Showing posts with label Oscars. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Oscars. Show all posts

07 March 2010

Oscar 2010: This Image Has Made my Night...

This image of Ben Stiller, dressed head-to-toe as a Na'vi, was the single most entertaining segment of the 82nd Academy Awards, and I have no doubt I'll be cracking up to it at entirely random points the rest of the week.

Overall, the award show didn't hold too many surprises. The obviousness of The Hurt Locker taking home the majority of the nominations sort of spoiled the funness, as did the 30 minutes of congratulatory speeches for the Best Actor and Best Actress awards. I'm pleased with a good amount of the awards - most notably Christoph Waltz for his amazing work in Inglourious Basterds, and Michael Giacchino winning, although I think the Academy chose the wrong score to nominate (it is of my opinion that the score for Star Trek was the best of the year).

On the plus side, for the first time I'm actually interested in watching Precious: Based on the Novel 'Push' by Sapphire. The brief clips they've show peaked my interest, as did their music choice for Hans Zimmer's work in Sherlock Holmes, so I might just have to check that score out again.

So...general thoughts. Before yesterday, I would definitely have supported Disney/Pixar's Up, but upon seeing Fantastic Mr. Fox, I believe that the Academy made the wrong choice. The first 10 minutes of the Pixar film is pure splendor, but the overall product, I feel, is a fun ride, but hardly amongst Pixar's finest work and not exactly worth the amount of recognition. Fantastic Mr. Fox, on the other hand, was phenomenal: the direction, the characters, the dialogue, the flow of the story, and especially the music. I simply find it overall superior. Basterds should have absolutely deserved Best Original Screenplay, as it truly was one of the most original, invigorating scripts of the year. I'm torn about the Best Editing award, but the more I think and think about it, I guess I must concede that The Hurt Locker was the best choice. The un-nominated Star Trek 100% deserved it - the editing of that film is flawless I tell you, flawless! But Hurt Locker for Best Cinematography? That I wholeheartedly disagree with. The erratic camera of the Paul Greengrass Bourne movies had more pizazz than Locker.

And note to self: get my ass up, cave, and rent The Cove from a nearby Redbox. Oh, and put some of these Foreign movies on my damn Netflix Que. (And speaking of which, I just got A Serious Man in the mail yesterday, so I'm totally gonna watch that soon! Yippie!) In conclusion, I guess I should also see The Blind Side. Wah.

Well, not a horrible night by any means. There were a lot of good acceptance speeches (notably Mo'Nique), and the inevitable long-ass ones (Jeff Bridges), and the ones that need to cram some sort of message. And Neil Patrick Harris better damn well be a host next year, or super pissed I shall be.

Now we can officially close the 2009 plate of films and push it behind us. Onward to 2010! To Greek Gods, wizards, rebels, and yet another damn vampire installment in that shitacular franchise that I'll still see anyway and am thus helping this demonic plague flurish!

^Oh gee golly wizz - I love Ben Stiller.

05 March 2009

Frost/Nixon

Frost/Nixon
starring Frank Langella, Michael Sheen, Kevin Bacon, Rebbecca Hall, Oliver Platt, Sam Rockwell
written by Peter Morgan
directed by Ron Howard
2008, 122 mins., Rated R

** (out of ****)

I can't think of why or how something so potentially thrilling ends up being rather dull. The very concept, and the intensity of the situation and the interview, it could all very well lead up to one of the most nerve-wracking verbal jests ever filmed on camera, but instead ends up being a game of "I wonder when they'll cut to a different close-up?" I mean, is it something inherent to director Ron Howard, who literally put me to sleep when I tried to watch The Da Vinci Code on my birthday? Or when he made me not interested in a giant fire-breathing monster in Willow? Now, I honestly have nothing but the utmost respect for the guy, but here's three movies where I'm supposed to be heavily engaged, nearly glued to the screen in anticipating for the next word, the next action, or the next clue - and I'm bored out of my wits. And keep in mind, this isn't a diss to the movie as a whole: I think there are some truly awesome moments and performances, but its either his directing that needs to step up or the script, and this time around, I think the script was solid.

On second thought, perhaps that's not the best way to open up a review. Oh well, sod it - it's what was on my mind exiting the theater and kept reoccurring as I walked home in this actually rather pleasant weather [there's some fog and a little rain, but overall, pretty relaxing]. Let me preface by saying that next to Slumdog Millionaire, Frost/Nixon was the one other Oscar-nominated movie I actually had a real interest in. I'm well aware there's a great majority who thinks Frost/Nixon excels in its most important department - namely, the conversation pieces between our title characters - and that's all fine and dandy; I understand where most everyone's able to get the vibe from the scenes, truly. I just happened to not.

It's 1977, three years after the whole Watergate debacle and resigning the Presidency, Richard Nixon (Langella) living life comfortably in a nice beach house in California - y'know, the tough life after being involved in a scandal. Meanwhile, British TV host David Frost (Sheen) is feelin' the need for his "big break", 'cuz his reality show and other programs aren't the juicy stuff he needs. Thus, he gets a brilliant concept - interview the disgraced ex-President himself, Richard Nixon! It's a genius and simultaneously proposterious idea as Frost approaches this from a stand-point of playfulness, not grasping the full weight of this interview despite the persistant pesterings of his colleagues. Nixon's camp is looking at this as a win-win situation: they grab a few thousand from this poor British bastard, and hopefully, in the course of this interview, not only set the record straight but sway America back in his favor. Once the camera rolls, Frosts' original idea of giving this man the "trial he never had" (a common phrase repeated throughout the movie) drifts further and further away as he witnesses first-hand this man's amazing ability to yabber on his way out of any question. But Frost, being the ever determined bloke he is, keeps un hammering Nixon, hoping for a crack of his iron-clad shield. And to raise enough money to pay everyone off; there's that, too.

Now, my experience of watching President Nixon probably accumulates of 76 seconds of my life, so I can't adequately judge Frank Langella's portrayal of the late US leader, but for what it's worth, by the film's end, Langella was, simply, President Nixon. (Side note: as a sort of extension of the previous statement, I just wish to comment that you actually don't need to have much knowledge about US history, and you'll be fine; in fact, you just need to see a particular 26-second scene from Forrest Gump, and you're set) He inhabits him whole-heartedly, never coming across as a actor, but the man himself! It's a truly awesome performance. From his bizarre comments about Frosts' shoe choice, to his offhand inquiry if any fornication was going on the night before with his girl (Hall), right down to him getting his stories straight in his head, it's all quite interesting and brilliantly played. Apparently both Langella and Sheen are reprising their stage roles, and I wager they took this translation to full effect - finally, a medium that enables them to portray their character's subtleties and nuances in the full, and it's obvious they had a field day with it. There's even moments where you begin to feel a bit of pity for the man.

Michael Sheen as Frost is, for lack of a better Yale-sounding word, perfect. Although his wide-eyes and eyebrows makes me recall the freaky eye-liner wearing governor from The Dark Knight - which can be a distraction - I find his performance to be outstanding, and as many other commentators noted, he not only reaches the awesome levels of Langella, but they also feed off each others' performance, only helping escalate their own to astounding heights. It's amazing watching this cocky character walk into a meeting with Nixon, not having a clue what he's in for, and suddenly feel like a fish out of a bowl - way over his head and drowning. Sheen's also gifted with that Bruce Wayne/Playboy ability, making it perfectly in the relam of probability that his suave and charm could sway women from anywhere, and perhaps even Nixon (although failing as swaying network heads, suckily enough). Once his ego is hit hard by Nixon's dodgy double speak, Frost tries to better himself and invest as much of himself into this project as much as possible. His "turning point" is actually quite interesting to watch. Perhaps the most engaging plotline with Frost is his continued search for TV broadcasting companies willing to finance the project. Amazing performance, watered down only by his freaky wide-eyes...they frightened me.

A nearly unrecognizable Kevin Bacon plays Nixon's chief of staff who has his best interest at heart, always looking out for the old man and ensuring there's no word slippage or anything of the sort. It's strange hearing the guy speak so normal when I'm used to the dude talk like a cowboy-wannabe from Tremors. Bacon's character is pretty much the guy who has been burdened with the task of carrying Nixon's burden, and whether he believes in Nixon isn't fully established, but it's obvious he cares about the disgraced ex-Prez. Overall, a very nice performance that sorta makes me want to see Death Sentence now. And the lovely Rebbecca Hall, who stunned me with her gorgeousness in Woody Allen's way over-praised Vicky Christina Barcelona, walks in-between scenes to show off a new outfit and care for our man Frost. It's unfortunate she's not given any heavy material to work with, because she's quite talented.

And here we come to perhaps the most important aspect of Frost/Nixon, and the deciding factor whether or not this movie succeeds or fails: director Ron Howard. At the very beginning of this review, I gave a brief two cents worth on the man, saying I respect the dude, but his flicks occasionally bore me, and this is no different. First I want to bring up his choice of style in this film: there's a heavy amount of hand-held camerawork, which, if you didn't pay attention to the credits, would probably lead you to believe Paul Greengrass (United 93) had his hands in the making of this picture. I love this style, but it's not entirely the best film to utilize such a technique - it's uncalled for when it's actually done, and the times where I thought the film would benefit from it, it sticks to the standard smooth, slick steady shot (woah: five 's' words in a row! coolz). Obviously, I'm not a filmmaker, so take my words with little interest, it's just that I'd do it differently. Howard also utilizes "interview footage" with the people involved in the interviews giving their retrospective takes on everything. Really, it's just there to build some excitment in an otherwise flat film. It's a dumb mechanism that I've never appreciated in a film before, and this one didn't sway me in the other direction, either. Again, I gotta reiterate: I didn't dislike Frost/Nixon, there's just a heavy need for directorial improvement, or, perhaps, choppier editing.

Music is nearly entirely absent from this motion picture, and whenever it is used, it's never to any great effect. Concerning the all-important Frost/Nixon conversation sequences which essentially make or break the movie, I think some form of dark, deep and lingering beat should have been used to create some form of drama or suspense - instead, we're left with nada. Since the gravity of the situation isn't felt adequately enough, the lack of a score doesn't help sustain our attention span.

Frost/Nixon
is a all-around good movie, boasting some phenomenal performances that deserve some type of showcase, and a tight, provocative script. Maybe under the hands of someone else, the severe lack of tension and excitement would be handled better, but as it stands, it's serviceable. Out of all the nominated flicks that aren't Slumdog Millionaire or The Dark Knight, Frost/Nixon is the next best thing. I highly recommend it, and any problems that I may have with it may not necessarily be shared by everyone else (as it so seems), so it's definitely a film that you should check out when it hits retail shelves. If nothing else, it will peak your interest enough to seek out the original interviews or find out a bit more on what happened, so that's a pretty nice thing, isn't it?

08 February 2009

The Reader, Revolutionary Road

The Reader
STARRING
Kate Winslet, Ralph Fiennes, David Kross
WRITTEN BY
David Hare (based on the book by Bernhard Schlink)
DIRECTED BY
Stephen Daldry
Released: 01.09.09 (nation wide)

Weinstein Company, 124 mins., Rated R

**1/2 (out of ****)
I can't honestly suss out my feelings for THE READER. On one hand, it's quite good; the performances are fantastic, the script is decent, the editing - well, coulda been choppier. But I think the problem is is that it's an unmemorable movie, without anything really to grab your attention during its long, drawn-out running time. If you want a deep, thoughtful review of the flick, look elsewhere. I'm not one to analyze these type of movies until my brain pops from over-thinking things that are quite self-explanatory; but if you'd enjoy a fun write-up without any sucking up, you came to the right place.
Everyone's talking about Kate Winslet, but the person I found myself most engaged to is David Kross, playing the younger version of Fiennes character, Michael. Kross, especially during the trial, is able to pull off everything that's required of him in the scene: a desire to do the right thing, understanding that it could be quite beneficial for Hannah if he did, but scared because he doesn't want the affair exposed, either for his or her sake. He continues to smoke and pace to calm himself down; his eyes appear bloodshot, he makes rash decisions (such as his one-night stand with the blond girl from his group), and appears to be losing control of himself. At times, I half thought I was looking at a EPISODE III Anakin Skywalker, as at times, he looked freakin' devilish. In the film's beginning, whereas he plays the more innocent but compelled teenage boy, Kross delivers the goods there as well, but it's really during the trial where you can't help but think, "Damn, that was a good performance."
Alright, now let's talk about Winslet. Her performance in READER is arguably the better of the two, and it definitely deserves the nomination over REVOLUTIONARY ROAD; and it's not because she bares pretty much all, it's because it's actually quite far more emotionally moving, and because I cared about her character far more here than the other. Winslet is surprisingly at her best when she was under all the prosthetic make-up during her agey-sequences. I can't think of much to say about her other than she did a damn good job, and that I was quite impressed by her performance.
Voldemort/Fiennes doesn't have much to do here, sadly. His job is to look solemn and contemplative, and to that effect, he passes with shinning colors. His big confrontation sequence with a survivng member of the Holocaust is quite awkward (which I believe they were striving for), but how he acts and speaks doesn't fit well with the character, at least from my perspective. Speaking about frustration, when Fiennes meets up with Hannah in jail when she's about to be released, he acts like a total inconsiderate pompous ass. Again, that didn't seem to fit in with the established character, and leaves me a little puzzled.
Direction-wise, it felt very point-and-shoot. And the script (which I'm gonna put in the same boat as the editing) coulda benefitted from a bit of trimming, or at least not being so faithful to the book (or so I imagine). The first half of the movie plays like a soft-core porno, with the two leads bumping uglies; the middle portion of the movie, arguably the most interesting and engaging, is a procedural drama, and the last bit is the older version of Michael seeking redemption for his inactions. Essentially, it sounds like a perfect set-up for a really great, interesting movie, but it was just so...blah; so uninvolving. It was sorta like the filmmakers themselves didn't really give a hoot about the material, either. If everything was just tighter, more precise, I think the enjoyment level would have increased rather steadily.
I'm sure I completely glossed over the subtles of the film, and I'm fine with that. THE READER could definitely have been a fantastic movie, but as it is, it's just a bit above average, and the blame solely lies on the script and direction. It's still a recommended film on my part, I'm just going to warn you that you'll need plenty of pop and popcorn to stay awake towards the latter half (there was my shameless promotion of the concession stands! I should get some benefits...). It's sort of also funny that I wrote more about the movie I thought I didn't have much to say about than the one I thought I would be babbling on and on and on about. Alright, maybe I'm just amused.

Revolutionary Road
STARRING
Kate Winslet, Leonardo DiCaprio, Kathy Bates
WRITTEN BY
Justin Haythe (based on the novel by Richard Yates)
DIRECTED BY
Sam Mendes
Released: 01.23.09 (nationwide)
Dreamworks, 119 mins., Rated R

*1/2 (out of ****)

This is what all the hype and build-up was about? See, this is a perfect example of why hype and build-up can potentially ruin the viewing pleasure of a equally potentially good movie and make it simply mediocre. Or perhaps REVOLUTIONARY ROAD was destined to be mediocre, make your choice. But the real reason why I found that I didn't particularly like this much-talked about flick was that I simply didn't give a damn about the characters or their so-called dilemmas. Actually, they sounded more like whiney adolescent brats more than grown adults, and that doesn't help the flick in any way.

The main premise is essentially that a couple (DiCaprio, Winslet) in the '50's purchase a house on Revoltuionary Road, and their once fun, adventurous-filled life has transformed into your cliched suburban American idea of the Dream - they got the beautiful house, the kids, the wealth, and the beauty. But that's not enough for them - they need a change. Initially, both parties are "All systems a-go!", but then Frank is offered more buckaroos at his place of employment, and that's a bit enticing. This doesn't bode well for the Mrs., April, who wants the move to Paris to take effect immediately. Suffice it to say, the Dream, and their love, is tested. And the real kicker is, the only rational, sane person in the entire movie is the dude who just got out of a institution!

To put it bluntly, both DiCaprio and Winslet displayed better acting chops eleven years ago in TITANIC. I dug Winslet in ETERNAL SUNSHINE more (a flick which I'm actually not a fan of, it may surprise you to know), and DiCaprio rocked my world a zillion times more in BLOOD DIAMOND (a film I'm sure no one else woulda picked, because you all seem to not like it, which I simply don't understand). They're unbelievable as a married couple, and quite frankly, they can't seem to deliver what they're given in a believable manner. Out of the two, DiCaprio gets the most sympathy. For one, he has one hell of a looney wife, who could very well reach a Norman Bates-mental breakdown; second, I understand where he's coming from. He, too, wants to get the hell out of Dodge, but really, the world's all about the dinero, and if he's getting offered mucho more bucks, it's a tempting offer, even despite the inevitable rift it would cause. As for Winslet - yeah, she's just comes off as Psycho Wife. I wouldn't blame Frank if he wanted to apply for the reality TV show Wife Swamp, I'd totally be there to support you, buddy! (I realize this may come across as insensitive or perhaps mean, but really, her character deserves the disses).

I don't dislike the movie because it's bleak and gloomy - I rejoice when those type of non-Hollywood titles are released; I just dislike it because it feels like the script is spoon-feeding us what we're supposed to be feeling and react to their actions. It's almost like it's desperately trying to make us care about these characters - and no matter how much it tries, I simply don't care. There was literally no drama whatsoever (you can pretty much guess every beat just from the synopsis' you can find online), and whatever drama they tried to instill came across very much like a CW teen drama. Yeah, I know I'm going to get death threats for that comment.

REVOLUTIONARY ROAD is getting a lot of praise for bringing up a topic which, frankly, has been done to death: love is difficult, marriages are even harder, and occasionally, things don't work out all that well. You've seen this in comedies, you've seen this in other dramas, in documentaries, etc., etc. It's nothing new, folks, and REVOLUTIONARY ROAD doesn't seem to want to venture into any new territory, but instead recycles the same stuff done before, and to better effect.

Concerning the cinematography, yes indeed, it is quite beautiful. Fantastic lighting, most of all. Neat compositions. I can't comment on the score because it's barely audible, but what I do recall is that at certain parts it sounded more like a horror movie than a drama.

Look, just because I didn't fancy REVOLUTIONARY ROAD doesn't mean you will too. In fact, I seem to be part of a very, very small minority when it comes to lack of insane praise. If you had to pick between the two, I'd say go for READER, despite it being just a few notches better, really. But if you don't mind an uninteresting, almost-a-good-movie-but-just-missed-the-mark drama that tells you how you're supposed to feel, REVOLUTIONARY ROAD delivers in spades.

26 January 2009

2008 Awards Season Films

Truthfully, I've never dug the Oscars. I nearly always disagreed with their choices for nominated flicks (though they admittedly sometimes have it right, such as Daniel Day-Lewis for There Will Be Blood), and thus had very little interest in the actual telecast. Nominations and who won, that's all I cared about. Sod the speeches and honorary awards (unless Kurosawa rose from the dead and was presented another such award, then I'd tune in), I just wanna know who won.

Well, this year I'm going to try and actually watch as many of the nominated titles as possible. Last year, I didn't bother with many of them, mainly because my interest level in the plot was pretty much zero (like Atonement - Keira Knightely in yet another period piece, with an added ingredient of romance? Bah), but now I think I'm interested enough in these batch of titles to give it a go. I must confess that at least this year, there's an interesting selection to choose from. Curious Case of Benjamin Button was actually really good, and the near-three hour running time went by rather smoothly; Slumdog Millionaire is about as perfect as they come; The Wrestler is worth the hype; Gran Torino is not worth the hype, but still is a very entertaining movie. There's still plenty to see (Milk and Frost/Nixon aren't hitting my local theaters anytime soon), so this will be continually updated.

But really, what makes an Oscar worthy picture? Do they have to be all artsy with unique camera tricks and riveting performances? Must they all be historical epics of some sort? Must they all carry some giant, grandiose theme that's apparently relevant to today? I prefer the flicks I'm going to watch repeatedly (which is where the Academy got it right with Slumdog Millionaire), not the ones where when the movie ends, you think, "Well, it was well done. Great acting", and when the DVD comes you contemplate buying it, but choose instead to pick up Horton Hears a Who in lieu of, say, Frost/Nixon. That's how I felt with last year's No Country for Old Men and most definitely There Will Be Blood - not worth a second viewing. Of course, many already disagree, but that's to be expected. Anyway, onward we go!

I actually got inspired by another movie blog,
The Long Take, with that bloke reviewing all the Oscar-nominated flicks, as well. So, I recommend taking a gander over at his work, too.

2008 Awards Season - Reviewed Movie List: