Mr. Cinema's Movie Reviews

This SHOULD be a movie!

2012-01-03T16:29:00.000-08:00

Today, I read one of the funniest things I've ever read. It comes from Reddit user RubyRhod. I'll let him tell his story (Warning: NSFL):

"When a kid is being a brat in a noisy and public area, I casually get close to them and fart on their head/face. I'm really tall so it's usually a direct hit."

"It's funniest when the kid notices and doesn't know what to do because I'm a fucking giant and I'LL EAT THEM IF THEY TELL THEIR MOMMY."

"If I decide to stare it's usually with a, "Yeah, what the fuck are you gonna do about it?" look.
I'm about 6'7'' so even when I'm just trying to be friendly (i.e. not farting on a stanger kid's head) and meeting a family member's or friend's kid for the first time, I've noticed they get very 'hide between their mother's legs' intimidated on sight if I'm not sitting down. So it's not hard for me to silence/intimidate a child, especially when I'm trying to.
However, a few times I've been called out. One time I was pretty drunk with a friend at a Target buying Risk (and no, we never finished playing the whole game). This little mexican 5-7 year old with a mohawk, was being an insufferable little shit in the action figure section. I heard him from like 5 aisles over and it was like nails on a chalkboard. I tell my friend, "I'm gonna fart on this kids head. Watch and learn."
I saunter on over to the aisle in question and see the vile little prick calling his mom an "idiot" for not buying him a huge fucking G.I. JOE The Movie vehicle (which pissed me off even more considering how awful that movie was. BUY SOME GOOD TOYS!) "I already bought that one for you and you broke it by throwing it down the stairs" "SHUT UP. I NEED IT. IT'S THE ONLY ONE I DON'T HAVE NOW." The mother was younger than me (I'm mid twenties) and gave a defeated look, "I don't have enough money right now." "YOU ARE AN IDIOT," and continued to just berate and publicly shame this woman.
At the time, I was on a strict Chipotle carnitas burrito diet. And while I was watching all this, my stomach gave me an initial warning gurgle (very courteous stomach) telling me I was about an hour away from punishing the toilet. Serendipity! Destiny!
I inch a bit closer to my prey, inspecting some wrestling toys and pondering the weird homoeroticness of the whole 'sport' in general. The kid shouts "FUCK YOU, I HATE YOU!" The mom rolls her eyes and turns her back to the kid to ignore him. And could you believe it, the kid gets on his hands and knees and starts taking the toy out of the box. It's go time, motherfucker.
I position my back towards him and at this point am like 2 feet away from him. His head is down, getting frustrated with those god damn twisty tie things, and I go for the kill. I bend down to reach for the one of the toys on the lower shelf. At this point, my ass is INCHES away from this kids head.
Now, generally speaking, the best way to go about this is to act casual, drop your belly bomb, then walk away after a few seconds like nothing is out of the ordinary. I usually go one aisle over and listen to the kid's reaction in delight. However, today I couldn't help myself. I have my head tilted back looking at this kid out of the corner of my eye, to ensure accuracy.
I'm so close that from a distance it looks like I'm about to sit on him,. My friend sees this happening and can no longer contain himself. He's covering his mouth, but his 'hee-haw' hyperventilating donkey chortle is fairly audible over the late 90's pop muzak playing on the loudspeakers.
The kid immediately looks up towards the laughter, but can't help but notice there is an ass now directly in his face. Now, I'm trying not to laugh but also panicking as I just made eye contact with him. He furls his brow and I look over in the mother's direction, still back towards us. I relish in the moment and the look on this child's confused and naive face.
The initial blast was mighty and boisterous. I swear I saw his hair blowing in the wind (so to speak). If I wasn't wearing jeans, I think it could have probably blown over an empty soda can. I would call it "a very fun fart" (A++ would buy again). However, what immediately followed that out the chamber was truly horrifying. The fart's implication changed without notice and swiftly. It went from a joyous, dry airhorn squeal to a nefarious, hissing mephitis. I think the little moppet noticed the hateful metamorphosis before even I did because he wretched his neck violently trying to get away from the personified evil being fumigated into his soul. Because of his positioning (hovering over the toy, hands and knee), it was all in vain as the only way out was forward...and forward would mean certain death. I had positioned myself well on the higher ground, free to escape or relent at any time and him, poor and immobilized: biding his time until the cruel attack was over. Obviously, this child needed to re-read Sun Tzu.
In total, it lasted about 4 seconds but for that kid, it must have seemed like time was frozen. The long-term severe brain damage which he no doubt suffered, only added to that effect.
When finished with my bidness (i.e. forcing a little boy to huff my farts), there was a silent, pregnant pause. The kid was clearly shocked and stunned. No one had ever stood up to this dwarf sociopath in his whole life. I had taken the words out of his mouth and filled it with fart.
I make my move first, picking up the toy I was "reaching for" off the low shelf, take a few steps forward and stare at it for a few seconds. On '2 alligator,' the only thing the kid could manage to do was burst into tears. My friend senses danger 'the jig is up' and his head darts for cover. The mom turns around to see her kid with an open toy, crying on the floor and me minding my own business.
She walks up to him and asks what's wrong but the kid can't speak. All he gets out is, "BAWAWAAAWAFARTBAWAWA." It took every fiber in my body not to laugh. I put the toy back on a middle shelf, turn around, give a final nonchalant looksy and then begin to take my exit.
Sensing that his assailant was getting away scot-free, he somehow managed to compose himself for a moment. He shouts, "HE FARTED ON ME!" I could feel him pointing at me but I continued to act like I was just browsing. I was ALMOST around the corner when the mom goes:
"Excuse me....sir....SIR!"
I turn around nonplussed, "Uh...who? Me?" while pointing to myself.
"Yes. Did YOU just FART on my son?"
Weighing my options, I played dumb. "What? I mean, I did fart."
"On my son?"
"Well, I mean, technically speaking...I mean...what is 'on'?"
"Why did you fart on my son?"
At this point the little kid has the look of schadenfreude on his face, happy to see me in trouble. Fuck you, I'M A MAN! I WILL FART ON YOU IF I PLEASE! I turn my attention to the little kid and stare at him, "Because the whole store could hear him being a little, rotten asshole to his mother so I thought I'd come over here and treat him like one."
The mom looks at me, her son and the scattered GI JOE/wrappers/box on the floor. The mom is puzzled as to what to do and says, "Just..just go." That's my cue! I turn around, walk away with little extra step. I look up to see the black orb of security cameras and all the stories on reddit about unjustly having to register as a sex offender flash before my eyes. As soon as I turn the corner, I book it outside as fast as I can while dialing my friend. Like a true friend, he is right out front with the engine running and Risk in the trunk.
We laugh on the car ride back about the whole scene. With a slight hint of seriousness in his tone, my friend asks me:
"Do you do that a lot?"
"Ahhh, not that much. Like once every 6 months or so."
We both knew I was lying. We got to our other friends house, played risk until 4 in the morning while drinking scotch. Overall, I would say it was a preeeetay preeeeetay good day."

Originally from from this link found here.

Why You Want A 3D TV

2011-05-03T21:51:00.000-07:00

I won't bury the lead, so I'll say this: You can watch ALL your favorite movies you have on dvd (and blu-ray) in 3D. Think of your favorite movies. Got it? Now, imagine being able to watch them in 3D. You don't *have* to watch *all* of them that way. But I bet there's quite a few you'd get a real kick out of.

Today, I decided to try out the 2D-to-3D conversion. If you're worried about price, just know that the tv I demoed this all on is the best 50" in-store tv Best Buy has and it retails for $1,249. That's cheap enough to get some 3D glasses too! I actually got giddy watching. True 3D can extend pretty far, but simulated 3D starts with the screen and creates depth to everything behind it. From what I saw today tho, it gets closer than expected! It still can be flat by comparison, but it's amazing to think you can watch a 30 year old movie in 3D at the push of a button. I don't know how the technology works but I can tell you it does work surprisingly well. Esp considering it hit every curveball I tried to throw at it (more on that later).

I knew it was gonna be a slow day, so I brought about 8 dvds with me to test. The results were... astonishing. I didn't bring any blu-rays with me btw. And yet these all looked very good because of the upconverting. I'm not sure my brain could handle all this in blu-ray! Here's a quick break-down of what I tested:

First up! Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King - The first couple scenes I selected were cramped and didn't allow much depth. But then I found Aragorn & Theodin preparing for a battle. I couldn't believe it! The extras walking in front of the cameras were really close! And the extras in the back gave it all some real depth. The camera pans about, surveying the dozens (or hundreds) of extras, and it was quite expansive. Best was when they looked down from a mountain top and you could see the whole battleground stretched miles away!

Next! X-Men - I think I would've liked this one had I sat down to watch from beginning to end. Some things stood out, but nothing to write home about (except for perhaps the landscape Logan's Winnebago drives through where the trees start close and stretch out to the horizon). Also, one moment had trouble focusing on Rogue. Again, prob best to watch beginning to end.

Star Wars III: Revenge of the Sith - If I have a 3D tv by the time this comes out in theaters in 3D, I will not need to go cuz this does the job! The opening space fight is primo demo material, and it did not disappoint. Prob my fave scene out of everything I watched. I'm telling you this movie was designed to be in 3D... and I never realized it! At one point, the camera zooms head first into an exploding ship and the fire gets closer to anything else that I demoed. I may keep this one on-hand just to wow customers.

Empire Strikes Back - If I had to pick a 2nd place for demo (ROTS being 1st), it'd be the AT-AT attacks on Hoth. The A-Wings are flying all over the place taking down giant scale models (). Interestingly, the cockpits are some of the most effective 3D effects. Prob cuz the hull reaches close to the camera and you have the pilot sitting back with the added element of stars, space, and spaceships behind that:

Back To the Future - This worked waaay better than I expected it to. First, the dvd is actually kinda murky compared to the clean-up done for "Empire", so I thought that'd make it hard to work with. Nope. This had the most close-ups of any movie I demoed. When Marty is late and Doc Brown goes into his "Damn... Damn Damn" part, he is quite close to the camera which makes him stand out considerably. But of course, I wanted to see the climax in 3D. Easily the best 3D conversion I saw for the movie. That, and the very end:

"Where we're going, we don't need... roads."

Then I tested a home movie from 2003. Yep. It worked. Surreal.... and cool!

Finally, I tried a Donald Duck cartoon. Wasn't sure what would happen. It was mostly flat. So then it occurred to me: Of course! The animation cells were still 2D but raised from the painted backgrounds. These are layered cells, so of course that's the dimensionality it took! Gotta bring in "Fantasia" for the Ava Maria scene. Best use of multi-layering animation ever done. Should be interesting to see all the layers there.

Next chance I get (hopefully tomorrow), I'm gonna try a 1950s b&w, some home movies from the 80s (and 70s, if I can find some), an old sports event, and a tv show. And for everyone else, ask your local Best Buy home theater rep if it'd be ok to bring a movie or two from home to test it out for yourself! :D

Comparing The Two Takings of Pelham 1 2 3

2010-04-12T14:12:00.000-07:00

The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 (1974) - Walter Matthau plays a subway operator who must outwit a team of hijackers who hold a car of people for hostage for $1M. This is classic 70s cinema in the best way possible. It reminds me a lot of Dog Day Afternoon. It's funny but at times gravely serious. Everyone talks and acts like they're from the Bronx and the whole movie takes a cue from Matthau's humorous nonchalance fed-up-edness, making it wildly entertaining. For example, when Matthau tells that the lead hijacker has a British accent, he relays "He's either English or a fruitcake." Cheesy The story is a battle of the minds. I just love it when the heroes and the villains have enormous respect for each other. Everyone plays fairly (tho the hot-headed Mr. Grey henchman has his moments). And it's also an action movie complete with a ticking clock. It builds up halfway, and then unfolds non-stop action for the second half. Truly a well-done screenplay.

The Taking of Pelham 1 2 3 (2009) - Within seconds, I could tell you it's by Tony Scott (I somehow missed the "A Tony Scott Film" opening credit so the Produced By credit was validating). It's all flashy colors with ostensibly glamorous jobs like subway dispatcher. The original looks like United 93 by comparison. It foraskes the original's realism for Bruckheimer-style gloss. The biggest difference is Robert Shaw's calm collected villain is replaced by John Travolta's Broken Arrow-style criminally insane one, leaving little to no character development for the other villains or passengers. Also, the introduction of wifi and (sigh) a subversive video chat on a laptop. The differences actually spiral exponentially (esp starting at the halfway point), so that by the end, they're almost two different stories.

By no means is the remake a bad movie. It's as good as a well done music video, and the original story really elevates it (it's hard to screw up a story this well written). But the absolute best part of the remake was introducing me to the original as well as offering a fun thrill ride where you don't have to turn your brain off to enjoy it (well, maybe just a little). I look forward to rewatching the original (4 stars). I could take or leave the remake (3 solid stars).

My Favorite Movies of 2009

2010-02-28T17:31:00.000-08:00

This list will be surprising for many. Most notably for putting "Avatar" and "Funny People" so high and for putting "The Hurt Locker", "Inglourious Basterds", "Moon" and (especially) "Up" too low. But this list isn't YOUR list. It's MY list. I could easily make a list that you could agree with. However, this is my PERSONAL favorite movies of 2009. Biggest factors for ranking are a combination of how much fun and enjoyment I had watching a movie and how much I'd like to return to that movie. So let the controversy begin:

These movies get an "A":

1. Avatar
2. (500) Days of Summer
3. I Love You, Man
4. Star Trek
5. Zombieland
6. Funny People
7. District 9
8. Taken
9. Fantastic Mr. Fox
10. Julie & Julia
11. Inglourious Basterds
12. The Hangover
13. Watchmen (note: this movie has grown on me over time)

B's:

14. Monsters Vs. Aliens
15. Michael Jackson: This Is It!
16. Princess & the Frog
17. Precious
18. Humpday
19. Coraline
20. The Hurt Locker
21. Moon
22. Up In the Air
23. X-Men Origins: Wolverine
24. Big Fan

C's:

25. Anvil! The Story of Anvil
26. Where the Wild Things Are
27. State of Play
28. Push
29. Capitalism: A Love Story
30. Paranormal Activity (note: avoids getting an F for the final scene)

D's:

31. Up (note: talking dogs flying bi-planes just loses me)
32. It Might Get Loud
33. Disney's A Christmas Carol
34. Knowing

F's
35. Bruno
36. Transformers 2

So... have you calmed down from my low ranking of "Up" yet? Haha. Hm... 36 movies. That may be a new record for me. The three movies I started watching but abandoned (out of sheer not-in-the-mood-ness) are "Ponyo", "Drag Me To Hell", and "Terminator: Salvation".

Here are the movies I haven't seen yet that I plan on seeing (in order of how much I want to see them):
New Moon (+RiffTrax)
Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs
Food, Inc.
Harry Potter and Whichever One Came Out This Year
Whip It
The Informant!
Adventureland
Sherlock Holmes
Jennifer's Body
Mike Judge's Extract
In the Loop
White Ribbon
A Single Man
An Education
A Serious Man
Bright Star
Away We Go
Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus
Men Who Stare At Goats

My Oscar Nom Reaction 2010

2010-02-02T06:38:00.001-08:00

I woke up this morning at 7:30am to flip around the news channels and land on CNN (the only news network carrying the Oscar noms live). So, "Hurt Locker" and "Avatar" tie with 9 noms each (way too many for "Hurt Locker" imo considering it's technical achievements aren't *that* astounding). The $16M indie vs. the $2B blockbuster. Snobs can rest easy. "Hurt Locker" will grab Best Pic and Director. "Avatar" could sneak Best Director. At this point, "Hurt Locker" is a surefire Best Pic win. Here is my take on things along with my predictions (a "-" denotes who I think will win):

Actor in a Leading Role

-* Jeff Bridges in “Crazy Heart”
* George Clooney in “Up in the Air”
* Colin Firth in “A Single Man”
* Morgan Freeman in “Invictus”
* Jeremy Renner in “The Hurt Locker”

REACTION: No real surprises here considering this is pretty competitive. Maybe Morgan Freeman is the only thing that comes close, but apparently he was the best element of "Invictus". Jeff Bridges will win, and it will be a message of long-time-coming.

Actor in a Supporting Role

* Matt Damon in “Invictus”
* Woody Harrelson in “The Messenger”
* Christopher Plummer in “The Last Station”
* Stanley Tucci in “The Lovely Bones”
-* Christoph Waltz in “Inglourious Basterds”

REACTION: I called Christoph Waltz as this year's winner right after seeing "Inglourious Basterds". My prediction stays tho Plummer could easily win for seniority (typical for this category). Both Woody Harrelson and Stanley Tucci had a stellar year, tho Tucci has a good shot at this. Matt Damon is the biggest surprise here.

Actress in a Leading Role

-* Sandra Bullock in “The Blind Side”
* Helen Mirren in “The Last Station”
* Carey Mulligan in “An Education”
* Gabourey Sidibe in “Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire”
* Meryl Streep in “Julie & Julia”

REACTION: I had a bet going that Bullock would not get nominated. Now she is the front-runner. Just watched "Julie & Julia" and, tho I don't normally root for Meryl Streep, I think it is a truly transforming performance and wholly delightful in every possible way. But this being Streep's 16th nom, Bullock will walk away with the gold. Congrats to a deserving Gabourey Sidibe too.

Actress in a Supporting Role

* Penélope Cruz in “Nine”
* Vera Farmiga in “Up in the Air”
* Maggie Gyllenhaal in “Crazy Heart”
* Anna Kendrick in “Up in the Air”
-* Mo’Nique in “Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire”

REACTION: "Precious" is well done in may regards, but I'd say Mo'Nique comes out on top as the best element. I'm rooting for her, and she is the favored one. Glad to see "Up In the Air" get the double noms. Wouldn't be upset if Vera Farmiga won considering how well she did.

Animated Feature Film

* “Coraline” Henry Selick
* “Fantastic Mr. Fox” Wes Anderson
* “The Princess and the Frog” John Musker and Ron Clements
* “The Secret of Kells” Tomm Moore
-* “Up” Pete Docter

REACTION: The first truly competitive year for Animated Films since its inception in 2001. I called all these except that I predicted "Mary & Max" to get the darkhorse nom. Instead it went to "The Secret of Kells" (something totally off my radar). Rooting for "Mr. Fox" or even "Coraline", but it's no question that "Up" will win.

Directing

* “Avatar” James Cameron
-* “The Hurt Locker” Kathryn Bigelow
* “Inglourious Basterds” Quentin Tarantino
* “Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire” Lee Daniels
* “Up in the Air” Jason Reitman

REACTION: I love this year's directors. They could've done well with 10 nominations. Any one of these in a different year could win. I'm a huge fan of both Reitman and Tarantino but it's a head-to-head with the formerly married Bigelow and Cameron. Cameron has a shot, but Bigelow will win.

Best Picture

* “Avatar” James Cameron and Jon Landau, Producers
* “The Blind Side” Nominees to be determined
* “District 9” Peter Jackson and Carolynne Cunningham, Producers
* “An Education” Finola Dwyer and Amanda Posey, Producers
-* “The Hurt Locker” Nominees to be determined
* “Inglourious Basterds” Lawrence Bender, Producer
* “Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire” Lee Daniels, Sarah Siegel-Magness and Gary Magness, Producers
* “A Serious Man” Joel Coen and Ethan Coen, Producers
* “Up” Jonas Rivera, Producer
* “Up in the Air” Daniel Dubiecki, Ivan Reitman and Jason Reitman, Producers

REACTION: Two surprises here. One good; one bad. The good: "District 9". It really is an amazing well-put-together movie and by far the most ingenious on the list. The bad: "The Blind Side"!?!?! This one really upsets me. I'm convinced there are over a handful of other films that deserve higher recognition (I would include "Star Trek" and "The Hangover" among them). I really think this has more to do with appealing to viewers than anything else. Shameful. Then again, this *is* why they increased the ballot to 10 noms this year. It's Cameron vs. Bigelow again. Bigelow will come out on top (to casual viewers' dismay... because they haven't seen it).

Writing (Adapted Screenplay)

* “District 9” Written by Neill Blomkamp and Terri Tatchell
* “An Education” Screenplay by Nick Hornby
* “In the Loop” Screenplay by Jesse Armstrong, Simon Blackwell, Armando Iannucci, Tony Roche
* “Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire” Screenplay by Geoffrey Fletcher
-* “Up in the Air” Screenplay by Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner

REACTION: Really tough call on the winner. They're all so good. Would this be Reitman's first Oscar if he won? Anyway, really glad to see "District 9" on there. This puts "In the Loop" back on my radar. It seemed "too British" kind of funny and highly political, but I may wind up watching it now.

Writing (Original Screenplay)

* “The Hurt Locker” Written by Mark Boal
-* “Inglourious Basterds” Written by Quentin Tarantino
* “The Messenger” Written by Alessandro Camon & Oren Moverman
* “A Serious Man” Written by Joel Coen & Ethan Coen
* “Up” Screenplay by Bob Peterson, Pete Docter, Story by Pete Docter, Bob Peterson, Tom McCarthy

REACTION: I'm guessing a three-way race among "Hurt Locker", "Basterds" and "Up". Since I can't guess among them, I'll go with my fave, "Basterds". To see Tarantino on stage (not seen since '94) would be great.

Art Direction

-* “Avatar” Art Direction: Rick Carter and Robert Stromberg; Set Decoration: Kim Sinclair
* “The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus” Art Direction: Dave Warren and Anastasia Masaro; Set Decoration: Caroline Smith
* “Nine” Art Direction: John Myhre; Set Decoration: Gordon Sim
* “Sherlock Holmes” Art Direction: Sarah Greenwood; Set Decoration: Katie Spencer
* “The Young Victoria” Art Direction: Patrice Vermette; Set Decoration: Maggie Gray

REACTION: "The Young Victoria" is the one least on my radar, but there's always a place reserved for period pics like this. No clue who will win, but I want it to go to "Avatar".

Cinematography

-* “Avatar” Mauro Fiore
* “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince” Bruno Delbonnel
* “The Hurt Locker” Barry Ackroyd
* “Inglourious Basterds” Robert Richardson
* “The White Ribbon” Christian Berger

REACTION: "Harry Potter" is a real surprise here as well as (but not as much) the Best Foreign Film front-runner "White Ribbon". I'm hoping something other than "Hurt Locker" or "Harry Potter" will win, so, let's say, uh, "Avatar".

Costume Design

* “Bright Star” Janet Patterson
* “Coco before Chanel” Catherine Leterrier
* “The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus” Monique Prudhomme
* “Nine” Colleen Atwood
-* “The Young Victoria” Sandy Powell

REACTION: I've heard of them all but only want to see a couple of 'em. I'll take a blind guess and go with the period drama.

Documentary (Feature)

* “Burma VJ” Anders Østergaard and Lise Lense-Møller
* “The Cove” Nominees to be determined
* “Food, Inc.” Robert Kenner and Elise Pearlstein
-* “The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers” Judith Ehrlich and Rick Goldsmith
* “Which Way Home” Rebecca Cammisa

REACTION: Best Doc has the best record for snubbing when it comes to noms (Foreign Film is a close second). "Food, Inc." is the only one I've heard of (which means it probably won't win). I'll go with the most politically themed as the winner.

Film Editing

-* “Avatar” Stephen Rivkin, John Refoua and James Cameron
* “District 9” Julian Clarke
* “The Hurt Locker” Bob Murawski and Chris Innis
* “Inglourious Basterds” Sally Menke
* “Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire” Joe Klotz

REACTION: Wow. I've seen every one of those and walked away from each one of them noticing how well they were edited. I'll say "Avatar" waging on something of a technical sweep.

Foreign Language Film

* “Ajami” Israel
* “El Secreto de Sus Ojos” Argentina
* “The Milk of Sorrow” Peru
* “Un Prophète” France
* “The White Ribbon” Germany

REACTION: The only one on my radar is "White Ribbon". A WWI movie from Germany with noms in other categories? Yeah, it should win (tho, like, Best Doc, it's very unpredictable).

Makeup

-* “Il Divo” Aldo Signoretti and Vittorio Sodano
* “Star Trek” Barney Burman, Mindy Hall and Joel Harlow
* “The Young Victoria” Jon Henry Gordon and Jenny Shircore

REACTION: Haha! "Star Trek"? I really want that to win, but I'm going with the least known one here.

Music (Original Score)

* “Avatar” James Horner
* “Fantastic Mr. Fox” Alexandre Desplat
* “The Hurt Locker” Marco Beltrami and Buck Sanders
* “Sherlock Holmes” Hans Zimmer
-* “Up” Michael Giacchino

REACTION: "Hurt Locker" had a score? Whatever. Giacchino is loved. "Up" is adored. It will win.

Music (Original Song)

* “Almost There” from “The Princess and the Frog” Music and Lyric by Randy Newman
* “Down in New Orleans” from “The Princess and the Frog” Music and Lyric by Randy Newman
* “Loin de Paname” from “Paris 36” Music by Reinhardt Wagner Lyric by Frank Thomas
* “Take It All” from “Nine” Music and Lyric by Maury Yeston
* “The Weary Kind (Theme from Crazy Heart)” from “Crazy Heart” Music and Lyric by Ryan Bingham and T Bone Burnett

REACTION: Glad to see TP&TF get a couple noms. Jeff Bridge's acting has really helped "Crazy Heart" get recognition, and I'm guessing it will push this into a win. Nominations aren't too hard to guess for this category, but the winners are usually not as predictable.

Visual Effects

* “Avatar” Joe Letteri, Stephen Rosenbaum, Richard Baneham and Andrew R. Jones
* “District 9” Dan Kaufman, Peter Muyzers, Robert Habros and Matt Aitken
* “Star Trek” Roger Guyett, Russell Earl, Paul Kavanagh and Burt Dalton

I have no reaction to Documentary (Short Subject), Short Film (Animated), Short Film (Live Action), Sound Editing, or Sound Mixing.

And for what it's worth, next to Billy Crystal, Steve Martin is my favorite Oscar host and he will be co-hosting with Alec Baldwin on Sunday, March 7th (my birthday!). Check back here later for my reaction to the broadcast.

2010-01-15T15:56:00.000-08:00

Precious - I thought this was gonna drain me emotionally but several people said I should really see it. And I'm really glad I did. It wasn't the Holocaust movie style drag you through the mud kind of emotional trainwreck I expected it to be. It was actually... entertaining. Entertaining the way "Requiem For A Dream" is wholly reprehensible yet still entertaining. So "Precious" isn't as monumental as RFaD, but it certainly has its parallels, particularly in the fact that they both share imaginative dream sequences that by their sheer exuberance shows how deep their delusions are. What I love most is the directing and the acting. Lee Daniels takes your typical black-girl-down-on-her-luck story and makes it imaginative and original (by mainstream standards) as well as intense and entertaining. The acting is stellar. This year's "Doubt" (though again, maybe not to the exact same caliber). I hate to say it, but i think Mo'nique deserves an Oscar for her performance as Precious' mother. I also was surprised to enjoy Mariah Carey's solemn performance (and there's one line in particular that sheds light on why she got the role). Precious wants to know what race Mariah Carey's character is but can't pinpoint it. "What are you? Black? Mexican? What?" Carey never gives her an answer, "What color do you think I am?" It hits Precious pretty hard in context. Best Pic shoo-in? With ten slots open, of course. But I say it deserves it on an indie-level sort of little-movie-that-could. Expect to see some acting noms somewhere. The leading 4 characters deserve recognition. I expect to see a nom for Best Adapted Screenplay as well. I would argue not much happens in the story, but the emotional story being told is phenomenal. Also, the original material makes it particularly difficult to adapt, so congrats to the screenwriter (and director) who pulled it off so well.

500 Days of Summer - This year's "Juno" or "Once". My 2nd favorite movie of the year (seriously, I had a LOT of fun watching "Avatar"). 500DoS is an indie film of my favorite kind in that it's fun and takes different approaches to typical boy-meets-girl fare. It has several stand-out, original pieces including a musical number and some other moments I dare not spoil. This is the movie that I watch a dozen mediocre to bad to highly-acclaimed-but-I-don't-get-it movies for. To find hidden gems such as this. It was so bittersweet when it was over because I know it'll be awhile till I find a movie I like this much again. Complaints against it I can see are maybe, like "Juno", it tries pretty hard to be inventive/original/hip. But I loved "Juno" and I don't think either of these movies reach beyond their grasp.

Paranormal Activity - "Blair Witch" does the same thing only better (btw, I love BWP so take that for what it's worth). Too much set-up, and there's a ripped-from-The-Exorcist moment that had my eyes rolling. However, the bump-in-the-night moments (the scenes where the couple lay in bed each night) really had me peeking through my fingers. I literally had to shut my eyes for the whole last 5-10mins. When it was over, I rewound it and watched the ending without sound just to see what I missed. I have never come close to ever doing that at a movie. Scariest movie of all time? Not hardly. "The Descent" left me unsettled for days. "Blair Witch" had better acting (now what does that tell you). But I'll admit, I wasn't happy lying down to sleep that night because my mind kept wandering back to the movie. ::shudder:: (I should note also that I'm not a fan of horror movies).

A Movie-Goers' Open Mind

2010-01-04T14:42:00.000-08:00

This is a brilliantly succinct NPR article about (I think) snobbery:

Let's Resolve Together To Make 2010 The Year We Leave The Window Open
by Linda Holmes

"Familiarity breeds contempt."

Perhaps it is this little saying, or some variation of it, that convinces people that disdain and discernment are the same thing: that the more things you roll your eyes at, the smarter you must be. After all, you have the most contempt, so you must have the most familiarity. Under this model, to enjoy art or entertainment is to be conquered, but to dismiss it is to defeat it. And the more other people have been conquered by something, the more it distinguishes you to dismiss it.

After all, when you enjoy or respect or are affected by a movie, you are usually responding to it at least in part as its creators intended. In a sense, you've been, for that period of time, obedient. The director and the screenwriters and the actors and the crew, they led you, and you followed. They set a trap -- of suspense, or romantic tension, or comedic payoff -- and you fell right into it. The director said, "Hey, that's a mighty nice henway," and you said, "What's a henway?" and the director said, "About three pounds." Sucker.

The problem is that if you watch something and you don't enjoy it, then you may still have been taken. They got you to go, to watch, to read -- they got you to try it, because you didn't know enough not to.

Sucker.

The only way, under this rather bizarre up-is-down model of critical thinking, to defeat something is to proclaim that not only are you not enough of a sucker to enjoy it; you are not enough of a sucker to even watch it -- or to listen to it, or to read it. "I wouldn't waste my money." "I wouldn't waste my time." "I wouldn't waste the effort." And, of course, the natural follow-up: "And I don't think much of people who would."

Toward a different way, after the jump.

For those with this approach, it is literally the very fact that they have no direct knowledge of the topic at hand that makes their reactions a sign of especially discerning tastes. They have proved their independence, in short, by being too clever to be fooled into obtaining any independent knowledge. As to things they expect not to like, they have removed the part of the critical process where you experience the thing, moving directly from preconception to evaluation, so the only things they even experience are the things they already think they're going to like.

Suckers.

People who have written off all Hollywood movies, or all television, or all popular music (or all rap, or all thrillers, or all romantic comedies), on the basis of a presupposition about quality that blankets an entire medium or genre are regrettable for their corrosive attitudes, yes. But they're even more regrettable for what they're missing. Rare indeed is the enormous vat of nothing but bathwater; there's almost always a baby in there somewhere.

Most of all, however, they are regrettable for their contributions to a giant cultural conversation increasingly polluted by detached, uninformed disdain. If familiarity breeds your contempt, that's fine. That's essential. If you saw the movie and you hated it, or you read the book and you hated it, or you watched the show and you hated it, get out there and holler. Holler. Argue vigorously, refuse to settle. That's part of how vibrant cultures are built. But if unfamiliarity breeds your contempt, then it contributes little to the discussion.

In short, this year, let's not do this. Let's not prize the things we don't know anything about and show them off like a bottle-cap collection. "I can't believe anyone reads John Grusham or whatever his name is." "I can't believe you're talking about Britney Spears, whose music I have never heard." "I haven't watched anything on television in 20 years, and everything I haven't seen has been absolutely worthless."

That's my resolution for 2010: Let's hope everything is good, even though we know much of it won't be. Let's hope to be pleasantly surprised instead of making sure we're never disappointed. Let's leave the window open, just in case there's a breeze.

[[Original article can be found here: http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2009/12/lets_resolve_together_to_make_1.html]]

"Transoformers 2" and "Where the Wild Things Are"

2009-10-25T13:53:00.000-07:00

Transformers 2
What a mess. I'm pretty sure the script was written by a 14-year-old boy. It wasn't 100% bad. It had a lot of action, special effects were well done (although I'm getting mighty sick of this CGI crap), and I laughed at maybe a couple jokes. Having read every I-can't-believe-they-put-that-in-the-movie (dog humping, mom on pot, racist robots [did these guys have a purpose; did I miss an introduction?]), I was prepared for everything that came my way which really eased the pain. I say, out of 4 stars, I rank it 1 and a half stars.

Where the Wild Things Are
Very well done. Spike Jonze creates an amazing world, very unique akin to his tastes. The movie, in a word, is precocious, much like an 11 year old's imagination. An 11-year-old dealing with feelings of rage. I certainly had my bouts at that age, and this movie encapsulates those feelings in a very raw sort of way. It's not fanciful yet there is still something very magical about it. And it's rather melancholy. Will kids get it? Hard to say. It's like the opening quote of "The Breakfast Club". Kids already know what it's like cuz they're living it. This is for those who wish to revisit that time without rose colored glasses. I can't say I loved the movie, but I can say I greatly admire it far more than I liked it (if that makes sense). It looks gorgeous, has a gritty indie feel, and strays far away from any cliche (which might be its greatest credit). I loved the trailer but did not love the movie. However, that doesn't detract from the movie. It just means I'll watch the trailer 50 more times before I see the movie again. Very glad I got to see it. There are def people who won't "get it" (it's anything but mainstream), but it's absolutely worth it for those who will. I say, out of 4 stars, it ranks, at its lowest, 2 and a half stars (it meanders quite a bit halfway through), and at its highest, 4 stars (it's simply beautiful and joyous to meander in such a world).

Kicking things back into gear with 44(!) reviews!

2009-10-07T05:36:00.000-07:00

So, I figured I have some catching up to do. I went back and scrounged up 44 reviews (some very detailed; some only a sentence long). They go in descending order (from recent to oldest). Here we go:

Gimme Shelter - Documentary that chronicles a deadly Rolling Stones concert. I was very impressed with this. It perfectly captures the descent of a crowd's decency, and I think the crowd (not the Stones) are the real star. If "Woodstock" was about peace and psychedelia, then "Gimme Shelter" is about chaos and barbarism. Near the end, you see a girl in the front row in tears fighting her emotions to try and enjoy the Stones performing right in front of her. That encapsulates the tone of the doc perfectly. I didn't expect to like this as much as I did. I love the format of how the Stones reacting to the footage in retrospect carries the narrative of what actually happened. If there's one thing missing from documentaries, it would be any cinematic flair such as this. Consequently, if you bring a gun to a concert and are hopped up on meth, don't be so surprised if you leave in a body bag. That's just stupid if you ask me.

The Atoimic Brain (MST3k) - One of the few movies they've done where I had fun with the movie just for itself and wouldn't mind seeing again sans commentary. I love that the girls' accents are deplorable ("Dick Van Dyke had a better accent!"). It's all too obvious that they were hired for their looks and not their talents. Anyway, hilarious as always and quite fun if just a little dry in places.

The Hurt Locker - Story of the life of a bomb defuser in Iraq. Touted as the greatest Iraq movie yet (What was the reigning champ? Yeah, I dunno either). The problem with all the other ones is that they take the Iraq war's politics to task. This was just a well-done war story that takes place in Iraq (and couldn't be told anywhere else due to the job position). The director Kathryn Bigelow pulls out some stunning performances out of her unknown actors and creates compelling, nail-biting (albeit straight-forward and realistic) action sequences. The movie doesn't have a conventional plot, but the ticking clock of just making it to the end of the tour of duty alive is enough... esp when your bomb defuser is something of a wild card with an affinity to adrenaline rushes. "War is a drug" the opening quote proclaims, and this story makes great commentary for that. The advantages, the downside, the consequences. One element that I loved here that's missing in other Iraq movies: The soldiers react on instinct and are rewarded for their suspicions. Before, it's always "taken by surprise", so it's really nice to see U.S. soldiers' fears of insurgents confirmed instead of them always killing an innocent or dying (yes, yes, we get that... war is evil... blah blah blah). I think I found this to be darker with a better statement about war than just "war sucks". And it's not afraid to be humorous at times either. Audiences need that relief, otherwise they will become numb with tension, so that's a real testament to the power of this movie imo. Highly recommended!

The Goods - Jeremy Piven's a hired gun to sell cars for a failing business. Second time seeing it. Funny enough. Laughed harder during certain parts cuz I was anticipating them. Other parts I laughed really hard at before weren't as funny. Still fun.

Ghost - Directed by Jerry "Airplane!" Zucker, this movie is waaay better than it's supposed to be. Even with its flaws, it still comes off so endearingly. RIP Swayze. Cry

Anvil: The Story of Anvil - Watched under the pretenses of "The Real Life Spinal Tap". It's fascinating but not as charming as I'd hoped it to be. Definitely full of kooky people which makes it fun, but the struggle the band goes through was painful to watch sometimes.

Beyond the Mat - I don't know nor care much about pro wrestling. Now before you hit me with that folding chair, I'll say that this doc was very competent, informant and insightful. I was hoping for The Wrestler: The True Story. But Aronofsky's pic was like the focused narrative whereas this was more like A Survey of All the Behind the Scenes Stuff. Very nice that it covered pretty much every route a wrestler can go... but it sacrifices any focused narrative to accomplish that (excluding the vignette approach of individual performers). One major issue I had though. The documentarian violates the cardinal rule (don't interfere with your subject) by showing Mankind the horrified reaction of his wife and kids while at a show. "I feel like a bad father," Mankind says. Did he quit soon after that? He shouldn't have. The lesson should've been don't take your friggin wife & kids to the show!! The kids are def too young to understand what's going on. Don't quit. Just don't show them their dad getting beat the living snot out of him! Geez.

Starman - I was looking for something like "Ghost" and felt this might be similar (and in theme, it's exactly the same). Jeff Bridges is an alien recreated in the image of his widowed wife, Karen Allen and must get to Arizona in 3 days. Man, John Carpenter has got to be one of the most liberal users of B-roll footage of any working director. It reminds me of Ed Wood sometimes. The difference of course being Carpenter uses his for atmosphere and pacing whereas Wood used his as filler. Still... that's a LOT of b-roll footage! A good, notable sci-fi flick. I would watch it again if a friend really, really wanted to... but prob not of my own volition. BIG issue with the ending though.

Loose Change - Was 9/11 an inside job? This propag--documentary says yes. Watched this (again) because SModcaster Kevin Smith makes a good point: "Yeah, I know it's not real, but man, it's compelling." "JFK" is in my Top 3 movies of all time, so yeah, I'm gonna like this. I was mad and intrigued by the end, but a quick "Anti Loose Change" google search put things to rest. It's like a horror movie where the relief doesn't come until after you've left the theater and at home chillin on the computer.

I tried watching Farenheit 911 for the same thrill. Three of my fave docs of all time are "Bowling For Columbine", "Roger & Me" and "Fog of War". This might be my least favorite of Michael Moore's docs. Even as I watched it in theaters, I felt it was far too biased. He does not let up on Bush for anything. Compared to this, "Loose Change" comes off as even-handed and open-minded (a reason why I love "Bowling For Columbine"). I had to stop watching a half-hour in. It forsakes insight/discussion for finger-wagging. The best/worst part is that Obama could get blame for similar (albeit for the lesser things) but you know Moore wouldn't utter a peep about it. This doc is the bizarro Fox News equivalent. The liberal rioting during the presidential cavalcade in the beginning looks exactly like the conservative rioting seen of late. We're through the looking glass here, people.

Matrix: Revolutions (+RiffTrax) - Hilarious. Horrible movie. It's a Matrix RiffTrax. Of course, it's great. Also, I'm not convinced that there isn't a subtle nod to our Lost In Space iRiff at the 1:04:00 mark ("Quit shovin', Bob").

Puppet Master - Low budget, solid B movie. Fun enough. Puppets are best as supporting characters

Puppet Master II - Total waste of time. Not bad enough to be a fun bad movie. Uninteresting... which is like the biggest insult for a movie.

The Castle - Quirky, lovable little Aussie film that should get the recognition that only few great indie films get. I can't see anyone not liking this (Imrahil excluded).

Borat - Surprisingly still as hilarious as the first time I saw it (despite the incessant catch-phrase spewing it spawned), although I notice more and more staged moments the more I see it.

Lion King 1 1/2 - It's a Disney Direct-To-Video movie. Whaddaya expect? Most surprising thing was how well it was animated. Even if it's not a great movie, the animation is remarkably fluid, very character driven and sometimes even (dare I say?) beautiful.

The Goods - I chuckled at parts. I don't know if it was worth my $9... except that I laughed harder than I ever have at a movie ever before during one specific part. The beauty of it was that I knew very, very little about the movie going in. Unfortunately, if you ask anybody who saw it, they'll bring the scene up thereby ruining it for you. I was literally falling out of my seat and almost hit the floor and didn't stop till I got home (all this with only 6 people in the theater). Oh... and I absolutely doubt YouTubing would help. In fact, I would doubt I'd laugh at all with the scene completely isolated (and expected).

The Wrestler - Hadn't seen it since it was in theaters. Didn't think I'd revisit it ever again. But I had to revisit it just to bask in Mickey Rourke's performance. The desire to see it again spurned from my newly found favorite podcast Creative Screenwriter. That podcast should be included on every dvd as a separate audio track.

Meet the Spartans - This is about two universes collapsing on themselves. One is the movie "300", complete with plot and characters, wherein the other has all of 2007's cultural references invading. Will you survive watching this? I was sitting in Starbucks, checking out RedBox.com, and said outloud to myself, "Am I in the mood to watch this!?" I watched the trailer for it on YouTube. Sure enough, it seemed to hit some sick part of me. Maybe it was watching "Plan 9" that made me seek out another trainwreck. I certainly found it. I had heard how infamously Britney Spears just comes out of nowhere. But I got it (sort of). I mean, the setup is Leonides is asked to stop kicking people into a pit, but people who you want to see kicked into a pit keep showing up. It may not be funny, but that's at least a joke. But there were "jokes" that I had to rewind the movie for because I thought I missed something. Nope. Incoherency at its finest. Like when the queen dons the venom costume and the villain dude turns into sand. Why? Because it was in Spider-Man 3. That's it. NO FRIGGIN REASON other than that. As best as I can tell, this was written by two frat-dudes who wrote a screenplay one night after watching "Airplane!" That's not an exaggeration. That's exactly how it plays out. It isn't even long enough to be a movie. It's about an hour long, then the credits roll, then 10mins of deleted scenes, then 5 more mins of credits roll. That's when I realized that this movie hitting #1 at the box office was the moment the human race jumped the shark.

The Descent - I'd heard it was the best horror movie in 20 years. Indeed. It applies the "Jaws" method of playing your villain distant till the end of the movie. I got an hour into this movie and thought maybe I had the whole advertising wrong (of which I've seen slim to none). Maybe it was just a creepy "Vertical Limit" meets "The Poseidon Adventure"... with spelunking... or maybe it's just friggin brilliant. I seriously have not been scared by a movie like this for a long, long, long time. It affected me the whole day and I am still more hesitant before entering a dark room. I highly, highly recommend it.

Battle Royale - Japanese movie that takes place in a world where every year a class of students are stranded on a deserted island with weapons and all hafta kill each other within 3 days. I watched this right after "The Descent" to calm me down; sorta like a reminder that death can be Tarantino-style fun. I think I like it the more I watch it just because I forget that as great as it is, it certainly is not without its flaws, and I can remember more that it's fun and flawed.

Burn After Reading - "Hey, movie! You forgot your climax." I had heard that the Coen brothers write by writing themselves into a corner and then writing themselves out. When the movie ends, it totally feels like that. Now, for Coen-defenders, I "get" that last 5 minutes. It's just when I think about the complexity of what they're offering, I can't help but feel it could've been told better or perhaps at a more fun angle. Which brings me to the tone of the movie. It confused me tonally. Like it didn't know whether to be an action movie, a conspiracy movie, a kooky comedy, or what-have-you. I think it's trying to be all these things at once, but it sacrifices its cohesiveness to do that. I liked the story, and you can't not love Brad Pitt as the workout doofus, but I just wished it went somewhere. And maybe that's what this is supposed to be: "Why does every movie have to be 'about something'. Why can't movies be about 'ordinary life'?" But to say it's an ordinary story would be completely wrong. Crap... I wish I had an ending to this review.

Finished "Forgetting Sarah Marshall" (this has super-high re-watchability for me). Ran outta good comedies (i.e. mostly anything Apatow related) and wound up watching...

"Yes, Man" - Uggggh. I love "Liar, Liar", but this just came out so mediocre. I guess it's cuz LL never takes itself too seriously and doesn't care that there's barely a plot; it's simply a chance for Jim Carrey to do his thing. YM however tried to put pathos into a really flat character with really flat scenarios. The greatest joys I got was finding out Zooey Deschanel played the love interest and the Flight of the Conchords' manager plays Carrey's boss. Probably works best as a date movie... when there's nothing else to rent.

"Valkyrie" - Not great, but not at all bad. Just... very dry. It comes off more like something belonging on The History Channel than HBO. Tom Cruise is adequate, and anyone who disagrees cannot separate gossip from craft. Things really took off after the assassination attempt. If the movie started with the attempt and went from there, I think it would've been a great movie. And maybe if the characters were better fleshed out and accessible too.

"Slumdog Millionaire" - Haven't seen it since it came out in theaters. This joins the ranks of "Little Miss Sunshine" and "The Princess Bride". I don't know anyone who doesn't like it, and I don't know anyone I can't recommend it to who won't thoroughly love it as well (although SM might be at a disadvantage with being overhyped for some). It's just as heartbreaking as it is uplifting, and always, always entertaining. I loved it just as much the 2nd time as I did the first (maybe even moreso). Best soundtrack of the year too imho.

"I Love You, Man" - This should be a high-falutin', balls-out comedy with wacky characters with even wackier scenarios. But the writer/director knows that we get that with every comedy in the past 30 years. And every time it always gets in the realms of "Can you believe what's happening!? WINK!" Instead, we get a very simple, stripped-down comedy who grounds itself in reality. The girlfriend is never shrewish. There's no antagonist. The antagonist is the fact that Paul Rudd's character needs a best man for his wedding. When your antagonist is the story itself, well... I just love that. I liked this more than "Role Models"... but I had RM really hyped up for me. Gonna hafta give RM another shot. (Btw, I really like RM... I just don't love it... but maybe one day).

Saw "Funny People". Things I knew about it going in: It's very long (Apatow heading in an "epic length" direction) and it's just as dramatic as it is funny. Those are things you should know. Having known that, I absolutely loved it. Btw, if you don't like Apatow's movies, don't go see it (and what's wrong with you? j/k). Anyway, it is by FAR my favorite movie of the year. I haven't seen "Up" yet. I imagine I'll like that more. But "Funny People" is just awesome. It goes to some dramatic places that I haven't seen a (good) comedy go in a long, long while. I liken Apatow to James L. Brooks, a god of comedic sensibilities because he understands the drama and heart as well. Man, the movie just works, yknow? Having said all that, be forewarned it appears that audiences are divided. If you are a fan of stand-up or the world of comedy in general, then this is an absolute must-see... so go see it... now.

"Frost/Nixon". Very good movie (I dunno about Best Pic nominee). It's the antithesis to any Oliver Stone movie. And Frank Langella's potrayal of Nixon is far and away my favorite (which is actually saying a lot imo).

Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog. This is my kind of humor. Exactly this. I would call it perfect except the third act's tone shifts so hard that I got whiplash.

The Hangover: Hilarious. I've enjoyed Zach Galifnakis for years. I'm glad I can bring him up in conversation now. I plan on going to see it again piss drunk and at the ghetto theater on a Friday night (that way I won't be the only one yelling at the screen). I'm guessing it will be a much richer experience that way. Incidentally, my friend who I saw it with relayed to me of how during his screening before, a guy yelled out during the trailer for the upcoming horror movie The Orphan: "She just threw that bitch off that slide!" I need to go to the ghetto theater more often.

In honor of Leno's passing of the torch to Conan, I decided to watch "The Late Shift." A 1996 HBO movie about the behind-the-scenes network politics responsible for the changes in late-night talk-show hosts, after the retirement of Johnny Carson from the Tonight Show with Leno and Letterman vying for the top spot. What a cast! Recognize who's playing Letterman? That's Christopher Guest regular John Michael Higgins AS DAVID LETTERMAN!!! He really shows his range here by creating a great character with impeccable mannerisms and never being a cartoony impression (despite what that pic may imply). And there's some genuine pathos too. Bonus is that his dialogue is so spot-on, it might just have well been written by Letterman himself. Other Christopher Guest regulars: Ed Begley Jr. and Bob Balaban as NBC suits. The "Best In Show" curator Don Lake even has a micro-role as Paul Shaffer. Kathy Bates headlines as the Machiavellian manager who unflinchingly does Leno's dirty work. "Hair" alumni George Burger himself (Treat Williams) plays the charismatic talent genius, Michael Ovitz. And Rich Little does his best John McCain impression as the king of late night, Johnny Carson (seriously, it's freaky how much his looks/voice fit the part). And who plays Leno? A then unknown who went on to a great role, right? You betcha! The guy went on to play the 9th grade science teacher in "Lost," Leslie Artz. Yeah, he gained some weight. The movie is made even more poignant now seeing Letterman say how much he wants The Tonight Show and how much he was willing to give up for it. But you know there's no way he could take over now. I highly recommend reading this here about what Conan's takeover could mean for Letterman. It was a really fun and informational movie to me. I mean I love these true-Hollywood-stories so there's that (that "Three Stooges" one was actually very good too).

Saw "State of Play" (starring Russell Crowe and Ben Affleck in a journalism conspiracy) where Jason Bateman has a small, funny but pivotal role in it. Really great movie for the person who loved "Michael Clayton" (not as good, but close).

"I Love You, Man": I loved "40 Year Old Virgin." I loved "Knocked Up." Basically, I love anything Judd Apatow comes even remotely close to lately. Did he have in part in making "Superbad"? Anyway, if you loved these type of movies, then this is a def must-see. Excellent cast imo too. I look forward to seeing more of some of the ancillary characters in future movies. And it's also surprisingly more light-hearted than I expected it to be. I mean, conflict is never exploited for dramatic purposes (and there's plenty of opportunity for it). I can't remember the last movie I saw that took drama this lightly but still remained charming without being saccharine. A worthy addition to my dvd collection. Put it somewhere between "Role Models" and "Forgetting Sarah Marshall."

"Knowing": Someone spilled the beans on the ending for me. Way to go, Facebook status obliviousness. Anyway, some really poor acting and I have a lot of questions about the logical progression of characters and events (the crux for a movie like this). Two stars at best. The script actually reminded me a lot of a cross between "Unbreakable," "Signs" and "The Happening." On the plus side, it has a couple wicked cool dream sequences just about worth the price of admission and some really great special effects sequences... not including a plane crash. I have yet to see a believable plane crash in a disaster movie that doesn't look like SimAirplane.

Twilight - A teenage Zoe Deschanel lookalike learns the lesson of abstinence from diamond-studded vampire, teenage Brendan Fraser wannabe (who presumably took acting lessons from Hayden Christiansen). I watched this in preparation for the RiffTrax release. I was expecting the worst. And I hafta say... it's not horrible. Dare I say... watchable? There are actually believable characters. I haven't seen a chick flick with believeable characters since "Mean Girls." The movie is also competently directed. The director knows how to hold back faces mugging, gets "real performances" (mostly) and offers a bleak atmosphere (which contradicts every sunbaked chick flick I've ever seen). My standard qualification for a chick flick is the lead girl has to be an average looking girl whoa acts like an embarrassed klutz all the time in front of the too-good-for-her guy. I didn't get that here. Also, vampire Edward Cullen talks through his brooding brow. Is that "hot" now? Cuz that's hilarious. The whole scene in the forest where she learns the weird-but-hot(?) boy is a vampire was full of eye-rolling, but the majority of the movie was..... not bad. Hmmm. I was kinda hoping for horribleness.

Push - The movie came and went out of theaters, which I assumed it was somewhere between mediocre to unforgettable to maybe down-right bad. I dunno what happened 'cause I really enjoyed myself. It's exactly like the trailer... but for 2hrs (which is exactly what I wanted to watch). The plot is the same as "X-Men 2" but told in the style of "Chungking Express." It's a solid, fun universe where people are born with superpowers. One difference from X-Men though is that there are just a handful of different superpowers that people have (which you could argue would benefit the X-Universe). One power is The Force from Star Wars... and this is exactly how it shoulda been done in the Star Wars movies: kickin some serious butt! Also, the movie utilizes the chess-like strategies that the X-Men movies/comics do so well to try to stay ahead of the bad guys. This, to me, was the real thrill of the movie. The guns a-blazin' and kinetic camera-work was nice eye candy too. Two things I love that "Push" does that the X-Men movies didn't do as well was showing a very natural evolution of a team driven completely by the plot. Every person there is added to move one step ahead. The other thing is that this is a ragtag buncha people trying to overthrow the evil agency. So the underdogs struggle with their powers as they try to defeat the experienced bad guys. This makes every defeat a major victory. I love that formula.

Lost In Translation - I will reiterate (by paraphrase) what David Letterman once said. Why don't they stop making bad movies and just make movies like this, say, once a month? I thought that while watching this again. Bill Murray's performance is more nuanced than I remember it too. Def worthy of the Oscar nom, if not the win. Touching, hilarious and bittersweet... after seeing it so many times even. Why can't Scarlett Johansson go back to being the indie-fim girl? She looks so much more beautiful when she's not all glammed up.

Coraline - This is one of the most imaginative movies I've seen in years. Seriously. It's part of the girl-gets-lost-in-dangerous-imagination-land genre (Alice In Wonderland, Pan's Labyrinth, MirrorMask, etc.). I'm glad I saw it in 2D cuz during the parts where my focus started to drift, I could always admire how amazing the animation was. Definitely reaches above and beyond the previous limitations of claymated movies. Very glad I saw it on the big screen. I bet a little something will be lost in the transition to the small screen. Haven't read the book but I heard it was nothing like it by one person (I think she meant the plot).

Watched "Defiance." Very good but nothing to write home about. Kinda weird seeing "Wolverine" a couple weeks before. Liev Schriber playing a violent ruffian intent on constantly fighting his brother in the same month? Okay.

Doubt - Second time seeing this. First time, I really did not like it. It was hyped as one of the best movies of the year, and I was severely disappointed. I still think it has some really clunky moments, but now that I can just ignore those out of foreknowledge, I was able to enjoy the parts where it really hit its stride (those moments are amaaazing). I think all the faults of the movie rely on a first-time director (aka Mr. I-Wrote-The-Script-AND-The-Play!!!). Sure, buddy. Maybe you should stick to that. Four stellar performances, but you know who the real star is? The chubby kid who gets in trouble. That kid is the best. If you've seen the movie, I think you'll agree with me here.

I watched Freddy's Dead: The Final Nightmare (aka Nightmare On Elm Street 6). This is my personal favorite NOES (although the first is by far the best). It's the least serious, yet (imo) never goes campy-beyond-comprehension; tongue is always planted firmly in cheek but retains a modicum of respect. It's also very '90s. The movie opens with a GooGoo Dolls song. The special effects are very of its time but still work. It also has cameos from Roseanne and Tom Arnold. And one of the kids looks like Jay (of Jay & Silent Bob [he later went on to play Jon Arbuckle in the "Garfield" movies.... weird]). I love when Freddy kills one of the kids with the Power Glove. It's so bad. I also really like the cool 3D scene (even in 2D). Look for Johnny Depp's cameo too (his first movie was the first NOES; his credit even gets an "Introducing" credit). I give it 4 Power Gloves out of five (sorry, I've been watching a ton of AVGN vids lately too).

Watchmen - I liked the faithful adaption-ness. I abhorred the pop music (enough to where I look forward to making my own fan-edit). I hated the giggles in the theater every time Dr. Manhattan was, er, in full display. I almost puked on the teen in front of me who wouldn't stop texting. I hated that my "graphic novel impaired" friends were mortally perplexed by everything. Rorshach, Nite Owl and Comedian were spot-on awesomeness. Still processing how much the rewritten climax changes every (or most) things the book was saying. And if you're gonna do that, then why include Ozymandias' pet? Perhaps that's for another thread.

"Appaloosa" - I'm reading John Badham's unashamed-to-drop-names (like Gary Busey!) book about how best to direct right now, so I couldn't help notice how poorly the movie was directed. The movie was fun enough, I suppose. Reminds me of a b&w western from the 50s that you'd catch on TCM on a Saturday afternoon. Ed Harris (who directed and co-wrote) was somewhat bland but interesting enough. I couldn't tell whether Jeremy Irons was trying to hide his accent or not. The best part was watching Viggo Mortensen slip into his role so nicely. A friend of mine didn't realize it was him until after the movie was over. There's a total riff-worthy moment near the beginning with the Chinese waiter. I can't remember the last time I saw acting that bad before in a recent movie. If 3:10 To Yuma is an 8 out of 10, "Appaloosa" would be a 6 at best. My running gag that I whispered to my friend: "There better be apples in this movie or else I'm going to be VERY disappointed." So when one character asks "Why you goin' back [to Appaloosa]?" I quipped "Probably because of the apples." It was pretty funny.

Slumdog Millionaire. The best way to describe it: "City of God: The Love Story." I think I might've hated the story mainly because I hate obvious coincidences (the movie hinges on the theme of coincidence anyway, so I'm aware how that's an invalid point). However, Danny Boyle is the total god and savior of this film. It alternates from jumpy, frenetic and visually entertaining flashbacks (think "Trainspotting" and "28 Days Later") to a more static yet very glowing and powerful stillness of the present day (think "Sunshine"). It's just as achingly heartbreaking as it is uplifting. While it may not be my favorite of the year, I'm tempted to put it in my Top 5. Then again, my fondness to "City of God" may be pushing it forward ever so slightly. A hearty recommendation. A sporting chance at a Best Pic Oscar nom in that underdog-indie-with-a-heart-of-gold-"Little Miss Sunshine"-"Juno" sorta way. You could probably take your grandparents to see it too. I saw it with a buncha old people and I never felt embarrassed or think they'd be lost by it because it's such the real crowd-pleaser.

Billy Mays Spills Water on Conan's Desk And Makes World Map

2009-06-24T18:24:00.000-07:00

Usually I do movie reviews, but I have to share something I noticed last night. Pitchman celebrity Billy Mays was a guest on Tuesday night's episode of "The Tonight Show." Conan O'Brien brings out the (stolen by Shamwow) Zorbeez. To demonstrate its use, Billy Mays spills a mug of water onto Conan's desk. What no one realized was that Billy Mayes is also a topographical genius and can make a map of the world just by spilling water:

If only he had more water, he could've added Africa, Australia, Antarctica and the rest of the North American continent. Alas, multiplying water is not one of Billy Mays' superpowers.

My reaction to Yahoo!'s 100 Movies To See Before You Die

2009-03-24T12:45:00.000-07:00

[Scroll to the bottom for the complete list]

I must say that I am in absolute shock. This is an extraordinary list. Even more impressive is that, unlike AFI's Top 100, this list includes foreign releases as well. And from Yahoo!? Really? They're not supposed to recommend "M" or "The Third Man." But rightly so, they do. Omissions were very, very difficult to think of (which is a sign of a great list). Most of the foreign ones I have not seen (sadly), but the ones listed (like "The 400 Blows" and "Wild Strawberries") I am very familiar with as being recognized so highly. I also commend its bold inclusion of movies like "Enter the Dragon" and "Fast Times At Ridgemont High." These are genre defining movies which should be welcomed just as any great director should be welcomed.

Every decade is represented rather well too. The past couple decades are not, and, if I may say so, should not be represented heavily. It commonly takes decades to discover whether a film can stand the test of time. The fewer, the better, I say. But sometimes you just have to include them (like "Lord of the Rings").

The only titles I take issue with are "The Usual Suspects," "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon," "When Harry Met Sally...," and maybe "Titanic." Admittedly, these are great movies I would not only recommend to anybody but also wouldn't mind owning (if I don't already).

My favorite part of this list is how every omitted movie I try to think of is either on the list (yay "Groundhog Day"!) or has that director's seminal film present. For instance, "North By Northwest" didn't make the list, but Hitchcock's "Psycho," "Rear Window" and "Vertigo" all made it. Its exclusion deemphasizes Hitchcock, so that exclusion I understand. All the greats are represented well: Kubrick, Kurosawa, Truffaut, Fellini, Pinter and Bergman (most with multiple entries). Amazingly, those that I just mentioned happen to be considered by many the best directors of their respective countries: America, Japan, France, Italy, India and Sweden. China and Korea are also represented with their greatest filmmakers, Ang Lee and Wong Kar-Wai.

The only titles I truly think are omitted are "Forrest Gump," "The Princess Bride" and either of David Fincher's movies "Fight Club" or "Se7en." "Lost In Translation" is debatable, but the inclusion of Wong Kar-Wai's "In the Mood For Love" (the direct inspiration) is an inspired decision, because it not only draws allusion to Sofia Coppola's film but also puts Wong Kar-Wai on the list (which he most deservedly so belongs). I would also like to see Wes Anderson represented, but as I think about his films, I couldn't recommend them to anybody the way I could with everything else here. But if he were to be represented, either "Rushmore" or "The Royal Tenenbaums" would be on there. I would also like to have seen the Coen brothers on the list. But, as the problem with Wes Anderson, they may be a bit too quirky. If they were represented, I would say "Blood Simple," "Fargo," "The Big Lebowski" or "No Country For Old Men" should be listed.

I don't know how, but Yahoo! came up with a very inspired list; one that could easily rival AFI's Top 100. Dare I even say... better? Are there any movies you think were omitted? Here's the full list:

12 Angry Men (1957)
2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)
The 400 Blows (1959)
8 ½ (1963)
A Hard Day’s Night (1964)
The African Queen (1952)
Alien (1979)
All About Eve (1950)
Annie Hall (1977)
Apocalypse Now (1979)
The Battle of Algiers (1967)
The Bicycle Thief (1948)
Blade Runner (1982)
Blazing Saddles (1974)
Blow Up (1966)
Blue Velvet (1986)
Bonnie and Clyde (1967)
Breathless (1960)
The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)
Bringing Up Baby (1938)
Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969)
Casablanca (1942)
Chinatown (1974)
Citizen Kane (1941)
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000)
Die Hard (1988)
Do the Right Thing (1989)
Double Indemnity (1944)
Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964)
Duck Soup (1933)
E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982)
Enter the Dragon (1973)
The Exorcist (1973)
Fast Times At Ridgemont High (1982)
The French Connection (1971)
The Godfather (1972)
The Godfather, Part II (1974)
Goldfinger (1964)
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (1968)
Goodfellas (1990)
The Graduate (1967)
Grand Illusion (1938)
Groundhog Day (1993)
In the Mood For Love (2001)
It Happened One Night (1934)
It’s a Wonderful Life (1946)
Jaws (1975)
King Kong (1933)
The Lady Eve (1941)
Lawrence of Arabia (1962)
The Lord of the Rings (2001,2002,2003)
M (1931)
M*A*S*H (1970)
The Maltese Falcon (1941)
The Matrix (1999)
Modern Times (1936)
Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975)
National Lampoon’s Animal House (1978)
Network (1976)
Nosferatu (1922)
On the Waterfront (1954)
One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest (1975)
Paths of Glory (1958)
Princess Mononoke (1999)
Psycho (1960)
Pulp Fiction (1994)
Raging Bull (1980)
Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)
Raise the Red Lantern (1992)
Rashomon (1951)
Rear Window (1954)
Rebel Without a Cause (1955)
Rocky (1976)
Roman Holiday (1953)
Saving Private Ryan (1998)
Schindler’s List (1993)
The Searchers (1956)
Seven Samurai (1954)
The Shawshank Redemption (1994)
The Silence of the Lambs (1991)
Singin’ in the Rain (1952)
Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs (1937)
Some Like It Hot (1959)
The Sound of Music (1965)
Star Wars (1977)
Sunset Blvd. (1950)
Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991)
The Third Man (1949)
This is Spinal Tap (1984)
Titanic (1997)
To Kill a Mockingbird (1962)
Toy Story (1995)
The Usual Suspects (1995)
Vertigo (1958)
When Harry Met Sally… (1989)
Wild Strawberries (1957)
Wings of Desire (1988)
The Wizard of Oz (1939)
Women on the Verge of a Nervous Breakdown (1988)
The World of Apu (1959)

My Oscar Reaction... sorta

2009-02-23T20:04:00.000-08:00

I can't tell you how much I don't want to review the Oscars right now. I started a new job today. I'm preparing to leave for NY for the weekend on Friday. I've been doing things and going places non-stop since Friday. The last thing I want to do is review a 4hr anything. However, I shall give my opinions on it soon. Before Friday is gonna be my goal... time permitting.

I'll give you my highlights, starting with this introduction:

I think many audiences were dreading the Oscars. I'm not sure why. I, however, have been looking forward to this, well, pretty much since a year before (but especially within the past several months). Y'see, I've been reading movie news covering the Oscars since the buzz began (it usually starts the beginning of fall, but summer has its share of buzz too [remember "Dark Knight" was beginning of summer]). So as it all culminates into this one evening, my fears and apprehensions have already subsided. My expectations, carefully honed and calculated, are fulfilled with gentle ease (yeah, I knew it'd be a big night for "Slumdog" about a month ago). So much *could* go wrong. I was thoroughly pleased with pretty much all of it. And, I must point out, more highlights than the past 3 broadcasts combined. You may whine, but you know I'm right:

Here are my own personal highlights:

Epic Actor Award Presentation. Impossible to beat. The only way it could be bigger is if every living Academy member did a retrospective on each nominee. Really, how could it get any better?

Hugh Jackman's "I'm Wolveriiiine" crescendo. Top 5 funniest moments. Others on that list...

Ben Stiller's uproarious Joaquin Phoenix send-up

The Pineapple Express reprise.

Best speech of the night: Best Animated Short Film. "Domo arigoato, Mr. Robot."

Most entertaining acceptance: Best Documentary ("Man On Wire"). I had been looking forward to this ever since I saw it. The speech has a beautiful metaphor with a simple magic trick by the mischievous Philipe followed by the balancing of the Oscar on his chin. A bold and exhilarating act performed with as much destiny as was shown in the movie.

Slumdog got a lot of recognition. Probably too much. But I'm okay with that. Yeah! Take away from Benjamin Button and (ugh) The Reader! Go Slumdog! Wait... save room for Wall*E... oh, well, nevermind.

I was happy with every single win except one: Best Actor, Sean Penn. Bill Murray gave his career-defining performance in "Lost In Translation." Sean Penn gave yet another Oscar-bait performance and won instead that year with "Mystic River" (albeit a remarkable performance). Mickey Rourke gave his career-defining performance this year (and won every award he'd been nominated for) but lost to.... Sean Penn.

Best Foreign Film: "Waltz With Bashir" was supposed to win. "The Departures" (one of the biggest "Never heard of it" noms in the category) pulls arguably the hugest upset of the evening.

I <3 Tina Fey & Steve Martin. If a movie doesn't happen with them soon, riots will break out soon. I encourage these types of riots. More Tina Fey, please. More!

Heath Ledger's win: Seeing the teary-eyed distraught faces on the usually glittering faces of celebrities was absolutely heart-breaking. The Ledger family's acceptance seemed rehearsed by comparison. Nevertheless, it was a very sombre and touching moment. The terminally unlucky Bill Maher's opening line for the following category was prescient: "Everyone's crying and now I go on."

There are probably more moments I should talk about, but I'll hold off till later in the week. Check again soon!

The History of Poop In the Movies

2009-02-09T21:09:00.000-08:00

I will designate all my entries of this blog into one of three categories:

1. Movie Reviews
2. Interesting Articles About Movies
3. Movie Contemplations (personal reflections about the art of film)

Here's an article that fits snugly into Category 2. It's called The History of Poop In the Movies:
http://www.slashfilm.com/2009/02/09/geekbomb-number-two-with-a-bullet-poop-in-the-movies/

"He called the sh** poop!!!" --Billy Madison, "Billy Madison" (1995)

Coming Soon To A Weblog Near You: Another Movie Review

2009-02-09T19:25:00.000-08:00

Having my worldview of movie criticism obliterated by the article in my last post, I have felt a need to reviewing movies again (not sure exactly when, but soon). Why? That is something that I am struggling with internally. I have been muddled in indecision this whole interim, but what I need to realize is this: I can wallow in indecision without action or I can wallow in indecision with aimless action. Since aimless action is better than no action at all, I shall press forward in hopes that my actions have some meaning, whatever that may be.

"I have to believe in a world outside my own mind.
I have to believe that my actions still have meaning.
Even if I can't remember them.
I have to believe that when my eyes are closed, the world's still here.
Do I believe the world's still here?
Is it still out there?
Yeah.
We all need memories to remind ourselves who we are.
I'm no different.
Now, where was I?"

--Leonard Shelby, last words of "Memento" (2001)

Revoking My Movie Reviewing

2008-05-17T18:15:00.001-07:00

This may very well be my last post on this website. The reason for this is because one well-written article has single-handedly reshaped my views on all of film criticism. It is because of the reasons brought forth that I feel inept to continue to review movies. That is, until I can fully absorb all that has been brought forth to my attention. Here is the article in its entirety. I hope you will be enlightened just as I have been:

WHAT WE DON’T TALK ABOUT WHEN WE TALK ABOUT MOVIES
Armond White takes aim at the critics who write with their thumbs.
(originally posted here: http://ftl.nypress.com/21/17/news&columns/feature3.cfm)

By Armond White

There’s more writing about movies these days than ever before. In print and online, it’s never been worse—especially on the Internet where film buffs emulating the Vachel Lindsay-Manny Farber tradition are no longer isolated nerds but an opinionated throng, united in their sarcasm and intense pretense at intellectualizing what is basically a hobby.

Although criticism is everywhere, and some online reviewers prove themselves honest and less beholden to the power elite than print critics, the problem is this: So many Internetters get to express their “expertise,” which essentially is either their contempt or idiocy about films, filmmakers or professional critics. The joke inherent in the Internet hordes (spiritedly represented by the new REELZ-TV program The Movie Mob) is that they chip away at the professionalism they envy, all the time diminishing cultural discourse—perhaps as irreversibly as professional critics have already diminished it themselves.

Recently, professional critics have felt a backlash from this Internet frenzy. Print publications restructuring to keep up with the web have dismissed or offered buyouts to noticeable numbers of employees, including critics. Trimming these fatted ranks is a result of basic disrespect for criticism as both a true journalistic profession and a necessary intellectual practice.

This backlash follows a perfect storm of anti-intellectual prejudice: Movies are considered fun that needn’t be taken seriously. Movies contain ideas better left unexamined. Movies generate capital in all directions.
The latter ethic was overwhelmingly embraced by media outlets during the Reagan era, exemplified by the sly shift from reporting on movies to featuring inside-industry coverage. Focusing on weekend box-office totals—now a post-Sabbath religious habit—first legitimized movie-talk for that era enthralled with tax shelters, bond-trading and pro-trust legislation (peaking with Reagan’s regressive repel of the landmark 1949 Paramount Decree, giving back monopolies to the studios). This sea change in media attitude was typified by the American launch of Premiere magazine (finally trimmed away two years ago), which perverted movie journalism from criticism to production news. It familiarized the production of movies, not like the trade publications Variety and Hollywood Report do for industry participants, but by simply jettisoning exegesis and replacing interest in content with production stills, personality profiles and a humor column that witheringly trivialized the critic’s pursuit.

This disrespect for thinking—where film criticism blurred with celebrity gossip—has resulted in today’s cultural calamity. Buyouts and dismissals are, of course, unfortunate personal setbacks; but the crisis of contemporary film criticism is that critics don’t discuss movies in ways that matter. Reviewers no longer bother connecting movies to political or moral ideas (that’s was what made James Agee’s review of The Human Comedy and Bosley Crowther’s review of Rocco and His Brothers memorable). Nowadays, reviewers almost never draw continuity between new films and movie history—except to get it wrong, as in the idiotic reviews that belittled Neil Jordan’s sensitive, imaginative The Brave One (a movie that brilliantly contrasts vengeful guilt to 9/11 aftershock) as merely a rip-off of the 1970s exploitation feature Death Wish.

If the current indifference to critical thought is a tragedy, it’s not just for the journalism profession betraying its promise of news and ideas but also for those bloggers. The love of movies that inspires their gigabytes of hyperbole has been traduced to nonsense language and non-thinking. It breeds a new pinhead version of fan-clubism.

••••••••••••

What we don’t talk about when we talk about movies these days reveals that we have not moved past the crippling social tendency that 1990s sociologists called Denial. The most powerful, politically and morally engaged recent films (The Darjeeling Limited, Private Fears in Public Places, World Trade Center, The Promise, Shortbus, Ask the Dust, Akeelah and the Bee, Bobby, Running Scared, Munich, War of the Worlds, Vera Drake) were all ignored by journalists whose jobs are to bring the (cultural) news to the public. Instead, only movies that are mendacious, pseudo-serious, sometimes immoral or socially retrograde and irresponsible (4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days, Army of Shadows, United 93, Marie Antoinette, Zodiac, Last Days, There Will Be Blood, American Gangster, Gone Baby Gone, Letters From Iwo Jima, A History of Violence, Tarnation, Elephant) have received critics’ imprimatur.

That there isn’t a popular hit among any of these films proves how critics have failed to rouse the moviegoing public in any direction.

Critics customarily show their allegiance to Hollywood blockbusters, granting them inordinate attention in the entertainment pages, but that’s not the way to build an enlightened public or a healthy culture. You can’t praise the Pirates of the Caribbean movies or the Bourne movies and then expect benumbed thrill-riders to sit still for A Prairie Home Companion, Neil Young: Heart of Gold or Munich. The critical consensus toward denial forsakes what really inspires passion in moviegoers—those priceless moments when a movie addresses personal emotion (Dakota Fanning asking “Are we still alive?” in War of the Worlds) or informs some confounding social experience (Broken Sky’s young lovers alienated by soulless disco beats).

Jeff Nichols’ Shotgun Stories is a perfect example of what critics don’t talk about. Shotgun Stories should have rocked film culture. Ideally complementing the Coen brothers’ No Country for Old Men, it questions the temperamental and social sources for modern behavior. Nichols tells a Faulknerian, Snopes-like story of male fecklessness and the reality of frustration in the American working class. We are introduced to three Hayes brothers in Arkansas: Son (Michael Shannon), Boy (Douglas Ligon) and Kid (Barlow Jacobs) are totally rudderless—gambling, coaching basketball, womanizing—yet succumbing to the instinct for vengeance passed on to them by their bitter, resentful mother. This recognizable sense of family isolation (the flipside of The Darjeeling Limited) reveals a warped masculinity that goes to the heart of American experience. Shotgun Stories is set in a Red State community, but the truth of its ineffectual, slatternly men can be seen across the country, even in Blue State parochialism.

Its story of warring clans (sympathetic reprobates mirroring sympathetic churchgoers) confirms a concept of brotherhood that has wide-ranging application, but it is primarily, stunningly empathetic. Like last year’s family drama Black Irish (another good, modest film that critics lost), Shotgun Stories deals with fundamental experiences that media consensus ignores. When Son and his siblings crash the funeral for their father (who left them behind when he remarried to begin a second family), it starts a stupid, unstoppable feud. Things get nasty and then work out tragically: It’s the opposite of There Will Be Blood, where things begin tragically then work out nastily—a trajectory that slakes the dissatisfaction and lack of control that spooks our everyday lives. Yet Shotgun Stories dramatizes human compulsion.

P.T. Anderson creates aestheticized tension and a floridly melodramatic, false sense of history that’s easy for critics to endorse. Blood is meant to impress, while Shotgun Stories is meant to be felt. Director-writer Nichols shows a weird yet authentic sense of classical style. This doesn’t feel like a regional work, nor is it a movie-soaked movie like The Darjeeling Limited. It’s between the two. Nichols understands countrified living and American habit that may repel urban reviewers: But it allows him to jump off from Hatfields-McCoys legend into a non-condescending vision of how slackerdom really manifests itself. He counters the meretricious tendency of Richard Linklater, Gus Van Sant and Judd Apatow films whose celebrations of American sloth have blunted the sensibilities of critics trying to keep up with industry fads.

There’s hardly language or space in our class-based, Hollywood-pledged film journalism to deal with the way Shotgun Stories keeps its Faulknerian roots while branching out to a new sense of American behavior. (When Boy’s car radio blasts a Ronnie Montrose song, suddenly reminding him of Kid, it’s the kind of richly authentic moment we used to only get in documentaries like Joel DeMott’s Seventeen.) Nichols’ lyric sense of location—of men and women keeping their own balance as they walk, argue and clash—conveys a complicated spiritual agony. Being a non-hipster film meant that Shotgun Stories was off established critics’ radar screens. Even I, shamefacedly, only caught up after it had opened; but it’s been the most resonant American movie so far this year.

Son, Boy and Kid’s actions (you have to be in touch with your own American roots to feel the humor in those names; the only thing left out is Phil Morrison’s Junebug) point toward a common, unknowable future. Nichols uncannily combines hope and despair. On appearance, Shotgun Stories is a world away from the attention-grabbing topicality of critics’ faves There Will Be Blood, In the Valley of Elah, Redacted, Rendition and The Kingdom; it’s quiet, almost elliptical like George Washington (David Gordon Green is the producer). Yet this terse family epic may be the Iraq War movie we’ve waited for without being able to articulate exactly what we wanted. Nichols’ complex mix of native resentment and culturally bred fury also contains knotted-up affection and pride. Shotgun Stories is genuine. When it ends, it isn’t over. It’s something to talk about.

••••••••••••

To discuss movies as if they were irrelevant to individual experience—just bread-and-circus rabble-rousers—breeds indifference. And that’s only one of the two worst tendencies of contemporary criticism. The other is elitism.

This schism had an ironic origin—the popularization of film criticism as a consumer’s method. A generation of readers and filmgoers were once sparked by the discourse created by Pauline Kael and Andrew Sarris during the period that essayist Philip Lopate described as ìthe heroic era of moviegoing.î The desire to be a critic fulfilled the urge to respond to what was exciting in the culture. Movie commentary was a media rarity in those days and relatively principled (even the Times’ Arts & Leisure section used to present a forum for contrary opinions). And then the television series At the Movies happened. Its success, moving from public to commercial broadcast (who can tell the difference anymore?), resulted in an institution. Permit an insider’s story: It is said that At the Movies host Roger Ebert boasted to Kael about his new TV show, repeatedly asking whether she’d seen it. Kael reportedly answered “If I want a layman’s opinion on movies, I don’t have to watch TV.”

Kael’s cutting remark cuts to the root of criticism’s problem today. Ebert’s way of talking about movies as disconnected from social and moral issues, simply as entertainment, seemed to normalize film discourse—you didn’t have to strive toward it, any Average Joe American could do it. But criticism actually dumbed down. Ebert also made his method a road to celebrity—which destroyed any possibility for a heroic era of film criticism.
At the Movies helped criticism become a way to be famous in the age of TV and exploding media, a dilemma that writer George W. S. Trow distilled in his apercu “The Aesthetic of the Hit”: “To the person growing up in the power of demography, it was clear that history had to do not with the powerful actions of certain men but with the processes of choice and preference.” It was Ebert’s career choice and preference to reduce film discussion to the fumbling of thumbs, pointing out gaffes or withholding “spoilers”—as if a viewer needed only to like or dislike a movie, according to an arbitrary set of specious rules, trends and habits. Not thought. Not feeling. Not experience. Not education. Just reviewing movies the way boys argued about a baseball game.
Don’t misconstrue this as an attack on the still-convalescent Ebert. I wish him nothing but health. But I am trying to clarify where film criticism went bad. Despite Ebert’s recent celebration in both Time magazine and The New York Times as “a great critic,” neither encomium could credit him with a single critical idea, notable literary style or cultural contribution. Each paean resorted to personal, logrolling appreciations. A.O. Scott hit bottom when he corroborated Ebert’s advice, “When writing you should avoid cliché, but on television you should embrace it.” That kind of thinking made Scott’s TV appearances a zero.

Unfortunately, it is this very process of affirming the Ebert institution that contributes to confusion about what film criticism has lost. Time marvels that Ebert “typically would give thumbs up to two or three” of the “four or five films up for review on his weekly TV show” without asking if it’s credible or disingenuous. (It will take a separate article to expose the absurdity of a TV show bearing Ebert’s name without his presence, whose interchangeable roster of ineffectual reviewers loyally prevaricate in Ebert’s manner—a “criticism” show owned and sponsored by the Disney conglomerate!)

In the Ebert age of criticism, the Aesthetic of the Hit dominates everything. Behind those panicky articles about critics losing their jobs (what about autoworkers and schoolteachers?), lurks the writers’ own fear of falling victim to the same draconian industry rule: Most publishers and editors are only interested in supporting hits in order to reach Hollywood’s deep-pocket advertisers. This is what makes traditional criticism seem indefinable and obsolete, leaving web criticism as a ready (but dubious) alternative.

The Internetters who stepped in to fill print publications’ void seize a technological opportunity and then confuse it with “democratization”—almost fascistically turning discourse into babble. They don’t necessarily bother to learn or think—that’s the privilege of graffito-critique. Their proud non-professionalism presumes that other moviegoers want to—or need to—match opinions with other amateurs. That’s Kael’s “layman” retort made viral. The journalistic buzzword for this water-cooler discourse is “conversation” (as when The Times saluted Ebert’s return to newspaper writing as “a chance to pick up on an interrupted conversation”). But today’s criticism isn’t real conversation; on the Internet it’s too solipsistic and autodidactic to be called a heart-to-heart. (Viral criticism isn’t real; it’s mostly half-baked, overlong term-paper essays by fans who like to think they think.)

And in print, “conversation” is regrettably one-sided. Power-sided. This is where the elitist tendency sours everything. The social fragmentation that fed the 1980s indie movement, decentralizing film production away from Los Angeles, had its correlative in film journalism. Critics everywhere flailed about for a center, for authority, for knowledge; they championed all sorts of unworked-out, poorly made films (The Blair Witch Project, Gummo, Dogville, Southland Tales) proposing an indie-is-better/indie-is-new aesthetic. The sophomoric urge to oppose Hollywood fell into the clutches of Hollywood (i.e., Sundance). Similarly, the decentralized practice of criticism now scoffs at former New York Times potentate Bosley Crowther, while crowning a network of bizarro authorities—pompous critics who replace Crowther’s classical-humanist canon with a hipster/avant-garde pack mentality (from The Village Voice to Time Out New York to IndieWire).

The new inclination is to write esoteric criticism. Post-Tarantino cinema has wrung the pop aesthetic dry, so the new gods of criticism have made totems of movies so unwatchable and so unappealing that they prohibit the basic pleasure and amazement of moviegoing. Critical babble doesn’t talk about what matters, but it sustains Ten Current Film Culture Fallacies: 1)“The Three Amigos” Iñárritu, Cuarón and del Toro are Mexico’s greatest filmmakers while Julian Hernandez is ignored. 2) Gus Van Sant is the new Visconti when he’s really the new Fagin, a jailbait artful dodger. 3) Documentaries ought to be partisan rather than reportorial or observational. 4) Chicago, Moulin Rouge and Dreamgirls equal the great MGM musicals. 5) Paul Verhoeven’s social satire Showgirls was camp while Cronenberg’s campy melodramas are profound. 6) Brokeback Mountain was a breakthrough while all other gay-themed movies were ignored. 7) Todd Haynes’ academic dullness is anything but. 8) Dogma was a legitimate film movement. 9) Only non-pop Asian cinema from J-horror to Hou Hsiao Hsien counts, while Chen Kaige, Zhang Yimou and Stephen Chow are rejected. 10) Mumblecore matters.

These delusions derive from an elitist, art-for-art’s-sake notion. It’s the “Smart About Movies” syndrome allowing bloggers and critics to feel superior for having suffered through Dead Man, Ye-Ye, Gerry, Inland Empire—movies that ordinary moviegoers want no part of and that hardly reflect a community of citizens or the New Millennium’s political stress. It may be a coincidence of social class that most movies are made by people espousing a liberal bent, but it is the shame of middle-class and middlebrow conformity that critics follow each other when praising movies that disrespect religion, rail about the current administration or feed into a sense of nihilism that only people privileged with condos and professional tenure can afford.

Routine reporting from Cannes and Sundance is another expression of journalists’ perks that encourage a sense of elitism. Fact is, those fests are remote from how most people experience or relate to film culture. Like the weekend grosses list, it promotes a false sense of being informed—not art interpretation or feeling. And festival favorites aren’t discussed in fundamental terms. Critics talk around what’s happening inside Pedro Costa or Apichatpong Weerasethakul movies. Instead, they call the latter “Joe”—proof of their in-group shamelessness. They’d rather make xenophobic jokes about Weerasethakul’s exotic name than actually deal with the facts of his Asianness, his sexual outlawry and his retreat into artistic and intellectual arrogance that evades social categorization. Such hipoisie canonizing is as unhelpful as TV’s pop reviewers who only respect banal Hollywood blockbusters. They also, consequently, discuss the Oscars as a plebiscite that readers must dutifully and mindlessly observe. It’s entertainment—weakly.

Avoiding the substance of movies in film discussion has worsened beyond Ebert’s TV glibness. Recall how few critics were able to apply standard Judeo-Christian readings to No Country for Old Men (let alone The Passion of the Christ) but remained perplexed or aggrieved. Contemporary criticism doesn’t deal with politics, morality or history. That’s why critics wrote head-in-the-sand responses to the obvious Clinton censure in David Mamet’s The Winslow Boy and praised socialist Mike Leigh’s Topsy-Turvy as if it were an Anglophile’s Merchant-Ivory pageant. They even let pass the Paranoid Park scene of a security guard’s vivisected torso crawling across railroad tracks—surely the most egregious movie moment of the decade. Critics say nothing about movies that open up complex meaning or richer enjoyment. That’s why they disdained the beauty of The Darjeeling Limited: Wes Anderson’s confrontation with selfishness, hurt and love were too powerful, too humbling. It’s no wonder that the audience for movies shrinks into home-viewership; they also shrink away from movies as a great popular art form.

These desperate stakes became even more alarming with the recent announcement of the Museum of the Moving Image’s Second Annual Institute on Criticism and Feature Writing—a project seemingly designed to further confuse the profession. Offering a session on marketing and publicity, the MMI’s Institute implies that flackery is part of critical journalism, and that’s really the root of the problem—sanctioning the way in which critical journalism has blurred its mandate into promoting the industry, not the art form. It overlooks any chance for criticism to unite while enlightening the audience, keeping it divided. There is no “conversation” when what we say when we talk about movies is driven by elitism or commerce, both now horribly combined in Queens. Hollywood’s emphasis on impersonal product then holds sway over art. Ideas get smothered in formula, and hype becomes the language of so-called discourse.

Does the training of movie critics matter if they aren’t taught to preserve the idea that movies must affirm our humanity? The public deserves critics who appreciate when an audience wants to be moved, encouraging them to experience catharsis at World Trade Center or War of the Worlds. But when people walk out of Paranoid Park feeling bewildered and unedified, where do they turn? What do they talk about?

"There Will Be Blood"

2008-04-06T08:41:00.000-07:00

COMING TO DVD Tuesday, April 8th:

"There Will Be Blood" (2007)

Starring Daniel Day-Lewis, Paul Dano, Dillon Freasier, Kevin J. O'Connor, Russell Harvard
Directed by Paul Thomas Anderson

The story is very simple. A man builds an oil empire by exploiting a small California town in the early 1900's. The story works great (although it comes off just as confusing as "No Country For Old Men" does with its similar novelesque sequences), but I would venture to say this is more of a character study than an epic tale. It was (loosely) adapted from the Upton Sinclair novel "Oil!" by director P.T. Anderson (whose films "Magnolia" and "Punch-Drunk Love" are quirky masterpieces). This may be his least humorous movie to date displaying both boldness and maturity.

"There WIll Be Blood" is really about an epic character which is what engages the movie's audience far more than anything else. Taking Daniel Day-Lewis' character out (or replacing the character with a lesser actor) would show how thinly engaging many aspects of the movie are. I'm glad Daniel Day-Lewis got his Best Actor Oscar (deservedly so considering he carried this nearly 3 hour movie solely based on his charisma).

This is a very well made movie. The main character, Daniel Plainview, is worth the price of admission (or rental). I would maybe put it in my Top 10 (or maybe 15) of the year. I wondered how this movie could get nominated for Best Picture at this year's Oscars, and I realized it came out at the exact perfect time. When it appeared "No Country For Old Men" had no strong competition, I imagine others wanted to crown another favorite but who? "Juno" was too small. "Michael Clayton" was too unpopular. "Atonement" ran out of steam early on. "There Will Be Blood" was next in line. This is all just my theory of course.

I feel like I should say more (about Paul Dano's role [which is probably too big for him to handle at this point] or the infamous "milkshake" conversation), but there really isn't all that much left to be said here about my opinion of this movie.

TWO HUMOROUS ANECDOTES ABOUT MY THEATER EXPERIENCE:
1.) This was easily the darkest theater I had ever attended (made more astounding being the fact that it was a matinee). I walked in just as the previews were beginning and not a single reflection of the audience was made by the flickering screen ahead. It was pitch black. I stood by the door with my hat's brim covering the screen to allow my eyes to adjust as fast as possible (before anyone came in and wondered what I was doing there). I feared sitting in the back row worrying I would wind up in someone's lap. Twice I stepped down the aisle only to find my eyes still unprepared for the journey and made my way back to the door. After a couple previews, I managed to grab an empty aisle seat (most of which were full of people in a similar predicament). The best part was watching the other people walk down the aisles, fresh from daylight, stumbling over their own lack of sight. I had to bite my knuckles a few times to avoid boisterous laughter.

2.) Even better than this was the two black gentlemen in their mid to late 20's at the front of the theater. The movie's title came up, and one guy said (loud enough for the whole theater to hear) "Alright let's see some blood!" I thought either this was a joke or these guys were in for a three hour snoozefest. If it were the latter, I don't think you could get any farther away from the kind of movie they were looking for. I have to give the guys credit for sticking it through the first 40 minutes (the first 10 having very little sound at all). They both got up, but, just before leaving, one of them turned to the audience, and, with an explanatory tone said, "There ain't no blood!" That line has stuck with me since, and it still gives me a chuckle when I say it to myself. It wasn't until after leaving the theater that I thought of the perfect retort (which, being so perfect, I would have overcome my shyness and belted it out):
"There will be!"

BIT O' TRIVIA: While on location in Marfa, Texas, "No Country for Old Men" was the neighboring film production. One day, director Paul Thomas Anderson and his crew tested the pyrotechnical effects of the oil derrick fire, causing an enormous billowing of smoke, intruding the shot that Joel Coen and Ethan Coen were shooting. This caused them to put off filming until the next day when the smoke dissipated from view. Both this film and "No Country for Old Men" would eventually become the leading contenders at the Academy Awards a year and a half later.

My Oscar Reaction

2008-02-24T21:18:00.000-08:00

UPDATED: February 28

I will try updating this post as time goes by because I took a TON of notes (just about every detail). So for now, I will give a few general responses:

It helps to know that they only had like 13 days to put this year's Oscars on, so I forgave a lot of things (quick montages, bad camera choices, poor jokes). Jon Stewart is one of my least favorite hosts. I figured they chose him because it was an election year, and the election itself is gaining much popularity. Too much political humor was used certainly, but I guess that's what Stewart does best (even though he didn't say anything gut-bustingly funny). My favorite line (executed in deadpan): "Film Editing. Wow. Somebody just won their Oscar pool on a guess."

"No Country For Old Men" won a lot of major awards (including Best Picture). What's more surprising is that it's heavy-handed competition ("There Will Be Blood") didn't win any of the major awards. I expected TWBB to pick up some, but NCFOM just about took them all. The speeches were mostly well prepared and kept surprisingly short. Those that didn't prepare or forgot their speech still delivered for most of the time.

I was really looking forward to Enchanted's big musical number, but I found it underwhelming and... unrehearsed. "Once" took away Best Song. They performed well, and it's a really great song. It was nice to see the two actors/songwriters holding Oscars on that stage.

Diablo Cody got her "Juno" screenplay. She was very overwhelmed, but who wouldn't be when you write your first movie script and then get handed an Oscar by Harrison Ford?

Well... I have more to add later. Just keep an eye on that "Update" status at the top for more to come. Now, here are the winners with a smatter of reactions:

BEST ACHIEVEMENT IN COSTUME DESIGN
Winner: Elizabeth: The Golden Age (2007) - Alexandra Byrne

I said Atonement. Oh well.

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE FILM OF THE YEAR
Winner: Ratatouille (2007) - Brad Bird

Probably should've gone to "Persepolis" (France's submission for Best Film Of the Year). But nobody would've really understood that. Really enjoyed Brad Bird's dedication to his high school counselor who "prepared him for the movie business" by persisting that he couldn't do it.

BEST ACHIEVEMENT IN MAKEUP
Winner: Môme, La (2007) - Didier Lavergne, Jan Archibald

BEST ACHIEVEMENT IN VISUAL EFFECTS
Winner: The Golden Compass (2007) - Michael L. Fink, Bill Westenhofer, Ben Morris, Trevor Wood

BEST ACHIEVEMENT IN ART DIRECTION
Winner: Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street (2007) - Dante Ferretti, Francesca Lo Schiavo

BEST PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
Winner: Javier Bardem for No Country for Old Men (2007)

Bardem thanked his mom in Spanish. Very touching. I caught "Es por Espagna."

BEST SHORT FILM, LIVE ACTION
Winner: Mozart des pickpockets, Le (2006) - Philippe Pollet-Villard

BEST SHORT FILM, ANIMATED
Winner: Peter & the Wolf (2006) - Suzie Templeton, Hugh Welchman

BEST PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE
Winner: Tilda Swinton for Michael Clayton (2007)

BEST WRITING, SCREENPLAY BASED ON MATERIAL PREVIOUSLY PRODUCED OR PUBLISHED
Winner: No Country for Old Men (2007) - Joel Coen, Ethan Coen

BEST ACHIEVEMENT IN SOUND EDITING
Winner: The Bourne Ultimatum (2007) - Karen M. Baker, Per Hallberg

BEST ACHIEVEMENT IN SOUND
Winner: The Bourne Ultimatum (2007) - Scott Millan, David Parker, Kirk Francis

BEST PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE
Winner: Marion Cotillard for Môme, La (2007)

BEST ACHIEVEMENT IN EDITING
Winner: The Bourne Ultimatum (2007) - Christopher Rouse

BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM OF THE YEAR
Winner: Fälscher, Die (2007)(Austria)

BEST ACHIEVEMENT IN MUSIC WRITTEN FOR MOTION PICTURES, ORIGINAL SONG
Winner: Once (2006) - Glen Hansard, Markéta Irglová(“Falling Slowly” )

BEST ACHIEVEMENT IN CINEMATOGRAPHY
Winner: There Will Be Blood (2007) - Robert Elswit

BEST ACHIEVEMENT IN MUSIC WRITTEN FOR MOTION PICTURES, ORIGINAL SCORE
Winner: Atonement (2007) - Dario Marianelli

BEST DOCUMENTARY, SHORT SUBJECTS
Winner: Freeheld (2007) - Cynthia Wade, Vanessa Roth

BEST DOCUMENTARY, FEATURES
Winner: Taxi to the Dark Side (2007) - Alex Gibney, Eva Orner

BEST WRITING, SCREENPLAY WRITTEN DIRECTLY FOR THE SCREEN
Winner: Juno (2007) - Diablo Cody

BEST PERFORMANCE BY AN ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE
Winner: Daniel Day-Lewis for There Will Be Blood (2007)

BEST ACHIEVEMENT IN DIRECTING
Winner: Ethan Coen, Joel Coen for No Country for Old Men (2007)

BEST MOTION PICTURE OF THE YEAR
Winner: No Country for Old Men (2007) - Ethan Coen, Joel Coen, Scott Rudin

"No Country For Old Men," "One Day In September," "Fog of War"

2008-01-25T22:19:00.000-08:00

Introduction:
Hello, fellow moviewatcher! So I'm still trying to figure out how I want to steer this site. I had the idea to use it as a way to track the movies I've been watching. I figured I could break it down into three categories. As an added bonus, I'll try to add a morsel of trivia. I'm still not certain about the frequency of my posts, but you can expect way more posts here than my MySpace/Facebook blogs, so be sure to make this a bookmark and check often. Let's get started and see how things works!

IN THEATERS:

"No Country For Old Men" (2007)

Starring Josh Brolin, Javier Bardem, Tommy Lee Jones
Directed by Joel & Ethan Coen

This movie is INTENSE. Like "United 93" intense. Like it would be hard for me to go back and re-watch this. I was off-kilter for about a day and a half. I was SO glad I didn't catch the matinee. Without revealing too much, I'll say the movie is about a soulless killer (Javier Bardem) with a psychosis on par with the Joker and Two-Face. There are people chasing people and everyone is out to kill somebody. There are a series of mind games that will keep you vested in wanting to know "Is he smart enough to figure it out?" It unfolds very much like a novel. In fact, when it ended, I turned to the person I saw the movie with and said, "I bet the book ends the same way." Sure enough, the last page is virtually word-for-word the last scene.

What works so well is that all the characters are very intelligent and very crafty and even humorous. The cinematography and the sound are also top notch. The landscape is haunting. The sound is atmospheric and almost minimal except when used with great effect for violence. It is my choice for best sound of the year.

The movie is considered by many to be the best of the year. It was nearly unanimously praised upon release. I felt it was too oblique and far too intense to be my favorite of the year, but I'm not going to argue with anyone about it. It certainly is one of the Top 10 (if not the Top 5) of the year as far as a technical achievement. Also, look for the Coen brothers' trademark colloquial dialogue, realistic use of violence, and maybe a few shadows from their past achievements.

BIT O' TRIVIA: Heath Ledger had been in talks to play Llewelyn Moss, but withdrew to take "some time off" instead.

ON DVD:

"One Day In September" (1999)

Directed by Kevin MacDonald.

The 1972 Munich Olympics were interrupted by Palestinian terrorists taking Israeli athletes hostage. Besides footage taken at the time, we see interviews with the surviving terrorist, Jamal Al Gashey, and various officials detailing exactly how the police, lacking an anti-terrorist squad and turning down help from the Israelis, botched the operation. (Synopsis written by Jon Reeves)

This documentary won the 1999 Oscar for Best Documentary Feature. That's all it took for me to watch it. I wished I had read the description because the only thing I knew about the event was that Israeli hostages were taken during the '72 Olympic games in Munich. I was very captivated by every turn of events right until the end. Unfortunately, I didn't realize that things went from bad to worse. Even more frustrating is the increasingly open opportunities officials gained yet were consistently (and with greater degree) botched up. It's a tale where the bad guys win, and that's always very sad. The hardest thing to watch was the Palestinian terrorists' bodies given a hero's welcome to their home country. As for expectations, I should've asked, "When is the Best Documentary winner ever an uplifting kind of movie?"

BIT O' TRIVIA: The Israeli version is narrated by Rafi Ginat and includes updated information regarding the claims of the families against the German authorities in the subtitles at the end of the film.

RE-VISITING:

"Fog of War" (2004)

Directed by Errol Morris

Robert MacNamera was the Secretary of Defense under Kennedy and Johnson. Simply told, it's a rundown of his 11 Rules of War. However, it is told with breathtakingly bold frankness with enough exciting history lessons that it is hard to look upon it as "just another boring documentary." It's hard to put in words why this works so well, but it does. MacNamera's words work wonderfully as a 21st century version of Sun Tzu's "Art of War." It is my 2nd favorite documentary of all time (next to Bowling For Columbine), and I would heartily recommend it to anyone interested in history, war, or just movies in general. It won the Oscar for Best Documentary Feature of 2004.

BIT O' TRIVIA: McNamara originally agreed to an hour-long interview for the Errol Morris PBS series, "First Person" (2000). The interview lasted eight hours and McNamara stayed for a second day of interviewing. He also returned months later, for two more days of interviews. Morris found himself with more than enough material for a feature-length documentary.

"I Christen Thee..." - My Oscars 2008 Reaction

2008-01-22T06:23:00.000-08:00

In the wake of this morning's announcements for the Academy Award nominations of the movies of 2007, I have decided to begin my maiden voyage into the blogosphere (well, Facebook and MySpace notwithstanding). So let's sail on!

My biggest joy this morning comes from Juno's 4 nominations (Best Actress, Best Original Screenplay, Best Directing and Best Picture). Actress and screenplay were shoo-ins. I didn't think it could pull off directing or picture considering the strong competition this year, but alas, the Academy gave it due recognition. Yay! "No Country For Old Men," "There Will Be Blood," and "Atonement" were all expected for their respective nominations.

Movies I'm glad and a little surprised to see a lot of nominations for: "The Butterfly and the Diving Bell," "Lars & the Real Girl," "Michael Clayton."

The biggest snub? The unflinching abortion documentary "Lake of Fire." It was going to be my prediction to win. Another huge snub: Josh Brolin for "No Country For Old Men." With other praiseworthy performances in nominated films "American Gangster" and "In the Valley of Elah," Brolin managed to slip through the cracks somehow. I also would've liked to have seen "Hairspray" and "Across the Universe" get some more technical nominations (there's only one nomination between the two of them).

Jon Stewart returns as host this year. He is humorously uncomfortable being a cable talkshow host amongst the world's biggest movie stars. My highest hopes are that Steve Martin will return some day. And I know we all would like to see Billy Crystal host again. Perhaps next year?

Here are the list of nominees accompanied by my reactions:

BEST PICTURE

'Atonement' 

'Juno' 

'Michael Clayton' 

'No Country for Old Men' 

'There Will Be Blood'

"Juno" may be the underdog, but "Michael Clayton" was somewhat unexpected. It was forgotten by audiences, but it is certainly considered one of the strongest movies of the year.  

BEST DIRECTOR

Julian Schnabel, 'The Diving Bell and the Butterfly' 

Jason Reitman, 'Juno' 

Tony Gilroy, 'Michael Clayton' 

Joel Coen and Ethan Coen, 'No Country for Old Men' 

Paul Thomas Anderson, 'There Will Be Blood'

A lot of credit is given to the writing and acting in "Juno," but it can all be easily trashed by an untalented director. It takes talent to pull quality together. Reitman's previous (and first) film was my personal favorite movie of 2006, "Thank You For Smoking".  

BEST ACTOR 

George Clooney, 'Michael Clayton' 

Daniel Day-Lewis, 'There Will Be Blood' 

Johnny Depp, 'Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street' 

Tommy Lee Jones, 'In the Valley of Elah' 

Viggo Mortensen, 'Eastern Promises'

No surprises. Daniel Day-Lewis has the strongest buzz (sorry, Depp fans). Some people thought Ryan Gosling could get a nod for "Lars & the Real Girl." I figured his role in last year's "Half Nelson" was sufficient enough.  

BEST ACTRESS

Cate Blanchett, 'Elizabeth: The Golden Age' 

Julie Christie, 'Away From Her' 

Marion Cotillard, 'La Vie en Rose' 

Laura Linney, 'The Savages' 

Ellen Page, 'Juno'

Julie Christie was the only true given here. Cate Blanchett was famously trumped by Gwyneth Paltrow's "Shakespeare In Love" back in '97. Maybe Blanchett will get a win for the same role. Marion Cotillard and Laura Linney are very fine choices for nominations as well.  

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR 

Casey Affleck, 'The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford' 

Javier Bardem, 'No Country for Old Men' 

Philip Seymour Hoffman, 'Charlie Wilson's War' 

Hal Holbrook, 'Into the Wild' 

Tom Wilkinson, 'Michael Clayton'

Javier Bardem is the least surprising but maybe the most deserving. Casey Affleck is the most surprising. Philip Seymour Hoffman's performance was my personal favorite supporting role for the year, and I was elated to see his name announced (I didn't think he'd get it due to his Hanks-like knack for winning performances).  

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

Cate Blanchett, 'I'm Not There' 

Ruby Dee, 'American Gangster' 

Saiorse Ronan, 'Atonement' 

Amy Ryan, 'Gone Baby Gone' 

Tilda Swinton, 'Michael Clayton'

Cate Blanchett is rightfully (but not unexpectedly) nominated for her interpretation as one of the 9 personalities of Bob Dylan. Amy Ryan was a shoo-in for "Gone Baby Gone" and could win. Tilda Swilton is a bit of a surprise, but she is worthy for every role she's in imo.  

BEST FOREIGN FILM 

'Beaufort' (Israel) 

'Counterfeiters' (Austria) 

'Katyn' (Poland) 

'Mongol' (Kazakhstan) 

'12' (Russia)

I haven't heard of any of these. I didn't know Kazakhstan made movies. Very strange considering how competitive this category has gotten over the past decade. The only one I thought could make it was "Persepolis," but that didn't even make the shortlist (most likely to make room for Best Animated Feature Film).  

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY 

Diablo Cody, 'Juno' 

Nancy Oliver, 'Lars and the Real Girl' 

Tony Gilroy, 'Michael Clayton' 

Brad Bird, 'Ratatouille' 

Tamara Jenkins, 'The Savages'

I'd like to see Diablo Cody win. Everything here is a delightful surprise, especially Brad Bird's "Ratatouille."  

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY 

Christopher Hampton, 'Atonement' 

Sarah Polley, 'Away From Her' 

Ronald Harwood, 'The Diving Bell and the Butterfly' 

Joel Coen and Ethan Coen, 'No Country for Old Men' 

Paul Thomas Anderson, 'There Will Be Blood'

Most interestingly, all but one also directed the film they wrote (the exception being "The Diving Bell..."). I predicted Sarah Polley for a darkhorse director. Instead, she was thrown a nod for writing. No other surprises here.  

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE FILM 

'Persepolis' 

'Ratatouille' 

'Surf's Up'

"Ratatouille" and "Persepolis" (a French cartoon about an Iranian girl who can't return home, unanimously praised by critics) were both givens. It'll be a showdown between the two. Interesting trend with third entries here. It reminds me of other bizarre entries such as "Shark Tale" and "Jimmy Neutron."   

BEST ART DIRECTON

'American Gangster' 

'Atonement' 

'The Golden Compass' 

'Sweeney Todd The Demon Barber of Fleet Street' 

'There Will Be Blood'

That's all very nice. 

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY

'The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford' 

'Atonement' 

'The Diving Bell and the Butterfly' 

'No Country for Old Men' 

'There Will Be Blood'

"Atonement" gets a lot of talk for its 5 1/2 minute tracking shot (similar to last year's winner "Children of Men"). "No Country For Old Men" certainly excelled here. "The Assassination of Jesse James..." was the biggest surprise for me here.  

BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE 

'No End in Sight' 

'Operation Homecoming: Writing the Wartime Experience' 

'Sicko' 

'Taxi to the Dark Side' 

'War/Dance'

The subject of the Iraq war dominated the shortlist. It's more surprising to see that all but one ("Sicko") focus on war. I've seen three of the five here. I would give the award to "No End In Sight" (an incredible walkthrough of how we got to where we are in Iraq), although "Sicko" was easily one of my favorite movies of last year (it made me both guffaw and tore my heart all within 90mins). "Taxi..." was way too dark and saddening for me.

BEST ORIGINAL SCORE

'Atonement' 

'The Kite Runner' 

'Michael Clayton' 

'Ratatouille' 

'3:10 to Yuma'

I like it when Pixar gets nominated for anything.

BEST ORIGINAL SONG 

'Falling Slowly' from 'Once' 

'Happy Working Song' from 'Enchanted' 

'Raise It Up' from 'August Rush' 

'So Close' from 'Enchanted' 

'That's How You Know' from 'Enchanted'

"Once" was a shoo-in. It'd be nice to see it win. Very glad to see "Enchanted" get THREE songs nominated. It may upset with "That's How You Know." All these songs being performed for the telecast (assuming hopefully that there will be one) should make for an entertaining show.  

BEST MAKEUP

'La Vie en Rose'  

'Norbit'  

'Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End'

The two things I hear about "La Vie en Rose": "The actress is superb!" and "Incredible make-up job!" I know very little else plot-wise.

BEST FILM EDITING 

'The Bourne Ultimatum' 

'The Diving Bell and the Butterfly' 

'Into the Wild' 

'No Country for Old Men' 

'There Will Be Blood'

Glad to see "Bourne Ultimatum" get nominaed. If that doesn't win, then whatever wins Best Picture will get it.  

BEST SOUND EDITING 

'The Bourne Ultimatum' 

'No Country for Old Men' 

'Ratatouille' 

'There Will Be Blood' 

'Transformers'

Pixar's sound editor is the best in the business. The way that sound is used in "No Country..." just blows you away. "Transformers" is a great nod, just so people can say The Academy Award nominated film "Transformers"!  

BEST SOUND MIXING 

'The Bourne Ultimatum' 

'No Country for Old Men' 

'Ratatouille' 

'3:10 to Yuma' 

'Transformers'

Wait... there's another one of these? ;)  

BEST VISUAL EFFECTS 

'The Golden Compass' 

'Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End' 

'Transformers'

All very worthy competitors. This category is usually relegated to 2 entries. I'd like to see it extended to 5 some day.  

BEST COSTUME DESIGN 

'Across the Universe' 

'Atonement' 

'Elizabeth: The Golden Age' 

'La Vie en Rose' 

'Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street'

I'm happy with everything chosen here, especially "Across the Universe." I think ATU deserves a nod for Art Direction way more than anything, but with only 1 nomination, I'm glad to see it get noticed at all.

"There Will Be Blood" and "No Country For Old Men" both tie for leading with 8 nominations. "Atonement" and "Michael Clayton" tie for 2nd place with 7 nominations each. The telecast is planned for Sunday, February 24th. This will be one interesting race. See you in 33 days!

If you'd like to know more, you can visit AMPAS' official website: http://www.oscar.com