There was a fascinating article in USA Today on Friday explaining how the new Best Picture rules could shake things up. I won't go into detail, but they had a valid point. What else is interesting, in particular, were the comments of director Jane Campion (The Piano, Bright Star) who doesn't seem to like the idea of 10 Best Picture nominees. She claimed that it was the major studios who pushed for it since "their movies weren't getting nominated." She also seemed to feel that it somehow diminished the award itself.
I'm not quite sure what beef Ms. Campion has with the studios. They seemed to go out of their way to get her latest film, Bright Star, seen. In theaters, the film was distributed by Warner Bros. In the U.S., the DVD is being distributed by Sony and, in the U.K., by Fox. That's three different studios shelling out money to get her $8 million film seen. (The film grossed $4 million in the U.S.) She might consider that it was a collaborative effort of several studios just so her movie could get out there. It's not like the studios thought there was a huge demand for a movie about John Keats. She had a story to tell. They did what they could to get an audience to see it. And her little movie's whopping ONE nomination (Costumes) makes it seem a little bitter.
Another thing she should consider is that the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences is its own entity and does not answer to the studios. If the major studios had any say whatsoever, this rule would've gone into effect back in 1996 when the one Best Picture nominee from a major studio was Jerry Maguire. While the argument is valid that having more than 5 nominees allows for more audience friendly films to make the cut, I think they were more likely trying to avoid the discussion that an important film got snubbed and thus, the argument that the Academy is too high brow for the general public. Expanding to ten nominees, in a way, shows how close the more mainstream movie get to being legitimate contenders without showing how many votes each one got. Hence, why "The Dark Knight Rule" went into effect.
When the nominations were announced last year, there was genuine shock among Oscar enthusiasts that The Dark Knight failed to be nominated for Best Picture. It was considered a "sure thing" and a possible contender to win. In particular, I was quite shocked when The Reader was nominated for Picture and Director over Christopher Nolan's masterpiece that set a new standard for the superhero genre. The Reader, which isn't a bad film, didn't resonate with many people and just doesn't stand out in my mind.
But what The Dark Knight Rule has eliminated is the "who got snubbed?" discussion. There has been little talk at all about ANY film that got left out of the Best Picture race. The only film that jumps out to me was the Golden Globe winner for Best Comedy or Musical, The Hangover. Is The Hangover typical Academy material? Hardly. But it is a well made film from an artistic standpoint. Watch the technical aspects of the film and you'll see it is beautifully shot and edited very well, has a nice score and notice how much the costumes tell about each character. The writing is outstanding and even Mike Tyson gives a good performance. But you don't hear anyone crying foul over its snub. In fact, the articles I've read about this year's snubs fail to mention a single one involving Best Picture.
Which brings up the point of this posting: What if they'd made this rule ten years ago? What would the ten nominees have been? What complaints could have been avoided?
Well, I set some ground rules. It will happen eventually, I'm sure, but this year, there weren't any movies nominated for Best Picture as its only nomination. Every film had at least ONE other nomination in one of the other eight major categories. So, the first rule I set was that each of the "bottom five" had to be nominated in at least one other category of the "Big Eight", OR be the winner in another best film category (Animated, Foreign or Documentary.) After that, I noted the presence of a particular film in other categories. The more nominations, the greater the likelihood that a film "just missed" being one of the Best Picture nominees. Basically, I tried to take my own opinion of a film out of the picture and chose movies that looked like they had the nominations that normally go along with Best Picture. So let's see how the first decade of the new millenium could have looked like.
*=Was actually nominated
**=Best Picture Winner
And the Best Picture nominees for 2000 Could Have Been.....
Almost Famous
Billy Elliot
Cast Away
Chocolat*
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon*
Erin Brockovich*
Gladiator**
Pollock
Traffic*
The Wonder Boys
2000 was considered a bad slate of Best Picture nominees. But tack on the "The Other Five" and, all of a sudden, that's not such a bad group of films after all. In a group like that, it's hard to imagine a movie like Gladiator even winning. See the difference having ten nominations would've have made when looking back?
Other Possibilities: Quills, You Can Count on Me
And the Best Picture nominees for 2001 Could Have Been.....
Amelie
A Beautiful Mind**
Black Hawk Down
Gosford Park*
In the Bedroom*
Iris
The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring*
Memento
Moulin Rouge*
Shrek
Not quite the same effect that the extra nominations of 2000 had. But certainly, films like Black Hawk Down, which was also nominated for Best Director, and Amelie, which had the most nominations that year of any film NOT nominated for Best Picture, deserved to be in the same class as those that did get picked.
Other Possibilities: Ali, Monster's Ball
And the Best Picture nominees for 2002 Could Have Been.....
Adaptation
Chicago**
Far from Heaven
Frida
Gangs of New York*
The Hours*
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers*
The Pianist*
Road to Perdition
Talk to Her
Once again, a MUCH more well-rounded group. It certainly has the feel of a more wide open Oscar race.
Other Possibilities: About Schmidt, Bowling for Columbine, Catch Me If You Can
And the Best Picture nominees for 2003 Could Have Been.....
City of God
Cold Mountain
Finding Nemo
In America
The Last Samurai
The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King**
Lost in Translation*
Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World*
Mystic River*
Seabiscuit*
One of the downsides of having just 5 Best Picture nominees is when a relatively weak film slips through the cracks. The all-time greatest example was the nomination of The Towering Inferno for Best Picture in a year that also saw Chinatown, The Conversation, Lenny and, the eventual winner, The Godfather Part II nominated. Seabiscuit, while a good film, just didn't feel like it belonged with the rest of the group that was nominated. But when you add the other five, it seems a bit more legit.
Other Possibilities: The Barbarian Invasions, House of Sand and Fog
And the Best Picture nominees for 2004 Could Have Been.....
The Aviator*
Closer
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Finding Neverland*
Hotel Rwanda
The Incredibles
Million Dollar Baby**
Ray*
Sideways*
Vera Drake
Now THAT'S a Best Picture slate! Ten very different films on ten very different subjects. Even the biopics were very different in tone and style. It does go to show what an AMAZING job Pixar does with their films that they would have pulled consecutive Best Picture nominations, even with using the rules for choosing. I do, however, have a hard time believing Closer would have made this list, but it was nominated enough not to presume it wouldn't.
Other Possibilities: The Motorcycle Diaries
And the Best Picture nominees for 2005 Could Have Been.....
Brokeback Mountain*
Capote*
Cinderella Man
The Constant Gardener
Crash**
Good Night and Good Luck*
Memoirs of a Geisha
Munich*
Syriana
Walk the Line
A more well-rounded race, for sure. The Constant Gardener and Walk the Line had to have come close to getting nominated. In fact, if you had asked me what films were nominated in 2005, I probably would have guessed Walk the Line and not Munich. Cinderella Man and Memoirts of a Geisha, not so much. Syriana is kind of in between.
Other Possibilities: A History of Violence
And the Best Picture nominees for 2006 Could Have Been.....
Babel*
Blood Diamond
The Departed**
Dreamgirls
Letters from Iwo Jima*
Little Children
Little Miss Sunshine*
Notes on a Scandal
Pan's Labyrinth
The Queen*
I like that list a lot. And that's assuming other multiple nominees like An Inconvenient Truth or Children of Men didn't sneak in. A very competitive year, for sure.
Other Possibilities: Children of Men, An Inconvenient Truth, United 93
And the Best Picture nominees for 2007 Could Have Been.....
Atonement*
Away from Her
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
Into the Wild
Juno*
Michael Clayton*
No Country for Old Men*
Ratatouille
Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street
There Will Be Blood*
This is one of the years where the ten nominations fail slightly. Not many of the Other Five pulled in more that 2-3 nominations in total. And the five that they did choose were pretty solid. This is definitely one of the years that support the argument of what it would look like if there weren't enough to fill out 10 slots.
Other Possibilities: Away from Her, La Vie en Rose, The Savages
And the Best Picture nominees for 2008 Could Have Been.....
The Changeling
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button*
The Dark Knight
Doubt
Frost/Nixon*
Milk*
The Reader*
Revolutionary Road
Slumdog Millionaire**
Wall-E
It's easy to write off the ten Best Picture nominee rule as being "The Dark Kinght Rule". But when you consider great films like Doubt (5 noms), Revolutionary Road (3 noms), and Wall-E (6 Noms), along with The Dark Knight (8 noms), one can't help but wonder just how close the voting was last year for Best Picture.
Other Possibilities: The Wrestler
Friday, February 5, 2010
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
It's Oscar Time Again!
BEST PICTURE:
Avatar
The Blind Side
District 9
An Education
The Hurt Locker
Inglourious Basterds
Precious
A Serious Man
Up
Up in the Air
THOUGHTS: I was one of the few who didn't think District 9 would be here. I was wrong. I WAS, however, one who thought The Hangover would be. Again, wrong. Eight of the ten were mortal locks. District 9 and A Serious Man were the toss ups. Crazy Heart, Invictus or The Messenger (judging by their presence in other categories) could have easily filled those slots. I certainly would've taken Invictus or The Messenger (and, of course, The Hangover) over District 9. A Serious Man is the only one I haven't seen yet. I would like to say this: People have said what a crappy year it was for movies. Not for me. Of the 9 nominees I've seen, I gave EIGHT of them an A or A-. (Gave District 9 a B) Not a bad year at all. The Hurt Locker, FTW!!!!!
BEST ACTOR:
Jeff Bridges, Crazy Heart
George Clooney, Up in the Air
Colin Firth, A Single Man
Morgan Freeman, Invictus
Jeremy Renner, The Hurt Locker
THOUGHTS: None. Exactly as predicted. Jeff Bridges is a lock.
BEST ACTRESS:
Sandra Bullock, The Blind Side
Helen Mirren, The Last Station
Carey Mulligan, An Education
Gabourey Sidibe, Precious
Meryl Streep, Julie & Julia
THOUGHTS: Again, no surprises. Maybe Helen Mirren over Emily Blunt, but not a big surprise. Earlier, I predicted Meryl Streep would win since it's been 25 YEARS and her TWELFTH nomination since she last won. Her FIFTH nom in the last 10 years! But, no. Sandra Bullock is very popular in Hollywood and she just doesn't do "Oscar-worthy" very often. In my opinion, it shouldn't go to either of them. Watching Carey Mulligan in An Education was like watching Audrey Hepburn in Roman Holiday. An enchanting, star making performance.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR:
Matt Damon, Invictus
Woody Harrelson, The Messenger
Christopher Plummer, The Last Station
Stanley Tucci, The Lovely Bones
Christoph Waltz, Inglourious Basterds
THOUGHTS: Well, Damon and Plummer were surprises, I guess. I thought Damon sucked and I like Matt Damon as an actor. I was hoping for Anthony Mackie to be nominated for The Hurt Locker. But all the other nominations are irrelevant. Christoph Waltz will win. This is a case of a performance being called "Supporting" even though he's only called that because his name's not Brad Pitt. Practically the entire first 15 minutes are just Waltz talking.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS:
Penelope Cruz, Nine
Vera Farmiga, Up in the Air
Maggie Gyllenhaal, Crazy Heart
Anna Kendrick, Up in the Air
Mo'Nique, Precious
THOUGHTS: No real surprises here. Utter joy that the "Zoe Saldana should be nominated for Avatar" hype was exactly that. I would like to say that this SHOULD have been Vera Farmiga's third nomination. I loved her in The Departed and she stole Nothing but the Truth. Up in the Air was another role that seemed tailor made for her. And she'll lose. This award belongs to Mo'Nique.
BEST DIRECTOR:
Kathryn Bigelow, The Hurt Locker
James Cameron, Avatar
Lee Daniels, Precious
Jason Reitman, Up in the Air
Quentin Tarantino, Inglourious Basterds
THOUGHTS: ZERO surprises. If this had been a five nomination year for Best Picture, these would have been your nominees. Now that the Producers Guild and the Directors Guild have spoken, you will see the first woman to win Best Director. The woman who brought us Point Break. JOHNNY UTAH!!!!
BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY:
The Hurt Locker
Inglourious Basterds
The Messenger
A Serious Man
Up
THOUGHTS: Excited to see the love for The Messenger. Terrific film. Won't win. Of the 8 major catergories, this one is the most exciting. It's a three horse race among The Hurt Locker, IB and Up. I think I predicted a Tarantino win here before, so I'll stick with that. It'll be the only chance to give a brilliant film some props.
BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY:
District 9
An Education
In the Loop
Precious
Up in the Air
THOUGHTS: District 9 was a small surprise. In the Loop was a HUGE one. Being the Oscar dork I am, I actually WHOOed in the car when I heard it called out. Props to the Academy for recognizing a movie that was seen by so few people, the MPAA didn't even give it a rating. That said, this will be Up in the Air's only win of the night.
BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY:
Avatar
Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince
The Hurt Locker
Inglourious Basterds
The White Ribbon
THOUGHTS: Anyone else remember when there was talk of Harry Potter being nominated for Best Picture? Anyway, the most deserving film of the bunch is The Hurt Locker, although I haven't seen The White Ribbon. This is probably one of the few tech categories where Avatar could lose.
BEST FILM EDITING:
Avatar
District 9
The Hurt Locker
Inglourious Basterds
Precious
THOUGHTS: Precious is a shock! Small movies RARELY get nominated here. I could've taken guesses at the nominees for an hour before guessing Precious. I thought Up in the Air was done very well. And a year that also saw Harry Potter, Star Trek and Sherlock Holmes, it's even more surprising. But again, The Hurt Locker deserves it. Avatar will probably get it.
BEST ART DIRECTION:
Avatar
The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus
Nine
Sherlock Holmes
The Young Victoria
THOUGHTS: Avatar.
BEST COSTUME DESIGN:
Bright Star
Coco Before Chanel
The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus
Nine
The Young Victoria
THOUGHTS: I hate this category. Unless there's a movie nominated for Best Picture that has thousands of costumes, you never know who will win this. I mean, LOOK at this list! The only movie to even get a wide release was Nine. Screw it. Let's go with Nine. In my "Calling My Shot" posting, I picked Inglourious Basterds.
BEST MAKE UP:
Il Divo
Star Trek
The Young Victoria
THOUGHTS: None. I usually miss this one. I picked Avatar in the "Calling My Shot". I guess computer generated makeup still doesn't count. They must think it's a computer programmer who comes up with the look.
BEST ORIGINAL SCORE:
Avatar
Fantastic Mr. Fox
The Hurt Locker
Sherlock Holmes
Up
THOUGHTS: Fantastic Mr. Fox was a pleasant surprise. I loved that film. This is the one category I disagree with nominating The Hurt Locker. The score, what little there is, feels like it was lifted right off the There Will Be Blood soundtrack. But I am excited for this category. Michael Giacchino will win the Oscar he should have won for The Incredibles. To go along with the Emmy he won for Lost. In my opinion, he's the best composer in film right now.
BEST SONG:
Crazy Heart
Nine
Paris 36
The Princess and the Frog
The Princess and the Frog
THOUGHTS: I HATE this category. Not because it's hard to pick, but because it shouldn't even exist. There used to be a category called Best Song Score. THAT, to me, made sense. Award a movie for having great songs, not a great song. It's would be like having a separate writing category for Best Line of Dialogue or a sound effect category for Best Use of the Wilhelm Scream (which would go to Up this year. You don't expect a Wilhelm Scream to come from a dog.) Crazy Heart will win this. At least it's easy this year.
BEST SOUND MIXING:
Avatar
The Hurt Locker
Inglourious Basterds
Star Trek
Transfomers 2
THOUGHTS: Why the face?! ANOTHER year without a nomination for 20-time nominee, never winner Kevin O'Connell?! He hasn't gone this long without being nominated since the Drought of '93-'95. Apparently, the Academy didn't like how Public Enemies sounded. Perhaps he'll be back next year for his work on Prince of Persia. Or not. Avatar deserves this one and will win.
BEST SOUND EDITING:
Avatar
The Hurt Locker
Inglourious Basterds
Star Trek
Up
THOUGHTS: Avatar will win. The Hurt Locker deserves it.
BEST VISUAL EFFECTS:
Avatar
District 9
Star Trek
THOUGHTS: If there was EVER a category that was so unquestionably going to a particular movie, it's this one. 100% to Avatar. The ONLY reason there's even another nominee is because the voters had to pick three. I doubt even the people who worked on the other films would have voted against Avatar.
BEST ANIMATED PICTURE:
Coraline
Fantastic Mr. Fox
The Princess and the Frog
The Secret of Kells
Up
THOUGHTS: Gee. Let's see. One of these films was actually nominated for Best Picture. So, I pick the Secret of Kells. Kidding. I'd never actually heard of that one until this morning. I didn't care for Coraline. Haven't seen the P & the F yet. But I will say this: I liked The Fantastic Mr. Fox ALMOST as much as I liked Up. But Up will win and deservedly so.
BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM:
Ajami
Das weisse Band - Eine deutsche Kindergeschichte (The White Ribbon)
El secreto de sus ojos
Un prophète
La teta asustada
THOUGHTS: It's rare when I've actually seen one of these and 2009 was no exception. When filling out your ballots on Oscar night, go with the one that's been nominated outside of the catergory. I choose the White Ribbon since my pick in "Calling My Shot" wasn't even nominated.
BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE:
Burma VJ: Reporter i et lukket land
The Cove
Food, Inc.
The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers
Which Way Home
THOUGHTS: Like the foreign language category, it's rare when I've seen one of these, much less two. The Cove and Food, Inc. are the two heavy weights, but I can't imagine The Cove losing, barring some scandal that it was faked in any way. If you haven't seen The Cove, go rent it. It's a documentary that was more exciting to watch than the last Indiana Jones and a VERY important message.
HAPPIEST SURPRISE: In the Loop for Adapted Screenplay
UNHAPPIEST SURPRISE: The Hangover for NOTHING
NOM THAT MADE ME YELL "WHY THE FACE?!": Matt Damon for Invictus
MOST BEWILDERING SNUB: An Education for Best Costume Design. Those clothes were just cool.
P.S. I don't actually say "Why the face?" For the purposes of writing a family friendly blog, I just prefer to not actually say WTF?
Avatar
The Blind Side
District 9
An Education
The Hurt Locker
Inglourious Basterds
Precious
A Serious Man
Up
Up in the Air
THOUGHTS: I was one of the few who didn't think District 9 would be here. I was wrong. I WAS, however, one who thought The Hangover would be. Again, wrong. Eight of the ten were mortal locks. District 9 and A Serious Man were the toss ups. Crazy Heart, Invictus or The Messenger (judging by their presence in other categories) could have easily filled those slots. I certainly would've taken Invictus or The Messenger (and, of course, The Hangover) over District 9. A Serious Man is the only one I haven't seen yet. I would like to say this: People have said what a crappy year it was for movies. Not for me. Of the 9 nominees I've seen, I gave EIGHT of them an A or A-. (Gave District 9 a B) Not a bad year at all. The Hurt Locker, FTW!!!!!
BEST ACTOR:
Jeff Bridges, Crazy Heart
George Clooney, Up in the Air
Colin Firth, A Single Man
Morgan Freeman, Invictus
Jeremy Renner, The Hurt Locker
THOUGHTS: None. Exactly as predicted. Jeff Bridges is a lock.
BEST ACTRESS:
Sandra Bullock, The Blind Side
Helen Mirren, The Last Station
Carey Mulligan, An Education
Gabourey Sidibe, Precious
Meryl Streep, Julie & Julia
THOUGHTS: Again, no surprises. Maybe Helen Mirren over Emily Blunt, but not a big surprise. Earlier, I predicted Meryl Streep would win since it's been 25 YEARS and her TWELFTH nomination since she last won. Her FIFTH nom in the last 10 years! But, no. Sandra Bullock is very popular in Hollywood and she just doesn't do "Oscar-worthy" very often. In my opinion, it shouldn't go to either of them. Watching Carey Mulligan in An Education was like watching Audrey Hepburn in Roman Holiday. An enchanting, star making performance.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR:
Matt Damon, Invictus
Woody Harrelson, The Messenger
Christopher Plummer, The Last Station
Stanley Tucci, The Lovely Bones
Christoph Waltz, Inglourious Basterds
THOUGHTS: Well, Damon and Plummer were surprises, I guess. I thought Damon sucked and I like Matt Damon as an actor. I was hoping for Anthony Mackie to be nominated for The Hurt Locker. But all the other nominations are irrelevant. Christoph Waltz will win. This is a case of a performance being called "Supporting" even though he's only called that because his name's not Brad Pitt. Practically the entire first 15 minutes are just Waltz talking.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS:
Penelope Cruz, Nine
Vera Farmiga, Up in the Air
Maggie Gyllenhaal, Crazy Heart
Anna Kendrick, Up in the Air
Mo'Nique, Precious
THOUGHTS: No real surprises here. Utter joy that the "Zoe Saldana should be nominated for Avatar" hype was exactly that. I would like to say that this SHOULD have been Vera Farmiga's third nomination. I loved her in The Departed and she stole Nothing but the Truth. Up in the Air was another role that seemed tailor made for her. And she'll lose. This award belongs to Mo'Nique.
BEST DIRECTOR:
Kathryn Bigelow, The Hurt Locker
James Cameron, Avatar
Lee Daniels, Precious
Jason Reitman, Up in the Air
Quentin Tarantino, Inglourious Basterds
THOUGHTS: ZERO surprises. If this had been a five nomination year for Best Picture, these would have been your nominees. Now that the Producers Guild and the Directors Guild have spoken, you will see the first woman to win Best Director. The woman who brought us Point Break. JOHNNY UTAH!!!!
BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY:
The Hurt Locker
Inglourious Basterds
The Messenger
A Serious Man
Up
THOUGHTS: Excited to see the love for The Messenger. Terrific film. Won't win. Of the 8 major catergories, this one is the most exciting. It's a three horse race among The Hurt Locker, IB and Up. I think I predicted a Tarantino win here before, so I'll stick with that. It'll be the only chance to give a brilliant film some props.
BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY:
District 9
An Education
In the Loop
Precious
Up in the Air
THOUGHTS: District 9 was a small surprise. In the Loop was a HUGE one. Being the Oscar dork I am, I actually WHOOed in the car when I heard it called out. Props to the Academy for recognizing a movie that was seen by so few people, the MPAA didn't even give it a rating. That said, this will be Up in the Air's only win of the night.
BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY:
Avatar
Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince
The Hurt Locker
Inglourious Basterds
The White Ribbon
THOUGHTS: Anyone else remember when there was talk of Harry Potter being nominated for Best Picture? Anyway, the most deserving film of the bunch is The Hurt Locker, although I haven't seen The White Ribbon. This is probably one of the few tech categories where Avatar could lose.
BEST FILM EDITING:
Avatar
District 9
The Hurt Locker
Inglourious Basterds
Precious
THOUGHTS: Precious is a shock! Small movies RARELY get nominated here. I could've taken guesses at the nominees for an hour before guessing Precious. I thought Up in the Air was done very well. And a year that also saw Harry Potter, Star Trek and Sherlock Holmes, it's even more surprising. But again, The Hurt Locker deserves it. Avatar will probably get it.
BEST ART DIRECTION:
Avatar
The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus
Nine
Sherlock Holmes
The Young Victoria
THOUGHTS: Avatar.
BEST COSTUME DESIGN:
Bright Star
Coco Before Chanel
The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus
Nine
The Young Victoria
THOUGHTS: I hate this category. Unless there's a movie nominated for Best Picture that has thousands of costumes, you never know who will win this. I mean, LOOK at this list! The only movie to even get a wide release was Nine. Screw it. Let's go with Nine. In my "Calling My Shot" posting, I picked Inglourious Basterds.
BEST MAKE UP:
Il Divo
Star Trek
The Young Victoria
THOUGHTS: None. I usually miss this one. I picked Avatar in the "Calling My Shot". I guess computer generated makeup still doesn't count. They must think it's a computer programmer who comes up with the look.
BEST ORIGINAL SCORE:
Avatar
Fantastic Mr. Fox
The Hurt Locker
Sherlock Holmes
Up
THOUGHTS: Fantastic Mr. Fox was a pleasant surprise. I loved that film. This is the one category I disagree with nominating The Hurt Locker. The score, what little there is, feels like it was lifted right off the There Will Be Blood soundtrack. But I am excited for this category. Michael Giacchino will win the Oscar he should have won for The Incredibles. To go along with the Emmy he won for Lost. In my opinion, he's the best composer in film right now.
BEST SONG:
Crazy Heart
Nine
Paris 36
The Princess and the Frog
The Princess and the Frog
THOUGHTS: I HATE this category. Not because it's hard to pick, but because it shouldn't even exist. There used to be a category called Best Song Score. THAT, to me, made sense. Award a movie for having great songs, not a great song. It's would be like having a separate writing category for Best Line of Dialogue or a sound effect category for Best Use of the Wilhelm Scream (which would go to Up this year. You don't expect a Wilhelm Scream to come from a dog.) Crazy Heart will win this. At least it's easy this year.
BEST SOUND MIXING:
Avatar
The Hurt Locker
Inglourious Basterds
Star Trek
Transfomers 2
THOUGHTS: Why the face?! ANOTHER year without a nomination for 20-time nominee, never winner Kevin O'Connell?! He hasn't gone this long without being nominated since the Drought of '93-'95. Apparently, the Academy didn't like how Public Enemies sounded. Perhaps he'll be back next year for his work on Prince of Persia. Or not. Avatar deserves this one and will win.
BEST SOUND EDITING:
Avatar
The Hurt Locker
Inglourious Basterds
Star Trek
Up
THOUGHTS: Avatar will win. The Hurt Locker deserves it.
BEST VISUAL EFFECTS:
Avatar
District 9
Star Trek
THOUGHTS: If there was EVER a category that was so unquestionably going to a particular movie, it's this one. 100% to Avatar. The ONLY reason there's even another nominee is because the voters had to pick three. I doubt even the people who worked on the other films would have voted against Avatar.
BEST ANIMATED PICTURE:
Coraline
Fantastic Mr. Fox
The Princess and the Frog
The Secret of Kells
Up
THOUGHTS: Gee. Let's see. One of these films was actually nominated for Best Picture. So, I pick the Secret of Kells. Kidding. I'd never actually heard of that one until this morning. I didn't care for Coraline. Haven't seen the P & the F yet. But I will say this: I liked The Fantastic Mr. Fox ALMOST as much as I liked Up. But Up will win and deservedly so.
BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM:
Ajami
Das weisse Band - Eine deutsche Kindergeschichte (The White Ribbon)
El secreto de sus ojos
Un prophète
La teta asustada
THOUGHTS: It's rare when I've actually seen one of these and 2009 was no exception. When filling out your ballots on Oscar night, go with the one that's been nominated outside of the catergory. I choose the White Ribbon since my pick in "Calling My Shot" wasn't even nominated.
BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE:
Burma VJ: Reporter i et lukket land
The Cove
Food, Inc.
The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers
Which Way Home
THOUGHTS: Like the foreign language category, it's rare when I've seen one of these, much less two. The Cove and Food, Inc. are the two heavy weights, but I can't imagine The Cove losing, barring some scandal that it was faked in any way. If you haven't seen The Cove, go rent it. It's a documentary that was more exciting to watch than the last Indiana Jones and a VERY important message.
HAPPIEST SURPRISE: In the Loop for Adapted Screenplay
UNHAPPIEST SURPRISE: The Hangover for NOTHING
NOM THAT MADE ME YELL "WHY THE FACE?!": Matt Damon for Invictus
MOST BEWILDERING SNUB: An Education for Best Costume Design. Those clothes were just cool.
P.S. I don't actually say "Why the face?" For the purposes of writing a family friendly blog, I just prefer to not actually say WTF?
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Movie Review: Avatar - A-
Who's In It: Sam Worthington (and his dog, Spot), Sigourney Weaver, Zoe Saldana.
What It's About: It's the year 2154 and people still make references to the Wizard of Oz and the War in Iraq. The evil American military-industrial complex sends an obviously Australian marine to infiltrate and learn the ways of a group of people, who are so enlightened they apologize to their food for eating it.
What I Was Expecting: It's James Cameron. I expect bang for my buck, visuals like I've never seen and dialogue that causes physical pain to my ears.
What I Got: Everything except the last part. Okay, there were a few zingers from James Cameron, who apprarently learned to write dialogue by watching Ed Wood movies. But, in general, it's not too bad. Or I was just so dumbfounded by what I was seeing on screen, I didn't notice. I have never seen anything like this film. This film should not even be shown in 2-D. There's no point. It was obviously made to be seen in 3-D. And it's the 3-D effect where Cameron really shows his genius. Most 3-D movies focus on having things come at the screen. Cameron focused on moving things away. It was brilliant how many times there would be a character or two up front and how much movement there would be some 50 feet behind them. That is what makes it seem like things are happening right in front of you. As for the rest of the movie, as brilliant and inventive as the film is visually, plot wise, it's just okay. There is not a single, non-cliche character in the film. The performances are just passable as well. Sam Worthington apparently learned to do an American accent by watching Russell Crowe movies. I did like Giovanni Ribisi, but I liked his character much better when Paul Reiser played him in Aliens. Overall, the film is an experience and needs to be seen in 3-D, in a theatre.
Grade: A-
Oscar Potential: This film will get a lot of Oscar love. Nominations for Picture and Director, for sure. And the technical awards, just check them all off. How many it will actually win is a different story. Visual effects and the sound categories. But that may be it.
Five Random Thoughts:
1. I wonder how much screen time actual actors must have in a movie to make it not qualify as an animated film. Or is it that the animation looks so real in Avatar that you forget that minutes go by where you don't see anything not created with a computer.
2. Invoking Rule 34 on the Na'vi in three...two...one..... (If you don't know Rule 34, google it.)
3. Any particular reason why the 3-D glasses look like Wayfairers?
4. They invent an entire language for this film, create all kinds of new species and the best sound they could come up with for the horse-like creature is an actual horse? And the best name they could think of for the Na'vi home tree is "The Hometree"?
5. James Horner should be shot for the score at the end of the film. If you've written one of the most recognizable film scores in recent memory, you don't rip it off. And it was an emotional moment and I found myself singing along to it, "Near...far...."
Trailer Park:
Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief: I've reviewed this same trailer before, but it was the first time that I recognized the kid playing Percy as the kid from 3:10 to Yuma and the TV series Jack & Bobby.
Salt: Oh, how the mighty have fallen. Wait a second. Hasn't Angelina Jolie been nominated a couple of times for Oscar recently? What on earth is she doing making this crap? The problem with coming up with such an awful title for a film: No one will forget it. You couldn't change it at this point.
The Book of Eli: Denzel Washington, Gary Oldman....and Mila Kunis? Malcolm X, Beethoven and...Meg Griffin? Okay, I'm game. Looks great.
Alice in Wonderland: I'd seen this trailer on the internet before and I didn't think much of it. Now that I've seen it in 3-D, it looks amazing.
Despicable Me: I've reviewed this one a couple times as well. Had no idea this one was also in 3-D. Looks fun. Especially with THAT cast.
Shrek Forever After: I hated this trailer. I hate this title. When have you ever heard "forever after" in a fairy tale. And what happened to the original title "Shrek Goes Fourth"? Well, if it makes me laugh once, it'll be better than Shrek the Third.
What It's About: It's the year 2154 and people still make references to the Wizard of Oz and the War in Iraq. The evil American military-industrial complex sends an obviously Australian marine to infiltrate and learn the ways of a group of people, who are so enlightened they apologize to their food for eating it.
What I Was Expecting: It's James Cameron. I expect bang for my buck, visuals like I've never seen and dialogue that causes physical pain to my ears.
What I Got: Everything except the last part. Okay, there were a few zingers from James Cameron, who apprarently learned to write dialogue by watching Ed Wood movies. But, in general, it's not too bad. Or I was just so dumbfounded by what I was seeing on screen, I didn't notice. I have never seen anything like this film. This film should not even be shown in 2-D. There's no point. It was obviously made to be seen in 3-D. And it's the 3-D effect where Cameron really shows his genius. Most 3-D movies focus on having things come at the screen. Cameron focused on moving things away. It was brilliant how many times there would be a character or two up front and how much movement there would be some 50 feet behind them. That is what makes it seem like things are happening right in front of you. As for the rest of the movie, as brilliant and inventive as the film is visually, plot wise, it's just okay. There is not a single, non-cliche character in the film. The performances are just passable as well. Sam Worthington apparently learned to do an American accent by watching Russell Crowe movies. I did like Giovanni Ribisi, but I liked his character much better when Paul Reiser played him in Aliens. Overall, the film is an experience and needs to be seen in 3-D, in a theatre.
Grade: A-
Oscar Potential: This film will get a lot of Oscar love. Nominations for Picture and Director, for sure. And the technical awards, just check them all off. How many it will actually win is a different story. Visual effects and the sound categories. But that may be it.
Five Random Thoughts:
1. I wonder how much screen time actual actors must have in a movie to make it not qualify as an animated film. Or is it that the animation looks so real in Avatar that you forget that minutes go by where you don't see anything not created with a computer.
2. Invoking Rule 34 on the Na'vi in three...two...one..... (If you don't know Rule 34, google it.)
3. Any particular reason why the 3-D glasses look like Wayfairers?
4. They invent an entire language for this film, create all kinds of new species and the best sound they could come up with for the horse-like creature is an actual horse? And the best name they could think of for the Na'vi home tree is "The Hometree"?
5. James Horner should be shot for the score at the end of the film. If you've written one of the most recognizable film scores in recent memory, you don't rip it off. And it was an emotional moment and I found myself singing along to it, "Near...far...."
Trailer Park:
Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief: I've reviewed this same trailer before, but it was the first time that I recognized the kid playing Percy as the kid from 3:10 to Yuma and the TV series Jack & Bobby.
Salt: Oh, how the mighty have fallen. Wait a second. Hasn't Angelina Jolie been nominated a couple of times for Oscar recently? What on earth is she doing making this crap? The problem with coming up with such an awful title for a film: No one will forget it. You couldn't change it at this point.
The Book of Eli: Denzel Washington, Gary Oldman....and Mila Kunis? Malcolm X, Beethoven and...Meg Griffin? Okay, I'm game. Looks great.
Alice in Wonderland: I'd seen this trailer on the internet before and I didn't think much of it. Now that I've seen it in 3-D, it looks amazing.
Despicable Me: I've reviewed this one a couple times as well. Had no idea this one was also in 3-D. Looks fun. Especially with THAT cast.
Shrek Forever After: I hated this trailer. I hate this title. When have you ever heard "forever after" in a fairy tale. And what happened to the original title "Shrek Goes Fourth"? Well, if it makes me laugh once, it'll be better than Shrek the Third.
Revisiting Titanic
Box office numbers are news under two circumstances. When a movie's opening is huge or its budget is.
Back on December 19, 1997, the most expensive movie up to that point was released. There had been a lot of noise about Titanic's budget, a whopping $200 million. And that's before marketing. It was estimated that Titanic would have to pull in over a half billion dollars worldwide before it even sniffed making a profit. Considering that it was an epic romance, people were questioning the studios' judgment in taking such a risk. There had only been 8 eight movies at that point to pull in that kind of money and six of them featured either aliens (E.T., Star Wars, Independence Day, Men in Black) or dinosaurs (Jurassic Park, Lost World). The other two were The Lion King and Forrest Gump. Titanic, on the other hand, did not have the names Lucas, Spielberg, Disney, Smith or Hanks attached to it. (Side note: Considering Jeff Goldblum starred in 3 of those, why isn't he a bigger star?)
Leonardo DiCaprio was not a household name. Kate Winslet did have an Oscar nomination under her belt, but wasn't exactly a big ticket seller. Who was the biggest name actor in Titanic? Billy Zane? Kathy Bates? Bill Paxton? Not what you would call star wattage. No, the biggest name attached to Titanic was James Cameron. A name that has been mentioned for too many times in his career with the phrase, "most expensive movie ever made." With the release of Avatar, I think this is the fourth time in his career he's held that distinction. Oh, the good old days when people screamed bloody murder over The Abyss' $80 million budget.
People forget that opening weekend for Titanic. You'll hear it mentioned on the news over the next 24 hours, Avatar's $73 million opening and what it means. How it was the second biggest December opening ever (ironically, Will Smith owns that record too.) But it's funny how people don't remember Titanic's opening weekend numbers. Titanic also had the second biggest December opening. Not of all time. Of 1997. The biggest December opening of 1997 happened the week before with a $32 million opening weekend for Scream 2. Titanic opened with $28 million. And executives at Fox and Paramount were panicking. A $28 million opening usually means a domestic box office of about $100 million. $100 million domestic usually means about $150 foreign. $250 worldwide means the studio will get about $125 million. And when you're movie cost $200 million to make and about $100 million to market, a $125 million return on a $300 million investment will NOT please your shareholders. Those kind of numbers end careers and sometimes entire studios. And when you're huge budget movie barely beats the new James Bond (Tomorrow Never Dies opened at $25 million), you're kind of screwed.
Then something interesting happened. You see, Titanic did $28 million over 3 days. That's just under $10 million a day. Now, when a movie makes $28 million in its opening weekend, it usually makes the same the over the four days following. Then in weekend #2, the movie will do about half what it made its first weekend. Theoretically, by the end of weekend #2, Titanic would have made around $70 million. By December 28, Titanic had made $88 million. Nearly 20% higher than expected based on the opening weekend. And things were looking up.
Neither Titanic's first or second weekends were anything extraordinary. Weekend #3 is STILL the fifth highest 3rd weekend of all-time. And on top of that, Titanic made $70 million the Monday-Sunday after weekend #2. Yes, all of a sudden, Titanic was averaging $10 million a day. Weekend #3 was actually $5 million HIGHER than opening weekend. That was unheard of.
Weekend #4? The highest 4th weekend of all time at $28.7 million. But Monday through Sunday, Titanic only made $40 million. A huge slowdown, probably because kids were back in school. The film still hadn't crossed the $200 million plateau.
Well, it didn't take the kids long to head back to Titanic. Weekend #5 (again, the biggest ever) saw Titanic back above $30 million again. To put it in perspective, the second highest grossing film of all-time, The Dark Knight, did $16 million in its fifth weekend when the average ticket price was $3 higher! That's how huge Titanic was at the time. Even with school back in, the Monday-Sunday was nearly $50 million.
Titanic also holds the record for:
Weekend #6 ($25.2 million. 2nd place? The Sixth Sense with $16.5)
Weekend #7 ($25.9 million, it went UP. 2nd place? Passion of the Christ at $15.2)
Weekend #8 ($23.0., followed by Home Alone, $12.6)
Weekend #9 ($32.8 million, Valentine's Day weekend, Home Alone in 2nd again with $9.8) Weekend #10 ($21.0 million, Slumdog Millionaire is #2 with $12.0)
Weekend #11 ($19.6, finally a weekend below $20 million. My Big Fat Greek Wedding is #2 with $8.4)
Weekend #12 ($17.6, Home Alone in 2nd again with $8.2)
They don't really keep track beyond that since most films don't remain in theaters much longer than 3 months. But considering Titanic was still doing better than $10 million per weekend for another FOUR weeks, it's unlikely any film even challenges it. Titanic's final weekend above $10 million was also it's first weekend where it wasn't number one at the box office, losing out to Lost in Space. Which holds a similar distinction to being the one who beat Ken Jennings. No one remembers who beat Titanic, just that it was eventually beaten.
Another amazing statistic about Titanic's numbers: To make it on the list of the biggest 12th week grosses, a film would need to make $3.5 million. That's in week TWELVE. The first weekend that Titanic DIDN'T make that much was in week number TWENTY-TWO! That's two and a half months later! By then, Titanic had made $577 million in the U.S. alone. That's over $100 million more than Star Wars and the Special Edition made combined. And the sick part is that Titanic went on to make ANOTHER $23 million before finally going away. $600 million in the U.S. alone. $1.8 BILLION worldwide. To this day, the second biggest worldwide gross (Lord of the Rings: Return of the King) is over $700 million short of James Cameron's bohemoth.
Titanic.
The only movie to break the $600 million barrier. Until The Dark Knight last year, the only movie to even break $500 million. If Titanic had sold the same number of tickets for the price that people paid to see The Dark Knight, it would have made $921 million at the box office.
When people say something is of "Titanic proportions", I can't help but wonder if they're referring to the boat or the movie.
Back on December 19, 1997, the most expensive movie up to that point was released. There had been a lot of noise about Titanic's budget, a whopping $200 million. And that's before marketing. It was estimated that Titanic would have to pull in over a half billion dollars worldwide before it even sniffed making a profit. Considering that it was an epic romance, people were questioning the studios' judgment in taking such a risk. There had only been 8 eight movies at that point to pull in that kind of money and six of them featured either aliens (E.T., Star Wars, Independence Day, Men in Black) or dinosaurs (Jurassic Park, Lost World). The other two were The Lion King and Forrest Gump. Titanic, on the other hand, did not have the names Lucas, Spielberg, Disney, Smith or Hanks attached to it. (Side note: Considering Jeff Goldblum starred in 3 of those, why isn't he a bigger star?)
Leonardo DiCaprio was not a household name. Kate Winslet did have an Oscar nomination under her belt, but wasn't exactly a big ticket seller. Who was the biggest name actor in Titanic? Billy Zane? Kathy Bates? Bill Paxton? Not what you would call star wattage. No, the biggest name attached to Titanic was James Cameron. A name that has been mentioned for too many times in his career with the phrase, "most expensive movie ever made." With the release of Avatar, I think this is the fourth time in his career he's held that distinction. Oh, the good old days when people screamed bloody murder over The Abyss' $80 million budget.
People forget that opening weekend for Titanic. You'll hear it mentioned on the news over the next 24 hours, Avatar's $73 million opening and what it means. How it was the second biggest December opening ever (ironically, Will Smith owns that record too.) But it's funny how people don't remember Titanic's opening weekend numbers. Titanic also had the second biggest December opening. Not of all time. Of 1997. The biggest December opening of 1997 happened the week before with a $32 million opening weekend for Scream 2. Titanic opened with $28 million. And executives at Fox and Paramount were panicking. A $28 million opening usually means a domestic box office of about $100 million. $100 million domestic usually means about $150 foreign. $250 worldwide means the studio will get about $125 million. And when you're movie cost $200 million to make and about $100 million to market, a $125 million return on a $300 million investment will NOT please your shareholders. Those kind of numbers end careers and sometimes entire studios. And when you're huge budget movie barely beats the new James Bond (Tomorrow Never Dies opened at $25 million), you're kind of screwed.
Then something interesting happened. You see, Titanic did $28 million over 3 days. That's just under $10 million a day. Now, when a movie makes $28 million in its opening weekend, it usually makes the same the over the four days following. Then in weekend #2, the movie will do about half what it made its first weekend. Theoretically, by the end of weekend #2, Titanic would have made around $70 million. By December 28, Titanic had made $88 million. Nearly 20% higher than expected based on the opening weekend. And things were looking up.
Neither Titanic's first or second weekends were anything extraordinary. Weekend #3 is STILL the fifth highest 3rd weekend of all-time. And on top of that, Titanic made $70 million the Monday-Sunday after weekend #2. Yes, all of a sudden, Titanic was averaging $10 million a day. Weekend #3 was actually $5 million HIGHER than opening weekend. That was unheard of.
Weekend #4? The highest 4th weekend of all time at $28.7 million. But Monday through Sunday, Titanic only made $40 million. A huge slowdown, probably because kids were back in school. The film still hadn't crossed the $200 million plateau.
Well, it didn't take the kids long to head back to Titanic. Weekend #5 (again, the biggest ever) saw Titanic back above $30 million again. To put it in perspective, the second highest grossing film of all-time, The Dark Knight, did $16 million in its fifth weekend when the average ticket price was $3 higher! That's how huge Titanic was at the time. Even with school back in, the Monday-Sunday was nearly $50 million.
Titanic also holds the record for:
Weekend #6 ($25.2 million. 2nd place? The Sixth Sense with $16.5)
Weekend #7 ($25.9 million, it went UP. 2nd place? Passion of the Christ at $15.2)
Weekend #8 ($23.0., followed by Home Alone, $12.6)
Weekend #9 ($32.8 million, Valentine's Day weekend, Home Alone in 2nd again with $9.8) Weekend #10 ($21.0 million, Slumdog Millionaire is #2 with $12.0)
Weekend #11 ($19.6, finally a weekend below $20 million. My Big Fat Greek Wedding is #2 with $8.4)
Weekend #12 ($17.6, Home Alone in 2nd again with $8.2)
They don't really keep track beyond that since most films don't remain in theaters much longer than 3 months. But considering Titanic was still doing better than $10 million per weekend for another FOUR weeks, it's unlikely any film even challenges it. Titanic's final weekend above $10 million was also it's first weekend where it wasn't number one at the box office, losing out to Lost in Space. Which holds a similar distinction to being the one who beat Ken Jennings. No one remembers who beat Titanic, just that it was eventually beaten.
Another amazing statistic about Titanic's numbers: To make it on the list of the biggest 12th week grosses, a film would need to make $3.5 million. That's in week TWELVE. The first weekend that Titanic DIDN'T make that much was in week number TWENTY-TWO! That's two and a half months later! By then, Titanic had made $577 million in the U.S. alone. That's over $100 million more than Star Wars and the Special Edition made combined. And the sick part is that Titanic went on to make ANOTHER $23 million before finally going away. $600 million in the U.S. alone. $1.8 BILLION worldwide. To this day, the second biggest worldwide gross (Lord of the Rings: Return of the King) is over $700 million short of James Cameron's bohemoth.
Titanic.
The only movie to break the $600 million barrier. Until The Dark Knight last year, the only movie to even break $500 million. If Titanic had sold the same number of tickets for the price that people paid to see The Dark Knight, it would have made $921 million at the box office.
When people say something is of "Titanic proportions", I can't help but wonder if they're referring to the boat or the movie.
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Movie Review: The Hurt Locker
Who's In It: Jeremy Renner, Anthony Mackie, Brian Geraghty and a dozen other actors you've never heard of. In fact, there's only 4 actors I even recognized.
What It's About: A bomb specialist defuses bombs around Baghdad with the 2 soldiers assigned to protect him.
What I Was Expecting: A lot of Oscar buzz for this film, but it's directed by Kathryn Bigelow, whose claim to fame is friggin' "Point Break." I went in very skeptical.
What I Got: A war film with the tension cranked up so high, I actually found myself closing my eyes because you knew something bad was going to happen. The film is unbelievably intense. It is similar in a sense to the brilliant "Black Hawk Down". The major difference between the films is that in BHD, the characters got trapped in a horrific situation and were simply trying to escape. In "The Hurt Locker", the characters walk into those situations willingly and repeatedly. Another aspect that makes this film so brilliant is that it doesn't pretend to know why, but seems to be looking for the same answer the audience wants to know. There's no real plot in this film. Much like "Platoon", it just follows these soldiers around during their last 40 days or so of their tour in Iraq. But unlike "Platoon", this is not a message picture. It's a character study. The performances are flawless. In fact, the only flaw in the film is when it tries to establish some sort of plot involving an Iraqi boy, but it doesn't dwell too long on it thankfully. Looking at what else is coming out this year, it's quite possible this is the best film we will see in 2009. It would be very hard to top.
Grade: A
Oscar Potential: At the moment, this is the film to beat. Expect nominations, if not wins, for Picture, Director, Actor, Supporting Actor, Screenplay, Score, Cinematography, Film Editing, Sound Mixing, Sound Effects Editing. In fact, I would say the last three are locks to win.
Five Random Thoughts:
1. I love how this film refuses to follow The Law of Economy of Characters. That means that, cameos aside, if there's an actor you recognize, he/she must be important to the story. This film has Guy Pearce, David Morse, Ralph Fiennes and Evangeline Lilly and none of them could be less essential to the film. They have one, maybe two scenes each.
2. The score is excellent, even if it sounds like a carbon copy of the score from "There Will Be Blood."
3. They should show this film at things like the X Games. Recruitment would go up for thrill seekers.
4. I love how finding out who is planting all these bombs is inessential to the film. All that matters is that the bomb be disarmed.
5. I was REALLY hoping for an explanation of what a hurt locker is.
Trailer Park:
Taking Woodstock: It's Ang Lee, so I guess he gets the benefit of the doubt, but this film looks lousy. Soundtrack should be good though.
The Time Traveler's Wife: I wish they'd have done something with this trailer that would make me think it's not as formulaic as it looks.
Shutter Island: This trailer would be MUCH more effective if it had told us less. Looks creepy though.
Sorority Row: I Know What You Did Last Semester? (Eyes rolling.)
What It's About: A bomb specialist defuses bombs around Baghdad with the 2 soldiers assigned to protect him.
What I Was Expecting: A lot of Oscar buzz for this film, but it's directed by Kathryn Bigelow, whose claim to fame is friggin' "Point Break." I went in very skeptical.
What I Got: A war film with the tension cranked up so high, I actually found myself closing my eyes because you knew something bad was going to happen. The film is unbelievably intense. It is similar in a sense to the brilliant "Black Hawk Down". The major difference between the films is that in BHD, the characters got trapped in a horrific situation and were simply trying to escape. In "The Hurt Locker", the characters walk into those situations willingly and repeatedly. Another aspect that makes this film so brilliant is that it doesn't pretend to know why, but seems to be looking for the same answer the audience wants to know. There's no real plot in this film. Much like "Platoon", it just follows these soldiers around during their last 40 days or so of their tour in Iraq. But unlike "Platoon", this is not a message picture. It's a character study. The performances are flawless. In fact, the only flaw in the film is when it tries to establish some sort of plot involving an Iraqi boy, but it doesn't dwell too long on it thankfully. Looking at what else is coming out this year, it's quite possible this is the best film we will see in 2009. It would be very hard to top.
Grade: A
Oscar Potential: At the moment, this is the film to beat. Expect nominations, if not wins, for Picture, Director, Actor, Supporting Actor, Screenplay, Score, Cinematography, Film Editing, Sound Mixing, Sound Effects Editing. In fact, I would say the last three are locks to win.
Five Random Thoughts:
1. I love how this film refuses to follow The Law of Economy of Characters. That means that, cameos aside, if there's an actor you recognize, he/she must be important to the story. This film has Guy Pearce, David Morse, Ralph Fiennes and Evangeline Lilly and none of them could be less essential to the film. They have one, maybe two scenes each.
2. The score is excellent, even if it sounds like a carbon copy of the score from "There Will Be Blood."
3. They should show this film at things like the X Games. Recruitment would go up for thrill seekers.
4. I love how finding out who is planting all these bombs is inessential to the film. All that matters is that the bomb be disarmed.
5. I was REALLY hoping for an explanation of what a hurt locker is.
Trailer Park:
Taking Woodstock: It's Ang Lee, so I guess he gets the benefit of the doubt, but this film looks lousy. Soundtrack should be good though.
The Time Traveler's Wife: I wish they'd have done something with this trailer that would make me think it's not as formulaic as it looks.
Shutter Island: This trailer would be MUCH more effective if it had told us less. Looks creepy though.
Sorority Row: I Know What You Did Last Semester? (Eyes rolling.)
Sunday, July 26, 2009
Movie Review: Harry Potter and The Half Blood Prince
Who's in It: All the Harry Potter regulars plus Jim Broadbent
What It's About: Surprisingly, this is actually the one film in the series that ISN'T about someone trying to kill Harry.
What I Was Expecting: Let's see. It's the SIXTH film in the series, so basically, I was expecting to see how ugly the once cute kids have gotten over the last two years.
What I Got: To be honest, I'm torn. As Harry matures, so do the films. Much less focus on the action, which might explain the attack on the Weasley house, which I don't recall being in the book. Nothing had gone BOOM in a while, so.... For me, the film is paced brilliantly. The scenes that aren't all that important are short and usually montage-like. The scenes that do matter are fleshed out and take their time. Quite the opposite of, say, "The Prisoner of Azkaban" which feels like a 150 minute montage on repeat viewings. The students in this film are allowed to play to their strengths. Daniel Radcliffe, who keeps getting better, carries the film nicely. Emma Watson, who seems to get worse with each film, seems to just get a scene here and there. The kid playing Ron might as well have sat this one out. He wasn't very good, but he wasn't given much to work with anyway.
Grade: A-
Oscar Potential: With the new rules, Oscar potential is huge. If it's a weak year, it will not be shocking to actually see a Best Picture nod. It won't be a contender since there won't be any nods for directing, acting or writing. Editing, Cinematography and Sound are possibilities. Oddly, there's very few special effects.
Five Random Thoughts:
- It was really nice to see Alan Rickman being used more often in this one, although there is not one single scene showing Snape teach Defense of the Dark Arts. Harry's inability to silently cast spells was interesting to me and I was a little disappointed to see it left out.
- I hope they are shooting Maggie Smith's scenes first for the last two films. She looks like can't be with us much longer. For those not in the know, Deathly Hallows will be split into two .
- How has screenwriter Steve Kloves not lost his mind yet? It's one thing for J.K. Rowling to have written the seven books. It's another thing to basically spend 10 years rewriting someone else's work. I can't help but wonder how many times he must have called Rowling to scream "If I'd known that would matter, I would've written it in 4 movies ago!"
- By the end of the series, David Yates will have directed half of them. Will he have any career after the series is over? Both his films feel like Rowling is on the set saying "This is how it should look" and Yates just runs around the set with a camera. It's not directed badly, just not very creatively. Of course, the same could be said about the first two films.
- Why did John Williams walk away from the series? Yes, I know he left after the third film. Just curious why.
Trailer Park:
2012 – Another mega disaster film (figuratively and literally) from Irwin Allen Roland Emmerich, who brought us Independence Day, Godzilla, The Day After Tomorrow (Irwin Allen is responsible for 70s disaster classics like The Towering Inferno, Airport and The Poseidon Advernture). Who the hell knows what the actual plot will be of this one other than that ancient civilizations were right and the world is ending? Looks horribly stupid and I will be seeing it opening night, since my one true guilty pleasure in film is crappy disaster film. I can't get enough of them.
Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief - Can I just say I look forward to the day when there is once again economy in film titles? Anyway, this was little more than a teaser that presumes the viewer has even heard of these books. Apparently, it's like a Harry Potter meets Greek mythology in modern day New York. Okay. I'm game. Right until the words "Directed by Chris Columbus." Sorry. Not gonna see it.
Despicable Me - It's a little daring to preview a movie starring Steve Carrell and not include any of his scenes. If the trailer is any indication, too much set up for too weak of a punchline. Although the Keith Olberman bit is cute.
Sherlock Holmes - Why do I feel like I've written about this one 100 times? Come to think of it....where are all my other reviews? Hmmmm..... I think Guy Ritche is capable, if not consistent. Curious to see how it's handled. My one major concern is the girl floating with the pentagram in the background. I hope the plot involves occult and not the supernatural.
Shorts - Well, the kids in the audience thought this was cute and got quite a few giggles. Just not any from me.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3xJRjKyCM4
Where the Wild Things Are - It's been 30 years since I've read the book and I can't remember a single detail about it. Possibly because I grew up in a Norman Rockwell home. My friends whose parents split when they were young or had traumatic childhoods remember every bit of it. It looks fascinating to me. It's certainly been a long time coming.
Friday, July 3, 2009
A Whole Blog Posting, Shot to Hell
The day after the Oscars, I posted my annual Oscar bliss blog and made my predix for the following year. Obviously, since then, the movie industry decided to capatalize on the free advertising of a nomination Academy decided to expand the number of Best Picture nominees from 5 to 10. Something I lovingly call "The Dark Knight Rule." My previous picks were as follows:
1. Nine
2. The Informant
3. The Lovely Bones
4. Untitled Clint Eastwood (now titled "Invictus")
5. The Boat That Rocked
with the alternates of:
1. Inglourious Basterds
2. The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay
3. The Road
4. Stutter Island
5. Away We Go
We're just over halfway into the movie year, most of those movies have yet to be released and already, there's obvious changes to be made. Unfortunately, not because great movies have been released. Starting at the bottom, "Away We Go" got some great reviews, but has been soon forgotten. The trailer for "Stutter Island" makes the film look mediocre at best. The buzz is still strong for "The Road." "Kavalier & Clay" still hasn't started production. And, unless QT makes a major save, "Inglourious Basterds" will not leave much of a mark.
Moving on to my gut instinct picks, "The Boat That Rocked" has already been released in most other countries and has gotten decent reviews, but whether that translates to U.S. appeal remains to be seen. "Invictus" is a question mark, just like "Million Dollar Baby" was a few years back. I'm still liking "Lovely Bones" chances, along with "Nine", even if it does look like "Chicago Part II". "The Informant" looks like a terrific film, sort of like a "Thank You for Smoking" about corn.
This may not sound like a lot of changes, especially since I still consider four of my five picks to still be serious contenders. But it's the OTHER six nominees that are going to throw people for a loop. If there aren't 10 "serious" films to consider, where are the other nominations going to go. THAT'S where things get interesting. What you are likely to begin to see are movies that people "loved", as opposed to "respected". Pixar's "Up" is likely to benefit from the new rules and that was everyone's first comment. But there are other non-Best Picture type films that could slip in. There's even talk about a movie like "The Hangover" slipping in if it's a particularly weak year. Something people really enjoyed. There's some buzz that J.J. Abrams' "Star Trek" is a strong possibility, particularly since the DVD should be out around Christmas and hitting F5 on the voters' memory. Even the early buzz on the latest "Harry Potter" has people wondering if it could sneak in. But let's SERIOUSLY look at that for a moment.
It January 2010. The day of the nominations. And the nominees for Best Picture are...(Do me a favor and read this OUT LOUD)
Avatar
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
The Hurt Locker
The Informant
Invictus
Lovely Bones
Nine
The Road
Sherlock Holmes
Star Trek
If THAT were the list, any takers that a 10 nomination list would be a one year and out deal?
The big problem is that this was simply the wrong year to try it out. While there are a few Oscar winning directors putting out films this year (Scorsese, Coppola, Eastwood, Jackson, Cameron, Howard, the Coen brothers, Ang Lee, Mendes, Zemeckis), for the most part, outside of Eastwood and Jackson, they aren't doing Oscar type films.
Wow. I keep re-reading that list of directing firepower and can't BELIEVE only two of them are doing films worth considering for an Oscar list. Okay, Mendes did "Away We Go", probably to cheer up from the uber-depressing "Revolutionary Road" and Zemeckis' take on "A Christmas Carol" with Jim Carrey and Gary Oldman does sound intriguing. But Scorsese is doing strange thriller. Coppola is doing whatever the hell he wants and who cares if anyone else cares. Cameron is probably either going to kill his career forever or establish himself as a total visionary. Howard did "Angels and Demons". 'nuff said. The Coen brothers seem to be remaking "You, Me & Dupree". Ang Lee is getting awful notices for his Woodstock film. All we need is Spielberg and Polanski and it's every Best Director winner of the last 15 years. This year should have been better. But it's not. And trying to come up with an additional 5 Best Picture nominees will be a stretch.
What they should have done is changed Best Picture to be more like the new rules for Best Song. In order for a song to be nominated, it must received at least 8.5 percent of the vote. Make it 20 percent for picture and I'm there. Remember, they pick 5 on their ballots, so 20 percent is not too hard. But it will make it a LOT more interesting. There could theoretically be as many as 25 Best Picture nominees, if each received the exact same number of votes. Let's see the Oscar prognosticators try and guess who would win there.
Right now, I'm just hoping "Avatar" bombs and Kathryn Bigelow's rides the huge wave of buzz for "The Hurt Locker" and sweeps so she can give Cameron the finger from the podium and apologize for making "Point Break".
1. Nine
2. The Informant
3. The Lovely Bones
4. Untitled Clint Eastwood (now titled "Invictus")
5. The Boat That Rocked
with the alternates of:
1. Inglourious Basterds
2. The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay
3. The Road
4. Stutter Island
5. Away We Go
We're just over halfway into the movie year, most of those movies have yet to be released and already, there's obvious changes to be made. Unfortunately, not because great movies have been released. Starting at the bottom, "Away We Go" got some great reviews, but has been soon forgotten. The trailer for "Stutter Island" makes the film look mediocre at best. The buzz is still strong for "The Road." "Kavalier & Clay" still hasn't started production. And, unless QT makes a major save, "Inglourious Basterds" will not leave much of a mark.
Moving on to my gut instinct picks, "The Boat That Rocked" has already been released in most other countries and has gotten decent reviews, but whether that translates to U.S. appeal remains to be seen. "Invictus" is a question mark, just like "Million Dollar Baby" was a few years back. I'm still liking "Lovely Bones" chances, along with "Nine", even if it does look like "Chicago Part II". "The Informant" looks like a terrific film, sort of like a "Thank You for Smoking" about corn.
This may not sound like a lot of changes, especially since I still consider four of my five picks to still be serious contenders. But it's the OTHER six nominees that are going to throw people for a loop. If there aren't 10 "serious" films to consider, where are the other nominations going to go. THAT'S where things get interesting. What you are likely to begin to see are movies that people "loved", as opposed to "respected". Pixar's "Up" is likely to benefit from the new rules and that was everyone's first comment. But there are other non-Best Picture type films that could slip in. There's even talk about a movie like "The Hangover" slipping in if it's a particularly weak year. Something people really enjoyed. There's some buzz that J.J. Abrams' "Star Trek" is a strong possibility, particularly since the DVD should be out around Christmas and hitting F5 on the voters' memory. Even the early buzz on the latest "Harry Potter" has people wondering if it could sneak in. But let's SERIOUSLY look at that for a moment.
It January 2010. The day of the nominations. And the nominees for Best Picture are...(Do me a favor and read this OUT LOUD)
Avatar
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
The Hurt Locker
The Informant
Invictus
Lovely Bones
Nine
The Road
Sherlock Holmes
Star Trek
If THAT were the list, any takers that a 10 nomination list would be a one year and out deal?
The big problem is that this was simply the wrong year to try it out. While there are a few Oscar winning directors putting out films this year (Scorsese, Coppola, Eastwood, Jackson, Cameron, Howard, the Coen brothers, Ang Lee, Mendes, Zemeckis), for the most part, outside of Eastwood and Jackson, they aren't doing Oscar type films.
Wow. I keep re-reading that list of directing firepower and can't BELIEVE only two of them are doing films worth considering for an Oscar list. Okay, Mendes did "Away We Go", probably to cheer up from the uber-depressing "Revolutionary Road" and Zemeckis' take on "A Christmas Carol" with Jim Carrey and Gary Oldman does sound intriguing. But Scorsese is doing strange thriller. Coppola is doing whatever the hell he wants and who cares if anyone else cares. Cameron is probably either going to kill his career forever or establish himself as a total visionary. Howard did "Angels and Demons". 'nuff said. The Coen brothers seem to be remaking "You, Me & Dupree". Ang Lee is getting awful notices for his Woodstock film. All we need is Spielberg and Polanski and it's every Best Director winner of the last 15 years. This year should have been better. But it's not. And trying to come up with an additional 5 Best Picture nominees will be a stretch.
What they should have done is changed Best Picture to be more like the new rules for Best Song. In order for a song to be nominated, it must received at least 8.5 percent of the vote. Make it 20 percent for picture and I'm there. Remember, they pick 5 on their ballots, so 20 percent is not too hard. But it will make it a LOT more interesting. There could theoretically be as many as 25 Best Picture nominees, if each received the exact same number of votes. Let's see the Oscar prognosticators try and guess who would win there.
Right now, I'm just hoping "Avatar" bombs and Kathryn Bigelow's rides the huge wave of buzz for "The Hurt Locker" and sweeps so she can give Cameron the finger from the podium and apologize for making "Point Break".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)