together shots the same way any other director would, voice-acting is just as challenging (and in some ways more challenging) as regular acting, and the script is most certainly put together in the same way. Go ahead and watch Toy Story and tell me it's not a fascinating tale about existence and identity. So I was glad to see some props given to an animated film, because it's long overdue.
The final film to discuss before getting to the actual winner is Up in the Air. The word that I'd say most describes the film is: cute. And I know that sounds kind of belittling, but that's what it is. It's well-written, well-acted, it makes you laugh, and it makes you cry. It does everything right, but it also does nothing differently. George Clooney plays a classy middle-aged man, Anna Kendrick is adorable, and Vera Farmiga is a tough chick. So no one really exerts themselves. All of that being said, I really enjoyed the movie but since it told a small-scale story and did it to perfection, the word in my mind when it finished was: cute. It did what it set out to do, no more and no less. So I give the filmmakers credit, but it's more of a Golden Globe type movie than an Oscar. It also reminded me quite a bit of Thank You For Smoking except that I thought Up in the Air wasn't quite as good (tough to top a movie that involves a father going to his son's classroom on career day and saying, "I lobby for cigarettes!").
And with that, we are brought to The Hurt Locker, which I felt was well-deserving of the award. Though my heart was with Tarantino, I knew that he was too out-there for the Academy to recognize. This movie was easily the second most deserving in my mind. First off, it was refreshing to see a war movie wherein the setting of the war didn't particularly matter. It takes place in Iraq, but it could've just as easily taken place during Vietnam, World War II, or even the frigging Wars of the Roses (except that no bombs were around to be defused back then). Because the crux of the movie wasn't the fighting or even the bomb defusing, the point was how war changes people forever. The main character grew so accustomed to war that he didn't feel secure anywhere else. This idea can be applied to many different settings: extreme sports people only feel alive when they're risking their lives. Many criminals only feel alive when they're breaking the rules. Truthfully, I feel more at rest when random nonsense happens to me and I complain about it. Because I've grown used to it. So the movie is really an in-depth study of human nature, against the backdrop of war. The directing is very atmospheric, the acting is solid, and the realism is untouched by any other war movie since Saving Private Ryan. And as a mitigating factor, Kathryn Bigelow is probably the most well-aged woman of all time. She's 58, but when I saw her I thought that she was a woman who was in her forties but looked good for her age. Not that this is relevant to anything. I'm just saying, she's pretty hot.
Well, that's my 2009 roundup of Best Picture nominees. There will be many many many more of these to come, if for no other reason than for my own purposes of being able to look back and remember what I thought of certain films. Because honestly, with all of the fiction swimming around in my mind it's tough to remember what made certain things good or bad. The next entry will be 2008: the year Batman was scorned. And though before I'd only suspected he'd been unfairly screwed, now that I've seen the five actual nominees I know it for a fact. So tune in next time, and no I won't make the obvious reference you're all expecting.
Well now that I've lowered your expectations, it's time to talk about the toughest movie to watch: Precious. This is appropriate because a large reason for why I enjoyed the film was my low expectations. I thought it was going to be melodrama on top of more melodrama. But that's not what it was at all (and let me put a sidenote that I refuse to put the whole title of the movie, which includes the novel title, because that's just ridiculous). The film is more about the performances than anything else, and I must admit that Mo'nique did an incredible job as the abusive mother of Precious. You'd think that given her previous roles she wouldn't have been too good, but she was incredible. She makes you hate her for the whole movie and then in the last five minutes she humanizes the character and makes you feel sympathy for her. The movie itself is well-done and well-written but it's the performances that really stand out. It surprised me the most of any of the films, because I thought I wouldn't enjoy it at all. Let me point out: me saying I was wrong about this film illustrates that I do admit when I'm wrong. This further shows I'm not wrong very often, so there.
Another strange addition was A Serious Man, probably chosen for the list due to the fact that it's a Coen brothers movie. Which also points to how good the movie is, although it's certainly not for everybody. It's about as dark of a comedy as you can find, but it's also hilarious. It actually reminds me of my own life a bit too much. When I was watching the main character's wife divorcing him for no given reason and the debacle with his student (who bribes him for an A, he refuses the bribe, the student sneaks the money into his desk and then threatens legal action for accepting a bribe. So he blackmails him for giving in to blackmail, even though he didn't. That's awesome) I couldn't help but think of my dearly-departed fish tank, my unfortunately overlooked graduation speech, and my tire-smashed car. The film shows that the guy's family is just cursed, no two ways about it. But it also shows that given the circumstances, you can either laugh at it or let it bother you. So I say that if laughing is the only power over it you can have, go for it. With these themes in mind, it's not an award-worthy film but it's quite an enjoyable one.
People may scoff, but one of the best movies of the year was Up. Pixar is fricking amazing. Every time they have a trailer for a movie I say to myself, "meh, that doesn't look too interesting. But it's Pixar so I'll see it." And every single time they pretty much make me cry. I cried like three times during this movie. It's so touching and tragic and inspiring and all kinds of good things. All of these factors are heavily influenced by Michael Giacchino's excellent music score, for which he won an Oscar. And it's about time I say, I've been a fan since like 2001. I'm frankly tired of people treating animated or CG films as though they aren't real movies. A director has to put together shots the same way any other director would, voice-acting is just as challenging (and in some ways more challenging) as regular acting, and the script is most certainly put together in the same way. Go ahead and watch Toy Story and tell me it's not a fascinating tale about existence and identity. So I was glad to see some props given to an animated film, because it's long overdue.
The final film to discuss before getting to the actual winner is Up in the Air. The word that I'd say most describes the film is: cute. And I know that sounds kind of belittling, but that's what it is. It's well-written, well-acted, it makes you laugh, and it makes you cry. It does everything right, but it also does nothing differently. George Clooney plays a classy middle-aged man, Anna Kendrick is adorable, and Vera Farmiga is a tough chick. So no one really exerts themselves. All of that being said, I really enjoyed the movie but since it told a small-scale story and did it to perfection, the word in my mind when it finished was: cute. It did what it set out to do, no more and no less. So I give the filmmakers credit, but it's more of a Golden Globe type movie than an Oscar. It also reminded me quite a bit of Thank You For Smoking except that I thought Up in the Air wasn't quite as good (tough to top a movie that involves a father going to his son's classroom on career day and saying, "I lobby for cigarettes!").
And with that, we are brought to The Hurt Locker, which I felt was well-deserving of the award. Though my heart was with Tarantino, I knew that he was too out-there for the Academy to recognize. This movie was easily the second most deserving in my mind. First off, it was refreshing to see a war movie wherein the setting of the war didn't particularly matter. It takes place in Iraq, but it could've just as easily taken place during Vietnam, World War II, or even the frigging Wars of the Roses (except that no bombs were around to be defused back then). Because the crux of the movie wasn't the fighting or even the bomb defusing, the point was how war changes people forever. The main character grew so accustomed to war that he didn't feel secure anywhere else. This idea can be applied to many different settings: extreme sports people only feel alive when they're risking their lives. Many criminals only feel alive when they're breaking the rules. Truthfully, I feel more at rest when random nonsense happens to me and I complain about it. Because I've grown used to it. So the movie is really an in-depth study of human nature, against the backdrop of war. The directing is very atmospheric, the acting is solid, and the realism is untouched by any other war movie since Saving Private Ryan. And as a mitigating factor, Kathryn Bigelow is probably the most well-aged woman of all time. She's 58, but when I saw her I thought that she was a woman who was in her forties but looked good for her age. Not that this is relevant to anything. I'm just saying, she's pretty hot.
Well, that's my 2009 roundup of Best Picture nominees. There will be many many many more of these to come, if for no other reason than for my own purposes of being able to look back and remember what I thought of certain films. Because honestly, with all of the fiction swimming around in my mind it's tough to remember what made certain things good or bad. The next entry will be 2008: the year Batman was scorned. And though before I'd only suspected he'd been unfairly screwed, now that I've seen the five actual nominees I know it for a fact. So tune in next time, and no I won't make the obvious reference you're all expecting.
The Oscar-Induced Resurgence
So it seems I've been gone from the blogosphere for a while now, mostly because I couldn't think of anything to complain about for seven paragraphs (at least anything that wasn't controversial in nature). Well, recently I've decided to watch every movie that's ever been nominated for Best Picture. I started with 2009, and I'm working my way backward. So this will be the longest of all the Oscar posts, maybe the longest of all of my posts, because there were 10 nominees! 10! And I watched all ten of them. The hard part will be condensing it to a paragraph on each because as my roommate and my parents can tell you: I could go on for hours.
I can think of no other way to list off the films than alphabetically, and then the winner. Which of course means that first up on the list is none other than Avatar. Well it's appropriate since I have the strongest opinions toward that movie. Let me begin by saying that I highly enjoyed it. It's visually incredible, the music is great, and it's broken new ground for films. But it's really more of a really long amusement park ride than a movie. The story has been done and redone many times over, it's a bit too heavy-handed with its message ("we killed our Earth-mother long ago! Long ago I tell you! Why? Why? The horror!"), and plus there's the real-life factor of: James Cameron is a jerk. He's a good director, but he's nowhere near as good as he thinks he is (no one is as good as he thinks he is). And plus, part of the reason it made so much money is the fact that each ticket costs a few dollars more for the 3D glasses. If you feel like doing some math to see how much it would've made without it (and I don't) then it made less than The Dark Knight. So James Cameron can bow to Chris Nolan, a real director. Which is good, because the fact that the highest-grossing movie of all time has an element called "unobtanium" in it is nauseating. Although as my good friend pointed out: it sounds better than "hard-to-getium" or "plot devicium". Bottom line: fun movie, but if it had won I would've been violently ill.
One of the stranger additions to the list is The Blind Side. I enjoyed the film in a typical uplifting sports movie way, but it wasn't particularly great. And Sandra Bullock did a good job, but Best Actress? Really? I think they gave it to her because she's popular and most of the other nominees had won already. So I can't exactly argue, I just thought it was a bit of an odd choice. There are certainly moments to cheer through the movie, and I will say that there are some more intense moments than you'd think at a few places (beating up some gang members, Sandra threatening to pull a gun on gang members, etc.) which made it a bit more interesting than most sports films. Still, I feel like a lot of other movies could've taken its place if they were looking for a popular one to nominate (Star Trek anyone?).
Something I was glad to see on the list was District 9. Its addition actually led me to think that maybe 10 nominees is a good idea. It's a way of saying: this has no shot at winning but we'd like to tip our hat anyway. The film actually deals with a lot of similar issues to those in Avatar, except it deals with them in a much more effective and low-key manner. Plus, some of the special effects look just as good (there's just not as much of it, obviously) and it was shot for 30 million or something. The movie very impressively depicts an allegory for apartheid (without shoving it in your face too much after the first 10 minutes of setup) while developing a great character and somehow fitting in some sci-fi action which is just plain awesome. The director, Neill Blomkamp, is certainly one to keep an eye on. The movie is too violent and nerdy to get anything from the Academy, but I'm glad it received the nomination because it was one of my favorites from last year.
Coming off of that positive note, we move on to easily my least favorite of the nominees: An Education. Now, let me point out that I was expecting to like it. It was written by Nick Hornby, who I'm a fan of, and the first half an hour or so is quirky, witty, and enjoyable. But since the whole movie is basically like Lolita (except that it doesn't know it's creepy) and it hinges on how much you feel for the lead character, I ended up intensely disliking it. Now, I can feel sympathy for anybody in a movie if it's done correctly. Darth Vader, scourge of the galaxy and killer of younglings, I feel for that guy. Davy Jones, collector of the dead and ruler of the kraken, I feel for that guy. But Carey Mulligan's character in this movie (major spoilers ahead, but I'm sparing you from watching the film): a girl stupid enough to shack up with a con man/thief who is twice her age, who then tosses her education out the window to marry him only to discover (gasp!) he's already married and she's made a complete fool of herself. I feel no sympathy for the girl and as such the movie cannot be enjoyed (not by me anyway). Because Darth did what he did for love, and Davy had his heart broken so he became cruel to survive in a cruel world, but this chick was nuts.
Oddly shoved in the middle of my rundown is my favorite movie from the whole bunch: Inglourious Basterds. As many know, I'm an avid Tarantino fan. And when I saw this I said, "this is easily his second best work after Pulp Fiction." When I watched it again I said, "this is easily his best work ever" (a sentiment echoed by Brad Pitt in the final line of dialogue). The film not only showcases Tarantino's outstanding dialogue, shot composition, and creativity, it also turns the genre on its head. Christoph Waltz's character, Hans Landa, is the sleazy Nazi who is so smart and eloquent that you almost like him more than the good guys (at least he won his award, that was easily one of the best villain performances of all time). And Brad Pitt's team is so brutal and ruthless, that they're the real Nazis of the piece. Hitler is portrayed as a small, defeated man who has gotten in over his head. Not to say that any of this points to actual historical fact, it's just interesting to see it portrayed so differently. And you still revel in the scene at the end when Hitler is riddled with bullets. People complained of the historical inaccuracy of the piece, to which I say: any historical film that has characters in it that didn't exist in real life, isn't historically accurate. So who cares? It's an outstanding piece of work, and I hope that someday Tarantino gets what he deserves instead of becoming the next Hitchcock (who strangely never won anything).
Everybody hanging in there? Well, in case you're not, I'm going to separate this into two parts so it'll be easily accessible for those of you with actual lives to pick it up again later. Or it'll make you feel better about yourself since you'd be avoiding a second post instead of only reading half of one posting, which is much more rude. You're welcome.
I can think of no other way to list off the films than alphabetically, and then the winner. Which of course means that first up on the list is none other than Avatar. Well it's appropriate since I have the strongest opinions toward that movie. Let me begin by saying that I highly enjoyed it. It's visually incredible, the music is great, and it's broken new ground for films. But it's really more of a really long amusement park ride than a movie. The story has been done and redone many times over, it's a bit too heavy-handed with its message ("we killed our Earth-mother long ago! Long ago I tell you! Why? Why? The horror!"), and plus there's the real-life factor of: James Cameron is a jerk. He's a good director, but he's nowhere near as good as he thinks he is (no one is as good as he thinks he is). And plus, part of the reason it made so much money is the fact that each ticket costs a few dollars more for the 3D glasses. If you feel like doing some math to see how much it would've made without it (and I don't) then it made less than The Dark Knight. So James Cameron can bow to Chris Nolan, a real director. Which is good, because the fact that the highest-grossing movie of all time has an element called "unobtanium" in it is nauseating. Although as my good friend pointed out: it sounds better than "hard-to-getium" or "plot devicium". Bottom line: fun movie, but if it had won I would've been violently ill.
One of the stranger additions to the list is The Blind Side. I enjoyed the film in a typical uplifting sports movie way, but it wasn't particularly great. And Sandra Bullock did a good job, but Best Actress? Really? I think they gave it to her because she's popular and most of the other nominees had won already. So I can't exactly argue, I just thought it was a bit of an odd choice. There are certainly moments to cheer through the movie, and I will say that there are some more intense moments than you'd think at a few places (beating up some gang members, Sandra threatening to pull a gun on gang members, etc.) which made it a bit more interesting than most sports films. Still, I feel like a lot of other movies could've taken its place if they were looking for a popular one to nominate (Star Trek anyone?).
Something I was glad to see on the list was District 9. Its addition actually led me to think that maybe 10 nominees is a good idea. It's a way of saying: this has no shot at winning but we'd like to tip our hat anyway. The film actually deals with a lot of similar issues to those in Avatar, except it deals with them in a much more effective and low-key manner. Plus, some of the special effects look just as good (there's just not as much of it, obviously) and it was shot for 30 million or something. The movie very impressively depicts an allegory for apartheid (without shoving it in your face too much after the first 10 minutes of setup) while developing a great character and somehow fitting in some sci-fi action which is just plain awesome. The director, Neill Blomkamp, is certainly one to keep an eye on. The movie is too violent and nerdy to get anything from the Academy, but I'm glad it received the nomination because it was one of my favorites from last year.
Coming off of that positive note, we move on to easily my least favorite of the nominees: An Education. Now, let me point out that I was expecting to like it. It was written by Nick Hornby, who I'm a fan of, and the first half an hour or so is quirky, witty, and enjoyable. But since the whole movie is basically like Lolita (except that it doesn't know it's creepy) and it hinges on how much you feel for the lead character, I ended up intensely disliking it. Now, I can feel sympathy for anybody in a movie if it's done correctly. Darth Vader, scourge of the galaxy and killer of younglings, I feel for that guy. Davy Jones, collector of the dead and ruler of the kraken, I feel for that guy. But Carey Mulligan's character in this movie (major spoilers ahead, but I'm sparing you from watching the film): a girl stupid enough to shack up with a con man/thief who is twice her age, who then tosses her education out the window to marry him only to discover (gasp!) he's already married and she's made a complete fool of herself. I feel no sympathy for the girl and as such the movie cannot be enjoyed (not by me anyway). Because Darth did what he did for love, and Davy had his heart broken so he became cruel to survive in a cruel world, but this chick was nuts.
Oddly shoved in the middle of my rundown is my favorite movie from the whole bunch: Inglourious Basterds. As many know, I'm an avid Tarantino fan. And when I saw this I said, "this is easily his second best work after Pulp Fiction." When I watched it again I said, "this is easily his best work ever" (a sentiment echoed by Brad Pitt in the final line of dialogue). The film not only showcases Tarantino's outstanding dialogue, shot composition, and creativity, it also turns the genre on its head. Christoph Waltz's character, Hans Landa, is the sleazy Nazi who is so smart and eloquent that you almost like him more than the good guys (at least he won his award, that was easily one of the best villain performances of all time). And Brad Pitt's team is so brutal and ruthless, that they're the real Nazis of the piece. Hitler is portrayed as a small, defeated man who has gotten in over his head. Not to say that any of this points to actual historical fact, it's just interesting to see it portrayed so differently. And you still revel in the scene at the end when Hitler is riddled with bullets. People complained of the historical inaccuracy of the piece, to which I say: any historical film that has characters in it that didn't exist in real life, isn't historically accurate. So who cares? It's an outstanding piece of work, and I hope that someday Tarantino gets what he deserves instead of becoming the next Hitchcock (who strangely never won anything).
Everybody hanging in there? Well, in case you're not, I'm going to separate this into two parts so it'll be easily accessible for those of you with actual lives to pick it up again later. Or it'll make you feel better about yourself since you'd be avoiding a second post instead of only reading half of one posting, which is much more rude. You're welcome.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)