Coraline
Directed by Henry Selick
Released February 6, 2009
Animation provides almost limitless possibilities for expanding the imagination. One of the perks of being able to artificially create a scenario is that it doesn’t need to have any boundaries. Getting inside the mind of a child is especially interesting, because a child’s imagination knows no limits. “Coraline” takes that notion a step further, permitting its plucky heroine to escape from the confines of her boring, friendless life into a parallel universe that at first seems wondrous and ideal, but ultimately proves to be a dangerous alternate reality in which Coraline must ensure that she does not get trapped.
There’s certainly an inventiveness and uniqueness to the world Coraline visits, where people have buttons for eyes and tailor their actions to Coraline’s greatest desires. The excitement displayed on Coraline’s face, and its replacement later by horror and fear, is perhaps the most compelling part of the film. She lives a life where she interacts with precious few people, and her parents have no time for her and no interest in giving her something to do to occupy her time. There is much emphasis on gardening, and it becomes clear in the alternate world that all of the garden-themed writing her parents do is meant to beget a more relaxing lifestyle which can replace work with fulfilling activities like actual gardening itself.
Coraline is a child alone in her world who must seek out more fantastical companions than those in her everyday life. The film can be seen as a kind of children’s version of “Pan’s Labyrinth,” where at times it’s just as terrifying but hardly as violent or truly deadly. It’s also not nearly as complex, but the film uses its animated tools to its advantage. The other world visited by Coraline is a magical, visually dazzling place which really seems like a dreamland. It’s made appropriately creepy by Coraline’s mother’s continual references to herself as her “other mother.”
Coraline’s journey is intriguing, and her trips through the tiny door in her wall to a parallel universe are bizarre and fascinating. Yet the movie isn’t completely stellar. At times it’s a bit too weird for its own good, and doesn’t come to any sound of resounding conclusion. Once Coraline realizes the dangers of her situation, the movie becomes increasingly frightening and comes apart considerably, not just for Coraline but also in terms of its presentation. Even though it’s supposed to be malicious, most of the magic of the movie is lost when everything unfurls and shows its true colors.
Despite its flaws, “Coraline” is still a worthwhile film that demonstrates that not all animated movies have to be comedies or musicals. It’s a film that would certainly scare the pants off young kids who might decide to watch it, and one that still manages to enthrall adults despite its considerably tame PG rating. It’s still worth seeing, but it hardly has the resounding power of Pixar’s recent comedic entries or the dramatic impact of a landmark achievement in animation like “Waltz with Bashir.”
B
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Movie with Abe: Sherlock Holmes
Sherlock Holmes
Directed by Guy Ritchie
Released December 25, 2009
Robert Downey, Jr. has charisma. There’s no debating that. He’s marvelously able to command movies with his sheer ability to talk and to dismiss the actions and words of those around him as insignificant and uninteresting. That personality serves him well here as he takes on the role of legendary detective Sherlock Holmes. His portrayal is very much half Downey, half Holmes, but in this case it works beautifully. His accent, costumes, and demeanor help complete the transformation from contemporary American actor to period British detective, and like with all of his other recent films, Downey owns the film and makes it his own.
“Sherlock Holmes” isn’t all about Holmes. He’s ably supported by the dutiful Dr. Watson, played by a mustached Jude Law, who displays just the temperament to deal with the often unsavory and obnoxious Holmes. He finds his gimmicks and games grating, but continues to be loyal to the man because he is his friend. It’s a magnificent friendship to behold, and the duo of Downey and Law, both clearly have a great time, is a delightful gift. They anchor the movie’s silliest scenes, and the bewildered yet slightly smug expressions on their faces during the greatest of their shenanigans make them infinitely more entertaining. Eddie Marsan (“Happy-Go-Lucky”) completes the dynamic perfectly as the bumbling Inspector Lestrade.
This adaptation of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s famed hero does a good job casting its primary characters, but a tragically poor job picking the story. Villain Lord Blackwood seeks to reunite England and create a monarchy with him and his secret society at the top. It’s a plot that involves supernatural elements and world domination, and posits Holmes as a celebrity as its very beginning. This movie isn’t necessarily an origin story (like “Batman Begins”), but it might have been nice to have been provided with a smoother transition into the way that Holmes works and the majesty with which he solves cases.
Regardless of intention, the breadth and scope of this film isn’t very wide, spanning only one case, even if it is one that involves the fate of a whole nation. The clear intention of this film and its storyline is to create a lasting franchise. The good news on that front is that it should be successful because the main characters work, and it’s more a matter of the case here that doesn’t. Director Guy Ritchie (“RocknRolla”) seems a good choice to helm the franchise, using slow-motion and voiceover narration from Holmes to drive forward the story and flesh out Holmes’ most devious and impressive of tactics. The film does become obsessed with showcasing Holmes’ devilishly clever methods of trickery and deduction, rewinding and showing how Holmes was able to devise his conclusions. The device is hit or miss – sometimes it’s wholly extraneous and tiresome, and at others it’s necessary and helpful. Either way, it’s what Holmes is all about, and the characterization of Holmes and the entertainment he provides is the strongest element of this film.
B
Directed by Guy Ritchie
Released December 25, 2009
Robert Downey, Jr. has charisma. There’s no debating that. He’s marvelously able to command movies with his sheer ability to talk and to dismiss the actions and words of those around him as insignificant and uninteresting. That personality serves him well here as he takes on the role of legendary detective Sherlock Holmes. His portrayal is very much half Downey, half Holmes, but in this case it works beautifully. His accent, costumes, and demeanor help complete the transformation from contemporary American actor to period British detective, and like with all of his other recent films, Downey owns the film and makes it his own.
“Sherlock Holmes” isn’t all about Holmes. He’s ably supported by the dutiful Dr. Watson, played by a mustached Jude Law, who displays just the temperament to deal with the often unsavory and obnoxious Holmes. He finds his gimmicks and games grating, but continues to be loyal to the man because he is his friend. It’s a magnificent friendship to behold, and the duo of Downey and Law, both clearly have a great time, is a delightful gift. They anchor the movie’s silliest scenes, and the bewildered yet slightly smug expressions on their faces during the greatest of their shenanigans make them infinitely more entertaining. Eddie Marsan (“Happy-Go-Lucky”) completes the dynamic perfectly as the bumbling Inspector Lestrade.
This adaptation of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s famed hero does a good job casting its primary characters, but a tragically poor job picking the story. Villain Lord Blackwood seeks to reunite England and create a monarchy with him and his secret society at the top. It’s a plot that involves supernatural elements and world domination, and posits Holmes as a celebrity as its very beginning. This movie isn’t necessarily an origin story (like “Batman Begins”), but it might have been nice to have been provided with a smoother transition into the way that Holmes works and the majesty with which he solves cases.
Regardless of intention, the breadth and scope of this film isn’t very wide, spanning only one case, even if it is one that involves the fate of a whole nation. The clear intention of this film and its storyline is to create a lasting franchise. The good news on that front is that it should be successful because the main characters work, and it’s more a matter of the case here that doesn’t. Director Guy Ritchie (“RocknRolla”) seems a good choice to helm the franchise, using slow-motion and voiceover narration from Holmes to drive forward the story and flesh out Holmes’ most devious and impressive of tactics. The film does become obsessed with showcasing Holmes’ devilishly clever methods of trickery and deduction, rewinding and showing how Holmes was able to devise his conclusions. The device is hit or miss – sometimes it’s wholly extraneous and tiresome, and at others it’s necessary and helpful. Either way, it’s what Holmes is all about, and the characterization of Holmes and the entertainment he provides is the strongest element of this film.
B
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Film Review: The White Ribbon
My review of the Michael Haneke's new film, "The White Ribbon," a Golden Globe nominee for Best Foreign Film is up on the Heeb Magazine website. Please head over to their site to read it. They use a star system and so the film gets four stars, which translates to a B+ for Movies with Abe.
Wednesday Oscar Watch with Abe
Welcome to the final edition of Wednesday Oscar Watch with Abe. Every Wednesday, I’ve been taking a look at the awards chances for all of the films released the previous week, and this week I’m including the two films opening today. Chime in with your thoughts on the Oscar chances for these films in the comments section
The White Ribbon
This German film from director Michael Haneke is a very strong contender in the Best Foreign Film category. It has already received a Golden Globe nomination, and is probably the frontrunner in this category for an Oscar nod since some worry about the chances of “A Prophet” because it’s very violent, and the similar “Gomorra” got snubbed last year. This film probably won’t contend in other categories, like Best Cinematography, Best Original Screenplay, and Best Director, because it’s foreign and there are plenty of others films with better shots, but consider this the likely winner for Best Foreign Film, and a sure bet to be nominated.
Sherlock Holmes
Guy Ritchie isn’t going to be picking up an Oscar nomination anytime soon, and none of his stars are this year either. Robert Downey Jr. was a nominee last year, Jude Law was last nominated in 2003, and Rachel McAdams will be some day, but none of them have a chance this time around. The movie may score in the Best Art Direction and Best Original Score categories, and perhaps in the Best Costumes or Best Cinematography races as well, but it’s doubtful. It will probably have to settle for its Golden Globe nod for Downey Jr. and its impressive box office take.
It’s Complicated
This comedy earned three Golden Globe nominations, for Best Picture, Best Actress, and Best Screenplay. Meryl Streep is nominated against herself in “Julie & Julia” at the Golden Globes, something which isn’t possible at the Oscars, and she’ll definitely make it in for her portrayal of Julia Child over this role. The film could snag a Best Picture nomination if voters want to honor more mainstream entertainment, and Meyers could be well on her way to a second career Oscar nomination (the first was back in 1980 for penning “Private Benjamin”) if her screenplay is chosen as one of the five Best Original Screenplay nominees, both of which could but probably won’t happen. Alec Baldwin has been tossed around as a contender for Best Supporting Actor, but he has much more serious performances to contend against, and I don’t think his purely funny role can knock any of them out.
The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus
This movie is an odd case, one which has been bolstered by its significance as Heath Ledger’s final film and therefore received far more attention than it otherwise might have. Ledger didn’t film enough of his part to merit consideration, and wouldn’t really be in the running anyway since it’s nowhere near the caliber of his Oscar-winning performance in “The Dark Knight.” Christopher Plummer deservedly has buzz for his other film, “The Last Station.” The best shot this film has is in the Best Makeup category, since that’s one area in which the film excels, and that will probably be its only mention, though it could sneak into the Best Art Direction or Best Costumes category, if voters are feeling adventurous.
Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel
This film won’t really come into play at the Oscars, considering the high number of films in competition for the Best Animated Feature category and the fact that the first film didn’t get nominated.
Thanks for reading Wednesday Oscar Watch with Abe! Comb through previous editions here. If you’re looking to stay up-to-date on the Oscars, take a look at the Monday Oscar Odds, Friday For Your Consideration, and prepare for Oscar predictions in each category coming in mid-January. And don’t miss the AFT Awards, my choices for the best in cinema this year, beginning this Friday, January 1st.
The White Ribbon
This German film from director Michael Haneke is a very strong contender in the Best Foreign Film category. It has already received a Golden Globe nomination, and is probably the frontrunner in this category for an Oscar nod since some worry about the chances of “A Prophet” because it’s very violent, and the similar “Gomorra” got snubbed last year. This film probably won’t contend in other categories, like Best Cinematography, Best Original Screenplay, and Best Director, because it’s foreign and there are plenty of others films with better shots, but consider this the likely winner for Best Foreign Film, and a sure bet to be nominated.
Sherlock Holmes
Guy Ritchie isn’t going to be picking up an Oscar nomination anytime soon, and none of his stars are this year either. Robert Downey Jr. was a nominee last year, Jude Law was last nominated in 2003, and Rachel McAdams will be some day, but none of them have a chance this time around. The movie may score in the Best Art Direction and Best Original Score categories, and perhaps in the Best Costumes or Best Cinematography races as well, but it’s doubtful. It will probably have to settle for its Golden Globe nod for Downey Jr. and its impressive box office take.
It’s Complicated
This comedy earned three Golden Globe nominations, for Best Picture, Best Actress, and Best Screenplay. Meryl Streep is nominated against herself in “Julie & Julia” at the Golden Globes, something which isn’t possible at the Oscars, and she’ll definitely make it in for her portrayal of Julia Child over this role. The film could snag a Best Picture nomination if voters want to honor more mainstream entertainment, and Meyers could be well on her way to a second career Oscar nomination (the first was back in 1980 for penning “Private Benjamin”) if her screenplay is chosen as one of the five Best Original Screenplay nominees, both of which could but probably won’t happen. Alec Baldwin has been tossed around as a contender for Best Supporting Actor, but he has much more serious performances to contend against, and I don’t think his purely funny role can knock any of them out.
The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus
This movie is an odd case, one which has been bolstered by its significance as Heath Ledger’s final film and therefore received far more attention than it otherwise might have. Ledger didn’t film enough of his part to merit consideration, and wouldn’t really be in the running anyway since it’s nowhere near the caliber of his Oscar-winning performance in “The Dark Knight.” Christopher Plummer deservedly has buzz for his other film, “The Last Station.” The best shot this film has is in the Best Makeup category, since that’s one area in which the film excels, and that will probably be its only mention, though it could sneak into the Best Art Direction or Best Costumes category, if voters are feeling adventurous.
Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel
This film won’t really come into play at the Oscars, considering the high number of films in competition for the Best Animated Feature category and the fact that the first film didn’t get nominated.
Thanks for reading Wednesday Oscar Watch with Abe! Comb through previous editions here. If you’re looking to stay up-to-date on the Oscars, take a look at the Monday Oscar Odds, Friday For Your Consideration, and prepare for Oscar predictions in each category coming in mid-January. And don’t miss the AFT Awards, my choices for the best in cinema this year, beginning this Friday, January 1st.
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Movie with Abe: Avatar
Avatar
Directed by James Cameron
Released December 18, 2009
James Cameron makes movies very sporadically. Usually he averages at most several movies a decade. His last non-documentary film was the enormously successful epic “Titanic” back in 1997. He’s been hard at work on his latest feature for what feels like ages, and reports of a bursting budget and ungodly runtime seemed to indicate that perhaps this might be a major flop. But this is James Cameron, whose filmography is remarkably impressive, and who hasn’t really gone wrong in his career, with the first two “Terminator” films (and only the first two), “Aliens,” and “True Lies” under his belt. It shouldn’t be a surprise therefore, that “Avatar” is simply astonishing and one of the most exciting science fiction films in recent years.
Cameron likes to explore new worlds. His previous film, “Aliens of the Deep,” examined underwater creatures unknown to most of the population. With “Avatar,” Cameron has taken a magnificent leap, both forward in time to the year 2154 and forward in thought to a whole new world full of extraordinary life. One of the reasons it took Cameron so long to make “Avatar” is that he wanted technology to be as complex as the ideas he had and the visuals he wanted to represent, and that’s clearly showcased in the film. Pandora, a moon with resources the ailing Earth could really use, is a wondrously magical and mesmerizing place. The amount of color and detail used to make it come gloriously alive is staggering and stunning.
It doesn’t just look pretty, though. “Avatar” is a surprisingly coherent and fascinating story of different cultures and the bond that can develop between them if members on both sides are willing to try to get to know them rather than simply assimilate them and bring them around to their way of thinking. The complex construction of the alien culture is just as impressive as the special effects. It’s sort of like a 21st-century, larger-scale update of “Bambi,” where it’s worth contemplating whether man is actually the enemy. It’s not merely a social critique, however, since it’s just as much a terrific action film as it is a science fiction explorative extravaganza.
Two elements of the film that aren’t crucial to its success are its script and its cast, but both are in equally fine form. The dialogue is interesting and meaningful, and the story is completely engaging for the whole of its more than 150 minutes. Sam Worthington is entertaining as the prickly marine who begins to connect with the alien Na’vi people, and he’s supported by a strong cast. Zoe Saldana as the Na’vi woman who takes Worthington’s Jake in, Sigourney Weaver as the dedicated scientist, and Michelle Rodriguez as the loyal pilot are all cast perfectly, but there’s no one more fitting for his role than the incredibly fearsome and humongous Stephen Lang as the colonel intent on seeing his mission through. The cast is but one of the many sterling elements of this film that help make it one of the best of the year, and one of the most exhilarating and visually extraordinary science fictions films to date.
A-
Directed by James Cameron
Released December 18, 2009
James Cameron makes movies very sporadically. Usually he averages at most several movies a decade. His last non-documentary film was the enormously successful epic “Titanic” back in 1997. He’s been hard at work on his latest feature for what feels like ages, and reports of a bursting budget and ungodly runtime seemed to indicate that perhaps this might be a major flop. But this is James Cameron, whose filmography is remarkably impressive, and who hasn’t really gone wrong in his career, with the first two “Terminator” films (and only the first two), “Aliens,” and “True Lies” under his belt. It shouldn’t be a surprise therefore, that “Avatar” is simply astonishing and one of the most exciting science fiction films in recent years.
Cameron likes to explore new worlds. His previous film, “Aliens of the Deep,” examined underwater creatures unknown to most of the population. With “Avatar,” Cameron has taken a magnificent leap, both forward in time to the year 2154 and forward in thought to a whole new world full of extraordinary life. One of the reasons it took Cameron so long to make “Avatar” is that he wanted technology to be as complex as the ideas he had and the visuals he wanted to represent, and that’s clearly showcased in the film. Pandora, a moon with resources the ailing Earth could really use, is a wondrously magical and mesmerizing place. The amount of color and detail used to make it come gloriously alive is staggering and stunning.
It doesn’t just look pretty, though. “Avatar” is a surprisingly coherent and fascinating story of different cultures and the bond that can develop between them if members on both sides are willing to try to get to know them rather than simply assimilate them and bring them around to their way of thinking. The complex construction of the alien culture is just as impressive as the special effects. It’s sort of like a 21st-century, larger-scale update of “Bambi,” where it’s worth contemplating whether man is actually the enemy. It’s not merely a social critique, however, since it’s just as much a terrific action film as it is a science fiction explorative extravaganza.
Two elements of the film that aren’t crucial to its success are its script and its cast, but both are in equally fine form. The dialogue is interesting and meaningful, and the story is completely engaging for the whole of its more than 150 minutes. Sam Worthington is entertaining as the prickly marine who begins to connect with the alien Na’vi people, and he’s supported by a strong cast. Zoe Saldana as the Na’vi woman who takes Worthington’s Jake in, Sigourney Weaver as the dedicated scientist, and Michelle Rodriguez as the loyal pilot are all cast perfectly, but there’s no one more fitting for his role than the incredibly fearsome and humongous Stephen Lang as the colonel intent on seeing his mission through. The cast is but one of the many sterling elements of this film that help make it one of the best of the year, and one of the most exhilarating and visually extraordinary science fictions films to date.
A-
Tuesday’s Top Trailer: Inception
Welcome to a new weekly feature here at Movies with Abe, Tuesday's Top Trailer. One of my favorite parts about going to see movies is the series of trailers that airs beforehand and, more often than not, the trailer is far better than the actual film. Each week, I'll be sharing a trailer I've recently seen. Please chime in with comments on what you think of the trailer and how you think the movie is going to be.
Inception – Opening July 16, 2010
This trailer debuted with “Sherlock Holmes” over the weekend, and it easily bested all of the other trailers (except maybe “Iron Man 2,” which comes close) as the first real glimpse of cinema in 2010 since the new year is a mere three days away. This film isn’t coming out until the summer, but this trailer is definitely the most exciting preview I’ve seen in a while, certainly more thrilling than the first teaser trailer from August. The opening music is pulse-pounding and fast-paced, but that’s hardly the best part. The concept here isn’t terribly fleshed out, but what we do see is awesome. Leonardo DiCaprio and Ellen Page watching as half a city curls up and ends up looming over them in the sky above is dazzling, and that’s just the beginning. It’s impossible to discern what’s going on and how it’s happening, but Leo telling Ellen never to recreate from her own mind indicates something truly incredible here, that they’re somehow able to manipulate the world around them and influence what’s happening. DiCaprio is good for action films after last year’s “Body of Lies,” and this seems like a nice opportunity for Page to star in a thriller rather than just quirky comedies (“Juno,” “Whip It”) or ultra-serious dramas (“Hard Candy,” “An American Crime”). The best indicator of greatness is that it’s directed by Christopher Nolan. The trailer advertises his credentials as the director of “The Dark Knight,” which I still liked despite not loving it as much as the rest of the universe. What I think is more impressive and relevant about Nolan’s resume is his direction of “Memento,” which demonstrated that he is able to think about filmmaking in a wholly different way. He was able to look at cinema in a non-linear fashion and construct an incredible film, and this looks like it will be just as fascinating. There’s so much that looks fantastic in this trailer, including all the gravity- and logic-defying moments and a quick shot of Ken Watanabe lying down in a suit and slowly picking up his gun. It’s a toss-up for the most thrilling line in the trailer, which could either be Leo’s declaration that “he has to steal it” (the big idea) or Ellen screaming “wake me up!” over and over. It’s less than 90 seconds, so you just have to watch it for yourself; it’s hard to put into words just how cool it is.
Inception – Opening July 16, 2010
This trailer debuted with “Sherlock Holmes” over the weekend, and it easily bested all of the other trailers (except maybe “Iron Man 2,” which comes close) as the first real glimpse of cinema in 2010 since the new year is a mere three days away. This film isn’t coming out until the summer, but this trailer is definitely the most exciting preview I’ve seen in a while, certainly more thrilling than the first teaser trailer from August. The opening music is pulse-pounding and fast-paced, but that’s hardly the best part. The concept here isn’t terribly fleshed out, but what we do see is awesome. Leonardo DiCaprio and Ellen Page watching as half a city curls up and ends up looming over them in the sky above is dazzling, and that’s just the beginning. It’s impossible to discern what’s going on and how it’s happening, but Leo telling Ellen never to recreate from her own mind indicates something truly incredible here, that they’re somehow able to manipulate the world around them and influence what’s happening. DiCaprio is good for action films after last year’s “Body of Lies,” and this seems like a nice opportunity for Page to star in a thriller rather than just quirky comedies (“Juno,” “Whip It”) or ultra-serious dramas (“Hard Candy,” “An American Crime”). The best indicator of greatness is that it’s directed by Christopher Nolan. The trailer advertises his credentials as the director of “The Dark Knight,” which I still liked despite not loving it as much as the rest of the universe. What I think is more impressive and relevant about Nolan’s resume is his direction of “Memento,” which demonstrated that he is able to think about filmmaking in a wholly different way. He was able to look at cinema in a non-linear fashion and construct an incredible film, and this looks like it will be just as fascinating. There’s so much that looks fantastic in this trailer, including all the gravity- and logic-defying moments and a quick shot of Ken Watanabe lying down in a suit and slowly picking up his gun. It’s a toss-up for the most thrilling line in the trailer, which could either be Leo’s declaration that “he has to steal it” (the big idea) or Ellen screaming “wake me up!” over and over. It’s less than 90 seconds, so you just have to watch it for yourself; it’s hard to put into words just how cool it is.
Monday, December 28, 2009
Home Video: The Hangover
The Hangover
Directed by Todd Phillips
Released June 5, 2009
2009 wasn’t a particularly good year for R-rated comedies. Some were far too raunchy (“Bruno”), some were raunchy but unfunny (“The Slammin’ Salmon”), some thought they were raunchy but weren’t (“I Love You, Man”), and some just plain weren’t raunchy at all (“Funny People”). But fortunately there’s one entry from the filmic libraries of 2009 where a comedy is just as crude as advertised, and ends up being much more hilarious than any other film this year. Summer smash “The Hangover” rights all the wrongs committed by the aforementioned films and comes out wondrously ahead.
What really makes “The Hangover” work is its cast of characters. Alan (Zach Galifianakis) has no filter and shares all of his perverted, bizarre thoughts with everyone around him. Phil (Bradley Cooper) doesn’t care what anyone else thinks. Stu (Ed Helms) cares way too much what everyone else thinks. And Doug (Justin Bartha)…well, there isn’t much information gleaned about Doug other than that he’s the groom. Setting the three of them out on a road trip to Las Vegas for a bachelor party the night before Doug’s wedding is an inspired setup, one where it’s clear within minutes of their departure and well before they even arrive at their hotel that it’s a bad idea. The title promises sinful activities that the boys will regret the following day, but the movie goes all out and doesn’t hold back and try to tame their wild extravaganza in any way.
The series of misadventures embarked upon and encountered by Alan, Phil, Stu, and Doug are altogether off-the-wall, and in some cases even plausible. Investigating their story with a magnifying glass might uncover several minor plot holes, but for the most part, the chain of events makes some sense. More importantly, their journey is one filled with outrageous humor that isn’t all related to bodily functions and the disgusting things they can do. A portion of the jokes are, including far too many shots of Galifianakis’ bare behind, but they’re played up for the utmost hilarity, and it all works, thanks in great part to the comedic skills of Galifianakis and his ability to say rather than just do funny things.
Comedies can be exceptionally funny if it seems like the characters are in on the joke and having a good time. In this case, because the story of what occurred during their fateful bachelor party night is unfurled as the events of the following day transpire, the characters are woefully unaware of what went on, and thus on edge and just as shocked and astounded by what they did as audiences. As they discover more of what happened, they begin to recall and comprehend what occurred, and at that point they get to be in on the joke, quietly applauding themselves for the fun they had even though the resulting state of affairs hardly seems worth it. “The Hangover” is a comedy about one really great night and one really bad day, and both parts are equally amusing, enthralling, revolting, and hilarious.
B+
Directed by Todd Phillips
Released June 5, 2009
2009 wasn’t a particularly good year for R-rated comedies. Some were far too raunchy (“Bruno”), some were raunchy but unfunny (“The Slammin’ Salmon”), some thought they were raunchy but weren’t (“I Love You, Man”), and some just plain weren’t raunchy at all (“Funny People”). But fortunately there’s one entry from the filmic libraries of 2009 where a comedy is just as crude as advertised, and ends up being much more hilarious than any other film this year. Summer smash “The Hangover” rights all the wrongs committed by the aforementioned films and comes out wondrously ahead.
What really makes “The Hangover” work is its cast of characters. Alan (Zach Galifianakis) has no filter and shares all of his perverted, bizarre thoughts with everyone around him. Phil (Bradley Cooper) doesn’t care what anyone else thinks. Stu (Ed Helms) cares way too much what everyone else thinks. And Doug (Justin Bartha)…well, there isn’t much information gleaned about Doug other than that he’s the groom. Setting the three of them out on a road trip to Las Vegas for a bachelor party the night before Doug’s wedding is an inspired setup, one where it’s clear within minutes of their departure and well before they even arrive at their hotel that it’s a bad idea. The title promises sinful activities that the boys will regret the following day, but the movie goes all out and doesn’t hold back and try to tame their wild extravaganza in any way.
The series of misadventures embarked upon and encountered by Alan, Phil, Stu, and Doug are altogether off-the-wall, and in some cases even plausible. Investigating their story with a magnifying glass might uncover several minor plot holes, but for the most part, the chain of events makes some sense. More importantly, their journey is one filled with outrageous humor that isn’t all related to bodily functions and the disgusting things they can do. A portion of the jokes are, including far too many shots of Galifianakis’ bare behind, but they’re played up for the utmost hilarity, and it all works, thanks in great part to the comedic skills of Galifianakis and his ability to say rather than just do funny things.
Comedies can be exceptionally funny if it seems like the characters are in on the joke and having a good time. In this case, because the story of what occurred during their fateful bachelor party night is unfurled as the events of the following day transpire, the characters are woefully unaware of what went on, and thus on edge and just as shocked and astounded by what they did as audiences. As they discover more of what happened, they begin to recall and comprehend what occurred, and at that point they get to be in on the joke, quietly applauding themselves for the fun they had even though the resulting state of affairs hardly seems worth it. “The Hangover” is a comedy about one really great night and one really bad day, and both parts are equally amusing, enthralling, revolting, and hilarious.
B+
Monday Oscar Odds
Full-fledged, extensive Oscar predictions are coming in January, but I’d like to keep a running list of my predicted nominees up until that point. I’ll expand to include other categories later. Remember to check back in January for analysis and revised predictions.
Best Picture
Avatar
An Education
The Hurt Locker
Inglorious Basterds
Invictus
Nine
Precious
A Serious Man
Up
Up in the Air
No change in this list – I’ve now seen Avatar and feel quite secure about its placement here. Much as I’d love to see it get snubbed, I’m going to have to reclassify Precious to the upper echelon of contenders. I’m not sure why people are doubting Invictus, especially since “Letters from Iwo Jima” made it in after not being recognized at many of the precursors a few years ago. Oscar voters like Clint; that’s all there it is to it. This ten-nominee system was meant to honor films like Nine, which is why I think it will still end up here. The two that could fall off due to lack of support would be A Serious Man and An Education, and also got get left off if voters want to honor more mainstream movies. I think this lineup looks pretty good, though, and still only The Messenger sitting in eleventh place ready to snatch a spot away from one of the weaker contenders.
Best Director
Kathryn Bigelow, The Hurt Locker
James Cameron, Avatar
Clint Eastwood, Invictus
Jason Reitman, Up in the Air
Quentin Tarantino, Inglorious Basterds
Nothing to add here; everything I said last week still stands. Directors Guild of America nominations will be announced on January 7th, and if anyone besides these five directors appear on that list, there might be a change, but otherwise I’m confident in these guys (and gal).
Best Actor
Jeff Bridges, Crazy Heart
George Clooney, Up in the Air
Colin Firth, A Single Man
Morgan Freeman, Invictus
Jeremy Renner, The Hurt Locker
Best Actress
Sandra Bullock, The Blind Side
Helen Mirren, The Last Station
Carey Mulligan, An Education
Gabourey Sidibe, Precious
Meryl Streep, Julie & Julia
Best Supporting Actor
Matt Damon, Invictus
Woody Harrelson, The Messenger
Christopher Plummer, The Last Station
Stanley Tucci, The Lovely Bones
Christoph Waltz, Inglorious Basterds
I’m not sure why people have so little faith in Matt Damon (Invictus). He’s received Golden Globe and SAG nominations from a film that seems to be well-liked, yet many are leaving him off their list of predicted nominees. I don’t think that Christian McKay (Me and Orson Welles) has the thunder to steal his spot, and Alfred Molina (An Education) is pretty much out of the race at this point.
Best Supporting Actress
Penelope Cruz, Nine
Vera Farmiga, Up in the Air
Anna Kendrick, Up in the Air
Julianne Moore, A Single Man
Mo’Nique, Precious
I’m still set on these five, but Nathaniel over at The Film Experience is predicting two upsets, and I’d like to at least acknowledge them in preparation for their possible occurrence since he’s been my go-to primary source for Oscar intelligence for a good eight years now (thanks, Nathaniel). He foresees the replacement of Penelope Cruz (Nine) by costar Marion Cotillard (Nine), noting that she is actually a supporting performer and might do shockingly well if voters reclassify her. I’m not so sure, and I think Cruz has a much showier role. Both are recent Oscar winners (within the past two years) and could easily end up here, but I don’t think both could. The other possible upset is Melanie Laurent (Inglorious Basterds), which would make me gloriously happy since (AFT Awards spoiler!) she’s my winner in this category. Apparently, SAG considered Laurent a lead and therefore she couldn’t be nominated in the supporting category, and thus the less impressive Diane Kruger (Inglorious Basterds) ended up with a nomination for the film, which was a clear favorite with voters. I just hope that her inclusion isn’t at the expense of the majestic Julianne Moore (A Single Man), whose SAG snub has led to some shying away from predicting her. If anyone had to be dropped, I wish it could be Mo’Nique (Precious), though it’s unlikely that her bad attitude would lead to a snub come nomination time rather than for the win. The other wild card is Samantha Morton (The Messenger). It’s worth noting that Morton has two Oscar nominations but only a precursor Globe nod for one and a corresponding SAG nod for neither. She’s a late starter, and a subtle but highly praised film like “The Messenger” could be just the ticket for her. It was a way for voters to show their enthusiasm for “In America” back in 2003, which surely would have been up for Best Picture if there were ten nominees back then but had to settle for two acting nods and a screenplay mention instead. Back to this year, my predicted five are the likely contenders, and it’s only a matter of who will knock any of them out, if at all.
Best Original Screenplay
The Hurt Locker
Inglorious Basterds
The Messenger
A Serious Man
Up
Reader Richter Scale kindly pointed out that “District 9” is contending in the adapted category, leaving one spot open. Most will predict 500 Days of Summer, but I think this is the perfect way for The Messenger to break through in a small way without knocking out one of the Best Picture nominees or having either Ben Foster or Samantha Morton surprise.
Best Adapted Screenplay
District 9
Invictus
Julie & Julia
Precious
Up in the Air
It’s tough to decide which of my predicted five from last week to take out now that I’ve learned District 9 belongs here. Invictus should be safe because the screenplay to Clint Eastwood’s last Best Picture nominee, “Letters from Iwo Jima,” earned a nod even though no one saw it coming. Precious and Up in the Air are also locked. Though I’m predicting An Education for Best Picture, I think it will miss out here in favor of Julie & Julia. There are often screenplay nominees that never had a chance at Best Picture, like “Away from Her,” “Little Children,” and “Notes on a Scandal.” We’ll see if the same holds true this year.
Best Animated Feature
Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs
Coraline
Fantastic Mr. Fox
The Princess and the Frog
Up
I’m adding this category this week, just to note that I’m predicting the same five films that earned Golden Globe and Annie Award nominations. The Secret of Kells also earned an Annie nomination for Best Feature, but that was its sole mention and it’s not well-known enough to grab a spot. Some may have faith in Monsters vs. Aliens, but the real threat to usurp a spot is Ponyo, from director Hayao Miyazaki, who won this award back in 2002 for “Spirited Away” and was nominated again in 2005 for “Howl’s Moving Castle.” I can’t decide which of the five I’ve listed above would be swapped out for one of these, so I’ll stick with this list for the moment.
Check back every Monday for a slightly updated list of Oscar predictions. Please chime in the comments with your thoughts!
Best Picture
Avatar
An Education
The Hurt Locker
Inglorious Basterds
Invictus
Nine
Precious
A Serious Man
Up
Up in the Air
No change in this list – I’ve now seen Avatar and feel quite secure about its placement here. Much as I’d love to see it get snubbed, I’m going to have to reclassify Precious to the upper echelon of contenders. I’m not sure why people are doubting Invictus, especially since “Letters from Iwo Jima” made it in after not being recognized at many of the precursors a few years ago. Oscar voters like Clint; that’s all there it is to it. This ten-nominee system was meant to honor films like Nine, which is why I think it will still end up here. The two that could fall off due to lack of support would be A Serious Man and An Education, and also got get left off if voters want to honor more mainstream movies. I think this lineup looks pretty good, though, and still only The Messenger sitting in eleventh place ready to snatch a spot away from one of the weaker contenders.
Best Director
Kathryn Bigelow, The Hurt Locker
James Cameron, Avatar
Clint Eastwood, Invictus
Jason Reitman, Up in the Air
Quentin Tarantino, Inglorious Basterds
Nothing to add here; everything I said last week still stands. Directors Guild of America nominations will be announced on January 7th, and if anyone besides these five directors appear on that list, there might be a change, but otherwise I’m confident in these guys (and gal).
Best Actor
Jeff Bridges, Crazy Heart
George Clooney, Up in the Air
Colin Firth, A Single Man
Morgan Freeman, Invictus
Jeremy Renner, The Hurt Locker
Best Actress
Sandra Bullock, The Blind Side
Helen Mirren, The Last Station
Carey Mulligan, An Education
Gabourey Sidibe, Precious
Meryl Streep, Julie & Julia
Best Supporting Actor
Matt Damon, Invictus
Woody Harrelson, The Messenger
Christopher Plummer, The Last Station
Stanley Tucci, The Lovely Bones
Christoph Waltz, Inglorious Basterds
I’m not sure why people have so little faith in Matt Damon (Invictus). He’s received Golden Globe and SAG nominations from a film that seems to be well-liked, yet many are leaving him off their list of predicted nominees. I don’t think that Christian McKay (Me and Orson Welles) has the thunder to steal his spot, and Alfred Molina (An Education) is pretty much out of the race at this point.
Best Supporting Actress
Penelope Cruz, Nine
Vera Farmiga, Up in the Air
Anna Kendrick, Up in the Air
Julianne Moore, A Single Man
Mo’Nique, Precious
I’m still set on these five, but Nathaniel over at The Film Experience is predicting two upsets, and I’d like to at least acknowledge them in preparation for their possible occurrence since he’s been my go-to primary source for Oscar intelligence for a good eight years now (thanks, Nathaniel). He foresees the replacement of Penelope Cruz (Nine) by costar Marion Cotillard (Nine), noting that she is actually a supporting performer and might do shockingly well if voters reclassify her. I’m not so sure, and I think Cruz has a much showier role. Both are recent Oscar winners (within the past two years) and could easily end up here, but I don’t think both could. The other possible upset is Melanie Laurent (Inglorious Basterds), which would make me gloriously happy since (AFT Awards spoiler!) she’s my winner in this category. Apparently, SAG considered Laurent a lead and therefore she couldn’t be nominated in the supporting category, and thus the less impressive Diane Kruger (Inglorious Basterds) ended up with a nomination for the film, which was a clear favorite with voters. I just hope that her inclusion isn’t at the expense of the majestic Julianne Moore (A Single Man), whose SAG snub has led to some shying away from predicting her. If anyone had to be dropped, I wish it could be Mo’Nique (Precious), though it’s unlikely that her bad attitude would lead to a snub come nomination time rather than for the win. The other wild card is Samantha Morton (The Messenger). It’s worth noting that Morton has two Oscar nominations but only a precursor Globe nod for one and a corresponding SAG nod for neither. She’s a late starter, and a subtle but highly praised film like “The Messenger” could be just the ticket for her. It was a way for voters to show their enthusiasm for “In America” back in 2003, which surely would have been up for Best Picture if there were ten nominees back then but had to settle for two acting nods and a screenplay mention instead. Back to this year, my predicted five are the likely contenders, and it’s only a matter of who will knock any of them out, if at all.
Best Original Screenplay
The Hurt Locker
Inglorious Basterds
The Messenger
A Serious Man
Up
Reader Richter Scale kindly pointed out that “District 9” is contending in the adapted category, leaving one spot open. Most will predict 500 Days of Summer, but I think this is the perfect way for The Messenger to break through in a small way without knocking out one of the Best Picture nominees or having either Ben Foster or Samantha Morton surprise.
Best Adapted Screenplay
District 9
Invictus
Julie & Julia
Precious
Up in the Air
It’s tough to decide which of my predicted five from last week to take out now that I’ve learned District 9 belongs here. Invictus should be safe because the screenplay to Clint Eastwood’s last Best Picture nominee, “Letters from Iwo Jima,” earned a nod even though no one saw it coming. Precious and Up in the Air are also locked. Though I’m predicting An Education for Best Picture, I think it will miss out here in favor of Julie & Julia. There are often screenplay nominees that never had a chance at Best Picture, like “Away from Her,” “Little Children,” and “Notes on a Scandal.” We’ll see if the same holds true this year.
Best Animated Feature
Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs
Coraline
Fantastic Mr. Fox
The Princess and the Frog
Up
I’m adding this category this week, just to note that I’m predicting the same five films that earned Golden Globe and Annie Award nominations. The Secret of Kells also earned an Annie nomination for Best Feature, but that was its sole mention and it’s not well-known enough to grab a spot. Some may have faith in Monsters vs. Aliens, but the real threat to usurp a spot is Ponyo, from director Hayao Miyazaki, who won this award back in 2002 for “Spirited Away” and was nominated again in 2005 for “Howl’s Moving Castle.” I can’t decide which of the five I’ve listed above would be swapped out for one of these, so I’ll stick with this list for the moment.
Check back every Monday for a slightly updated list of Oscar predictions. Please chime in the comments with your thoughts!
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Home Video: The Proposal
The Proposal
Directed by Anne Fletcher
Released June 19, 2009
It’s great to have a lead character you can really hate. The reason that stories like "A Christmas Carol," television shows like "All in the Family," and films like "The Devil Wears Prada" work is that you love to hate the main characters. They’re so detestable that it’s fun to root for their downfall, and equally enjoyable to see them crush someone’s spirits because they seem to get such elation out of doing it. A protagonist that doesn’t possess any of those impressive qualities and is simply not likeable is hardly going to be as appealing. You won’t love to hate her, you’ll just hate her, and therefore you can’t root for her and couldn’t possibly be interested in whether or not she finds happiness.
The Proposal suffers from these problems in an irrecoverable way. Sandra Bullock plays against type as a book publishing executive focused solely on her career and stomping on the dreams of others in order to get ahead and thrive. The charming and loveable Bullock isn’t playing her usual darling self, and this new role doesn’t suit her at all. She’s not really mean enough or funny at all in her cruelty, and the only reason to root for her is to see the old familiar Bullock shine through the guise of the character she’s clearly only temporarily adopting.
Her costar Ryan Reynolds isn’t exactly helpful. He’s not terribly strong in the acting abilities department, and in many ways, he’s even less sympathetic than Bullock. The two make a dismal romantic pair, and the attempts to convey their path towards bonding and coupling fall horrendously short of believable. The film has a good premise – a career-driven Canadian employee forces her subordinate to marry her so that she can stay in the country and he can continue to advance his career – but it executes it inadequately.
Instead of focusing on Bullock’s comedic strengths and letting Reynolds appear as anything but a wimp, the movie devolves into a series of unfunny, overdone, predictable plot twists. The fact that Reynolds’ character lives in Alaska and that the fake couple has to go there almost within hours of deciding to put on the charade seems insanely rushed, and things only get worse once they get there. All of the characters are hopelessly muted and not one of them seems to actually have a backbone. There are two dreadful exceptions, and one of them is Betty White, whose role as Reynolds’ grandmother could have included a few zingers but instead mostly features her chanting in the woods like a crazy person. She could have been used in a much smarter fashion. The other is Denis O’Hare as the investigator intent on proving that their marriage is a sham, and he’s simply cartoonish and annoying the whole time. There’s no one to sympathize with or root for because all of the characters are so dull and bland. This film wasn’t a bad idea, but everything is done so poorly that it’s a miserable experience from start to finish.
F
Directed by Anne Fletcher
Released June 19, 2009
It’s great to have a lead character you can really hate. The reason that stories like "A Christmas Carol," television shows like "All in the Family," and films like "The Devil Wears Prada" work is that you love to hate the main characters. They’re so detestable that it’s fun to root for their downfall, and equally enjoyable to see them crush someone’s spirits because they seem to get such elation out of doing it. A protagonist that doesn’t possess any of those impressive qualities and is simply not likeable is hardly going to be as appealing. You won’t love to hate her, you’ll just hate her, and therefore you can’t root for her and couldn’t possibly be interested in whether or not she finds happiness.
The Proposal suffers from these problems in an irrecoverable way. Sandra Bullock plays against type as a book publishing executive focused solely on her career and stomping on the dreams of others in order to get ahead and thrive. The charming and loveable Bullock isn’t playing her usual darling self, and this new role doesn’t suit her at all. She’s not really mean enough or funny at all in her cruelty, and the only reason to root for her is to see the old familiar Bullock shine through the guise of the character she’s clearly only temporarily adopting.
Her costar Ryan Reynolds isn’t exactly helpful. He’s not terribly strong in the acting abilities department, and in many ways, he’s even less sympathetic than Bullock. The two make a dismal romantic pair, and the attempts to convey their path towards bonding and coupling fall horrendously short of believable. The film has a good premise – a career-driven Canadian employee forces her subordinate to marry her so that she can stay in the country and he can continue to advance his career – but it executes it inadequately.
Instead of focusing on Bullock’s comedic strengths and letting Reynolds appear as anything but a wimp, the movie devolves into a series of unfunny, overdone, predictable plot twists. The fact that Reynolds’ character lives in Alaska and that the fake couple has to go there almost within hours of deciding to put on the charade seems insanely rushed, and things only get worse once they get there. All of the characters are hopelessly muted and not one of them seems to actually have a backbone. There are two dreadful exceptions, and one of them is Betty White, whose role as Reynolds’ grandmother could have included a few zingers but instead mostly features her chanting in the woods like a crazy person. She could have been used in a much smarter fashion. The other is Denis O’Hare as the investigator intent on proving that their marriage is a sham, and he’s simply cartoonish and annoying the whole time. There’s no one to sympathize with or root for because all of the characters are so dull and bland. This film wasn’t a bad idea, but everything is done so poorly that it’s a miserable experience from start to finish.
F
Movie with Abe: The Blind Side
The Blind Side
Directed by John Lee Hancock
Released November 17, 2009
Some movies just want to be inspiring. Being based on a true story certainly helps, because if the real-life events are actually inspiring, it’s a good bet that the film adaptation will be too. Yet simply expecting the story to be life-affirming and rousing doesn’t quite do the trick. Stories have to play themselves out to earn the tears of joy they might produce, and otherwise they just feel manufactured. Trying desperately to be moving by including stirring and motivating lines feels hopelessly forced, and that’s something that “The Blind Side” does over and over again, beating its over-sentimentalized drum to death.
“The Blind Side” is the story of Michael Oher, a homeless teen taken in by a wealthy woman and her family in Tennessee. The film only borrows half of the title of the book on which it’s based, “The Blind Side: Evolution of a Game.” The film opens with voiceover narration by Leigh Anne Tuohy (Sandra Bullock) discussing how offensive tackle Lawrence Taylor changed football in the 1980s, revealing her deep love for and complex knowledge of the game of football. From there, however, the football metaphor dies since it’s never referenced again, and Leigh doesn’t display her intricate understanding of football at any point. Instead, she tries to motivate Michael with corny speeches and her distinctive immutable personality.
Leigh is set up to be the dramatic heart and center of “The Blind Side” rather than the boy she takes in, and she’s more than up to the task of trying to carry it all by herself and inch her way in to dominate every frame. Bullock puts on a heavy accent and blond hair to assume the role, which is a considerable departure from her traditional parts as the bumbling but ultimately charming lead in romantic comedies. She puts far too much effort into shedding her usual personality, and the result is an artificial and entirely invasive presence which completely overpowers every other person. Part of it is the character – Tim McGraw as her overly supportive husband doesn’t stand a chance of getting his two cents heard – but part of it is the unnecessarily loud and obnoxious performance by Bullock.
On top of that, there’s no real dramatic mystery in “The Blind Side.” Michael Oher’s path from living on the streets to a successful career as a football player is hopelessly watered down. Any obstacles that appear in his path are both predictable and preposterous, and it’s rarely truly demonstrated that this is a struggle for him. This feels like the picture-perfect image of despair and underprivileged families put on the front of a brochure compared to the harrowing portrayal of poverty in “Precious.” The twists might have occurred in real life, but the way they play out on screen is hopelessly lacking in style and effectiveness. It all feels very fabricated and deliberate, intent on providing a happy ending without much indication that it’s not inevitable. Its sole aim is to pull at the heartstrings, and there’s not much else in the film besides that overemphasized sentimentality.
C-
Directed by John Lee Hancock
Released November 17, 2009
Some movies just want to be inspiring. Being based on a true story certainly helps, because if the real-life events are actually inspiring, it’s a good bet that the film adaptation will be too. Yet simply expecting the story to be life-affirming and rousing doesn’t quite do the trick. Stories have to play themselves out to earn the tears of joy they might produce, and otherwise they just feel manufactured. Trying desperately to be moving by including stirring and motivating lines feels hopelessly forced, and that’s something that “The Blind Side” does over and over again, beating its over-sentimentalized drum to death.
“The Blind Side” is the story of Michael Oher, a homeless teen taken in by a wealthy woman and her family in Tennessee. The film only borrows half of the title of the book on which it’s based, “The Blind Side: Evolution of a Game.” The film opens with voiceover narration by Leigh Anne Tuohy (Sandra Bullock) discussing how offensive tackle Lawrence Taylor changed football in the 1980s, revealing her deep love for and complex knowledge of the game of football. From there, however, the football metaphor dies since it’s never referenced again, and Leigh doesn’t display her intricate understanding of football at any point. Instead, she tries to motivate Michael with corny speeches and her distinctive immutable personality.
Leigh is set up to be the dramatic heart and center of “The Blind Side” rather than the boy she takes in, and she’s more than up to the task of trying to carry it all by herself and inch her way in to dominate every frame. Bullock puts on a heavy accent and blond hair to assume the role, which is a considerable departure from her traditional parts as the bumbling but ultimately charming lead in romantic comedies. She puts far too much effort into shedding her usual personality, and the result is an artificial and entirely invasive presence which completely overpowers every other person. Part of it is the character – Tim McGraw as her overly supportive husband doesn’t stand a chance of getting his two cents heard – but part of it is the unnecessarily loud and obnoxious performance by Bullock.
On top of that, there’s no real dramatic mystery in “The Blind Side.” Michael Oher’s path from living on the streets to a successful career as a football player is hopelessly watered down. Any obstacles that appear in his path are both predictable and preposterous, and it’s rarely truly demonstrated that this is a struggle for him. This feels like the picture-perfect image of despair and underprivileged families put on the front of a brochure compared to the harrowing portrayal of poverty in “Precious.” The twists might have occurred in real life, but the way they play out on screen is hopelessly lacking in style and effectiveness. It all feels very fabricated and deliberate, intent on providing a happy ending without much indication that it’s not inevitable. Its sole aim is to pull at the heartstrings, and there’s not much else in the film besides that overemphasized sentimentality.
C-
Saturday, December 26, 2009
AFT Awards Refresher: Best of 2008
2009 is coming to a close, and it’s almost time for Abe’s Film and Television Awards, also known as the AFT Awards. The 3rd Annual AFT Television Awards were handed out this summer over at TV with Abe, where “Chuck” and “Mad Men” took home the big awards. The 3rd Annual AFT Film Awards will be announced one category per day starting on January 1st, and will incorporate the 85+ films I’ve seen from 2009. I’m rushing to see a few more in theaters and a bunch more on DVD before then in order to fully take in 2009. The AFT Awards contain the typical Oscar categories as well as a few less traditional supplemental categories, including the top 10 scenes of the year. This year I’ve been fortunate enough to review every single film I’ve seen, and I’m considering them all for my awards. Feel free to chime in before then with any questions or “for your consideration” postings since I haven’t settled on a final list of nominees. In the meantime, peruse last year’s AFT Awards here. To remind you of some of last year’s best films, and ones you might want to rent on DVD, here are the top 25 films of last year, with links to those I was able to review. Don’t forget to come back starting January 1st for the 3rd Annual AFT Film Awards!
1. Waltz with Bashir
2. The Band’s Visit
3. Rachel Getting Married
4. Iron Man
5. Changeling
6. Slumdog Millionaire
7. Tell No One
8. Happy-Go-Lucky
9. Frozen River
10. Reprise
11. A Christmas Tale
12. Wall-E
13. Milk
14. Beaufort
15. Gran Torino
16. The Counterfeiters
17. In Bruges
18. Forgetting Sarah Marshall
19. RocknRolla
20. Choke
21. Man on Wire
22. Doubt
23. Zack and Miri Make A Porno
24. Wanted
25. The Wrestler
Don't forget, it's almost 2010! Make sure to check back then for the top 25 movies of 2009!
1. Waltz with Bashir
2. The Band’s Visit
3. Rachel Getting Married
4. Iron Man
5. Changeling
6. Slumdog Millionaire
7. Tell No One
8. Happy-Go-Lucky
9. Frozen River
10. Reprise
11. A Christmas Tale
12. Wall-E
13. Milk
14. Beaufort
15. Gran Torino
16. The Counterfeiters
17. In Bruges
18. Forgetting Sarah Marshall
19. RocknRolla
20. Choke
21. Man on Wire
22. Doubt
23. Zack and Miri Make A Porno
24. Wanted
25. The Wrestler
Don't forget, it's almost 2010! Make sure to check back then for the top 25 movies of 2009!
Movie with Abe: The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus
The Imaginarium of Doctor ParnassusDirected by Terry Gilliam
Released December 25, 2009
Fantasy is a tough genre. The wilder the created world is, the easier it becomes to get lost within it, and for the story to get swallowed whole by an altogether over-imaginative mind. There’s no question that Monty Python member and director Terry Gilliam can dream up magnificent and fantastical realities, ranging from wacky (“Brazil”) to dreary (“Twelve Monkeys”). His latest film is one bizarre head trip, which has no interest in being grounded in reality and therefore abandons all sense at the door and proceeds along a slippery and just plain strange path that isn’t heading anywhere logical. It’s decently interesting at the start, but gets less absorbing as it becomes more bewildering.
“The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus” is significant as the final film of Heath Ledger. While his Oscar-winning vehicle “The Dark Knight” was released after he died, he had already filmed a good portion of his scenes for this film. It’s a fine performance that’s fun and entertaining, but it doesn’t do justice to his complex turns in “The Dark Knight” and “Brokeback Mountain.” To replace the scenes in which he appears that hadn’t yet been filmed, three actors jumped in to fill the role: Johnny Depp, Jude Law, and Colin Farrell. The most interesting thing, which is truly defining in characterizing this film, is that it actually makes sense for three actors to take over his role, since they portray his various alter egos when he steps through a magical mirror. To be able to say that about a movie is quite an intriguing characteristic, but it’s also impressive that the part still works even after Ledger’s untimely passing.
The four performers playing the same part all bring a certain common energy to the part, but the character gets lost in his own complexity. That’s true of the movie itself, which inhabits an altogether uninhibited world, and very quickly gets trapped within it without much hope of getting out. Doctor Parnassus and his circus of assistants put on a show where they give participants the opportunity to enter a portal where their dreams can come true. But even they don’t have control of it, and while that’s in a sense an exciting thing, and certainly allows for reality-bending visual effects, it’s easy to lose track of it and forget about the plot. There’s a century-spanning deal-with-the-devil subplot at work here also, but the film is altogether too confusing and perplexing to deal with all it tries to effectively.
Christopher Plummer goes deep into the ancient and despair-ridden character of Doctor Parnassus, and it’s not a performance nearly as evocative or impressive as his other role as Leo Tolstoy in this year’s “The Last Station.” The real standouts from the cast are Lily Cole (“Rage”) and Andrew Garfield as the Doctor’s daughter and the company’s jester. Overall, however, their captivating performances get lost in the overwhelming swell of magic and fantasy that envelops the film and swallows it whole, making it hard to find a way into its complex and murky mythology.
C
Friday, December 25, 2009
Friday For Your Consideration: Hal Holbrook
Welcome to a new weekly feature here at Movies with Abe, Friday For Your Consideration. As every year nears to a close, there are a number of actors nominated for Golden Globes, Oscars, and countless other awards. There are so many spots and there are so many deserving contenders, yet some inevitably get left out. Each week, I’ll be spotlighting one performance from this year which deserves a second look but might not get it. This doesn’t mean I don’t want Carey Mulligan and Christoph Waltz to get their first nominations. They don’t need my help. As luck would have it, these actors do. I’ll be running this feature until Oscar nominations are announced at the beginning of February, so leave your choices in the comments and I might feature them over the next couple of weeks! I’ve written at greater length about these performances in the reviews of the films, so make sure to read those for a more detailed look at why these actors deserve an Oscar nomination.
Hal Holbrook, “That Evening Sun”
Where you’ve seen him before: He’s been acting on television and in movies for fifty years. Most recently, he earned an Oscar nomination in 2007 for his supporting role in “Into the Wild.”
Why he deserves it: The 84-year-old Holbrook is nearly three times the age of some of his costars, and he delivers one of the sharpest and most moving performances in recent years. He instills Abner Meecham with an extraordinary sense of self, one that can’t be muted by debilitating faculties or the strong wits of others. He’s determined to live the rest of his life on his own terms, and he’s not going to let anyone else tell him what to do. It’s simply magnificent to watch this actor with over 100 performances in his belt deliver such an astonishing performance.
Standout scene: You can catch a piece of it starting at the 1:47 mark of the theatrical trailer. Holbrook starts singing the song from which the title is derived. He’s quiet, off-key, and couldn’t care less. He’s at home, and he’s going to do what he damn well pleases.
Why he won’t get it: The Best Actor race is pretty much set, with four actors locked for a nomination (Jeff Bridges, George Clooney, Colin Firth, and Morgan Freeman) and one other looking very good (Jeremy Renner). I thought for a while that Holbrook could take his spot (though Renner was excellent also), but his failure to earn a Best Independent Spirit Award nomination when two other actors in his film did wasn’t a good sign. No one has seen the film, and it seems those who have aren’t recognizing his incredible performance.
Read the review here, and come back next Friday for a look at an actress who deserves a shot at Oscar.
Where you’ve seen him before: He’s been acting on television and in movies for fifty years. Most recently, he earned an Oscar nomination in 2007 for his supporting role in “Into the Wild.”
Why he deserves it: The 84-year-old Holbrook is nearly three times the age of some of his costars, and he delivers one of the sharpest and most moving performances in recent years. He instills Abner Meecham with an extraordinary sense of self, one that can’t be muted by debilitating faculties or the strong wits of others. He’s determined to live the rest of his life on his own terms, and he’s not going to let anyone else tell him what to do. It’s simply magnificent to watch this actor with over 100 performances in his belt deliver such an astonishing performance.
Standout scene: You can catch a piece of it starting at the 1:47 mark of the theatrical trailer. Holbrook starts singing the song from which the title is derived. He’s quiet, off-key, and couldn’t care less. He’s at home, and he’s going to do what he damn well pleases.
Why he won’t get it: The Best Actor race is pretty much set, with four actors locked for a nomination (Jeff Bridges, George Clooney, Colin Firth, and Morgan Freeman) and one other looking very good (Jeremy Renner). I thought for a while that Holbrook could take his spot (though Renner was excellent also), but his failure to earn a Best Independent Spirit Award nomination when two other actors in his film did wasn’t a good sign. No one has seen the film, and it seems those who have aren’t recognizing his incredible performance.
Read the review here, and come back next Friday for a look at an actress who deserves a shot at Oscar.
Movie with Abe: It’s Complicated
It’s Complicated
Directed by Nancy Meyers
Released December 25, 2009
There comes a point when the real-life personalities and public perceptions of actors start to influence the roles they have in films. In some cases, films play perfectly into that star image, where the actors might as well just be playing themselves into of bothering to portray characters. “It’s Complicated” is just the film for that. Meryl Streep is a beloved and respected actress who has led a successful career and who delights in making people laugh and cry. Alec Baldwin is an experienced actor with a reputation for being somewhat unruly, and Steve Martin is a veteran comedian who hasn’t done very much lately and who people probably still remember fondly. Throwing the three of them together is a sterling recipe for an old-fashioned entertaining romantic comedy.
There’s little seriousness in “It’s Complicated,” since, while things may be complicated, they’re certainly not somber. It’s refreshing to know that films that aren’t obsessed with body humor (though still use it in a far more muted manner) can still be effective and even hilarious. The maturity of the performers doesn’t make the film dense in any sense, and it’s their ability to have good, clean fun that makes it so enjoyable. Don’t be too disappointed, however, because there’s still plenty of edgy material, especially from the animated Baldwin, and the three performers are all having a spectacular time in this fabulously enthralling film.
It’s delightful to see Streep let loose, since she so rarely does so. She’s stunning in films like “Julie & Julia” and “Doubt” where she really burrows herself into her characters, and it’s nice to see her relax. It turns out that, stripped of a sharply defined role, the real Streep is pretty likeable. Baldwin isn’t quite as ruthless and ridiculous as he is week-to-week on “30 Rock,” but he milks his role as much as he can and has a great time doing it. It’s fantastic to see Martin in a good movie again, this time not playing a wild and crazy guy but instead a very nice and endearing architect vying kindly for the heart of Streep’s chef while she engages in a not-quite-extramarital affair with her ex-husband, played by Baldwin. The standout of the supporting cast is John Krasinski, who is considerably less prominently featured than he is on “The Office” but who manages to make the most out of minor moments and transform them into hilarious gut-busting scenes.
“It’s Complicated” is unarguably a bit flighty and less concerned with coherently wrapping up its story arc than remaining entertaining throughout and charming its audience with the distinguished appeal of its over-fifty stars. It’s not overly problematic since the jokes are still funny and it’s packed full of more than enough laughs to sustain its two-hour runtime. The chemistry of all the performers is what really makes it work. This formula really isn’t terribly complicated, but it’s safe and at the same time ready to push the envelope when the need arises. In short, it’s just plain fun.
B+
Directed by Nancy Meyers
Released December 25, 2009
There comes a point when the real-life personalities and public perceptions of actors start to influence the roles they have in films. In some cases, films play perfectly into that star image, where the actors might as well just be playing themselves into of bothering to portray characters. “It’s Complicated” is just the film for that. Meryl Streep is a beloved and respected actress who has led a successful career and who delights in making people laugh and cry. Alec Baldwin is an experienced actor with a reputation for being somewhat unruly, and Steve Martin is a veteran comedian who hasn’t done very much lately and who people probably still remember fondly. Throwing the three of them together is a sterling recipe for an old-fashioned entertaining romantic comedy.
There’s little seriousness in “It’s Complicated,” since, while things may be complicated, they’re certainly not somber. It’s refreshing to know that films that aren’t obsessed with body humor (though still use it in a far more muted manner) can still be effective and even hilarious. The maturity of the performers doesn’t make the film dense in any sense, and it’s their ability to have good, clean fun that makes it so enjoyable. Don’t be too disappointed, however, because there’s still plenty of edgy material, especially from the animated Baldwin, and the three performers are all having a spectacular time in this fabulously enthralling film.
It’s delightful to see Streep let loose, since she so rarely does so. She’s stunning in films like “Julie & Julia” and “Doubt” where she really burrows herself into her characters, and it’s nice to see her relax. It turns out that, stripped of a sharply defined role, the real Streep is pretty likeable. Baldwin isn’t quite as ruthless and ridiculous as he is week-to-week on “30 Rock,” but he milks his role as much as he can and has a great time doing it. It’s fantastic to see Martin in a good movie again, this time not playing a wild and crazy guy but instead a very nice and endearing architect vying kindly for the heart of Streep’s chef while she engages in a not-quite-extramarital affair with her ex-husband, played by Baldwin. The standout of the supporting cast is John Krasinski, who is considerably less prominently featured than he is on “The Office” but who manages to make the most out of minor moments and transform them into hilarious gut-busting scenes.
“It’s Complicated” is unarguably a bit flighty and less concerned with coherently wrapping up its story arc than remaining entertaining throughout and charming its audience with the distinguished appeal of its over-fifty stars. It’s not overly problematic since the jokes are still funny and it’s packed full of more than enough laughs to sustain its two-hour runtime. The chemistry of all the performers is what really makes it work. This formula really isn’t terribly complicated, but it’s safe and at the same time ready to push the envelope when the need arises. In short, it’s just plain fun.
B+
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Movie with Abe: The Young Victoria
The Young Victoria
Directed by Jean-Marc Vallée
Released December 18, 2009
It takes a lot of panache to play a queen. It’s also crucial to the success and uniqueness of a motion picture such as this. There are so many cinematic portraits of royalty and nobility that, insulting as it is to the real-life people on whom the projects are based and whose life stories they tell, they all start to blend together if they don’t have enough distinguishing features. “The Young Victoria” narrowly avoids that fate, thanks to the noble efforts of its cast and a genuinely interesting story of one girl fated for greatness whose ascension to the throne occurred at a young age.
Emily Blunt has the incredible ability to steal the spotlight in witty supporting roles and make even the most minute part absolutely magnificent. She held her own against Meryl Streep and completely bested Anne Hathaway in “The Devil Wears Prada” and illuminated several brief scenes in “Dan in Real Life.” Now she finally has a bona fide lead role, and it’s up to other actors to try to make the most of their scenes in her magnificent presence. Blunt is simply regal as the young princess who became a queen while she was still a child. She has a wonderful presence that demonstrates that she is just as able to deliver in a lead role as she is able to amplify a small role.
The supporting cast makes good use of a number of colorful players who make the film engaging, pleasant, fun, and occasionally even thrilling. Paul Bettany (“A Beautiful Mind”, “The Da Vinci Code”) and Mark Strong (“RocknRolla,” “Body of Lies”) are entertaining as dueling advisors each yearning to whisper their wishes into Victoria’s ear. The long-absent Miranda Richardson (“Spider”) and Jim Broadbent (“Iris”) are great as the feuding mother of Victoria and reigning king William IV. The considerably less experienced Rupert Friend (“The Boy in the Striped Pajamas”) makes for a fitting political and romantic match for the lovely Blunt as her cousin and love interest Prince Albert.
The cast is perhaps the strongest element of the film, but it’s still an impressive undertaking in other areas. The costumes and sets are magnificently evocative of the period, and the dialogue is also prim and proper. Beyond that, the story is a typical twisted tale of ascension to the throne complicated by the infighting and efforts of others to take power from the backseat. Victoria’s capacity to maintain her independence and rule despite the influence of so many others makes for a remarkable tale. Victoria comes out stronger as a result of it, and Blunt’s performance is a tour de force only a few fiery speeches short of the same power of Cate Blanchett’s portrayal of Queen Elizabeth in “Elizabeth” and “Elizabeth: The Golden Age.” The film is decently fresh and fun, and the performances, especially the lead one from the charming Blunt, differentiate it from the overstuffed library of recent royal releases like “The Duchess” and make it, like Victoria herself, truly individual.
B+
Directed by Jean-Marc Vallée
Released December 18, 2009
It takes a lot of panache to play a queen. It’s also crucial to the success and uniqueness of a motion picture such as this. There are so many cinematic portraits of royalty and nobility that, insulting as it is to the real-life people on whom the projects are based and whose life stories they tell, they all start to blend together if they don’t have enough distinguishing features. “The Young Victoria” narrowly avoids that fate, thanks to the noble efforts of its cast and a genuinely interesting story of one girl fated for greatness whose ascension to the throne occurred at a young age.
Emily Blunt has the incredible ability to steal the spotlight in witty supporting roles and make even the most minute part absolutely magnificent. She held her own against Meryl Streep and completely bested Anne Hathaway in “The Devil Wears Prada” and illuminated several brief scenes in “Dan in Real Life.” Now she finally has a bona fide lead role, and it’s up to other actors to try to make the most of their scenes in her magnificent presence. Blunt is simply regal as the young princess who became a queen while she was still a child. She has a wonderful presence that demonstrates that she is just as able to deliver in a lead role as she is able to amplify a small role.
The supporting cast makes good use of a number of colorful players who make the film engaging, pleasant, fun, and occasionally even thrilling. Paul Bettany (“A Beautiful Mind”, “The Da Vinci Code”) and Mark Strong (“RocknRolla,” “Body of Lies”) are entertaining as dueling advisors each yearning to whisper their wishes into Victoria’s ear. The long-absent Miranda Richardson (“Spider”) and Jim Broadbent (“Iris”) are great as the feuding mother of Victoria and reigning king William IV. The considerably less experienced Rupert Friend (“The Boy in the Striped Pajamas”) makes for a fitting political and romantic match for the lovely Blunt as her cousin and love interest Prince Albert.
The cast is perhaps the strongest element of the film, but it’s still an impressive undertaking in other areas. The costumes and sets are magnificently evocative of the period, and the dialogue is also prim and proper. Beyond that, the story is a typical twisted tale of ascension to the throne complicated by the infighting and efforts of others to take power from the backseat. Victoria’s capacity to maintain her independence and rule despite the influence of so many others makes for a remarkable tale. Victoria comes out stronger as a result of it, and Blunt’s performance is a tour de force only a few fiery speeches short of the same power of Cate Blanchett’s portrayal of Queen Elizabeth in “Elizabeth” and “Elizabeth: The Golden Age.” The film is decently fresh and fun, and the performances, especially the lead one from the charming Blunt, differentiate it from the overstuffed library of recent royal releases like “The Duchess” and make it, like Victoria herself, truly individual.
B+
Thursday Romantic Comedy Classic
This is the final entry of a weekly feature here at Movies with Abe, Thursday Romantic Comedy Classic. I’m taking a course called The Romantic Comedy where we’re charting the history and development of romantic comedies from the 1920s to the present. We’ll be watching some pretty iconic films, some of which I haven’t seen before. Each week, I’ll be providing a short review of one romantic comedy classic from the annals of history.
I Love You, Man
Directed by John Hamburg
Released March 20, 2009
The last big movie of the course is actually one from this year, and one that I reviewed in great detail just this August. Rereading my initial review, I feel I don’t need to write another one since my original feelings still stand. I find this to be extremely disappointing and far less fulfilling than the other comedies I mentioned in my review. It was slightly more enjoyable the second time around because there were more people in the audience laughing, but it’s still not quite satisfying. Paul Rudd is actually pretty funny, but Jason Segel’s talents are not used as well as they could be and Rashida Jones feels completely unnecessary. This film was selected for the “homme-com” or “bromance” chapter of this course, and it’s a good fit for that. As far as the film goes, travel back in time a few months with me and read my review from when the film was fresh in my mind.
Original Review of “I Love You, Man”
I Love You, ManDirected by John Hamburg
Released March 20, 2009
The last big movie of the course is actually one from this year, and one that I reviewed in great detail just this August. Rereading my initial review, I feel I don’t need to write another one since my original feelings still stand. I find this to be extremely disappointing and far less fulfilling than the other comedies I mentioned in my review. It was slightly more enjoyable the second time around because there were more people in the audience laughing, but it’s still not quite satisfying. Paul Rudd is actually pretty funny, but Jason Segel’s talents are not used as well as they could be and Rashida Jones feels completely unnecessary. This film was selected for the “homme-com” or “bromance” chapter of this course, and it’s a good fit for that. As far as the film goes, travel back in time a few months with me and read my review from when the film was fresh in my mind.
Original Review of “I Love You, Man”
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Movie with Abe: Police, Adjective
Police, AdjectiveDirected by Corneliu Porumboiu
Released December 23, 2009
Foreign cinema is intriguing because it provides a window into a different world, a different way of thinking and a different way of fabricating cinema. Precious few foreign films actually make it to the United States, and rarely in the same year as they are originally released in their home countries. Last year, another film from Romania made it over, and it received enormous amounts of undeserved praise for simply showing events as they take place and tackling a disturbing subject matter by merely following people around with a camera and waiting for the plot to occur.
“Police, Adjective,” this year’s official submission from Romania for the Academy Awards, is just as much not in a rush to get anywhere. Entire five-minute sequences feature a character sitting and wolfing down dinner as his wife, off-screen, listens to obnoxious music very loudly. Protagonist Cristi, a cop, tails subjects throughout the day and often stands there for minutes at a time while nothing really happens. There are an infinite number of shots of him walking down the street, following someone, with his hands in his pocket and his face tucked into the top of his jacket to avoid the cold.
Yet there’s a point to it all. Like Michael Haneke’s “Caché,” the emphasis on showing stoic scenes with the same frame covered within them seems designed to provoke closer thought about the picture shown. There are very few characters in the film, and even less dialogue since Cristi is hardly a conversationalist and uses words sparingly, especially in trying to deal with those who talk too much for his liking. He chooses his words carefully, and it’s his obsession with the letter of the law that gets him into trouble.
The plot of “Police, Adjective” doesn’t take long to explain. It’s essentially about Cristi’s prolonging of an assignment so that he can determine for himself if the target everyone else is so eager to arrest is actually guilty of a crime deserving jail time. His investigation is hardly lively and rarely fruitful, but it’s all worth it for one majestic scene that comes near the end of the film and provides the title of the film, where Cristi’s commanding officer forces him to look up definitions in the dictionary to try and break down his moral resolve.
After viewing “4 Months, 3 Weeks, and 2 Days,” it was clear that getting an abortion in Romania is not a good idea. But reading and dwelling on the meaning of words like conscience and police is something universal that translates in every language. That contemplation and complex understanding of “Police, Adjective” makes all of its slow, unchanging shots worthwhile and deeply meaningful. The character of Cristi is also a wondrously humorless lead, and it’s his considerable lack of charm that makes his quest to do the right thing even if it goes against the conventional understanding of the law fascinating. This film may not be hemorrhaging glowing reviews like “4 Months,” but it’s a much better movie.
B+
Wednesday Oscar Watch with Abe
Welcome to a new weekly feature here at Movies with Abe, Wednesday Oscar Watch with Abe. Every Wednesday, I’m taking a look at the awards chances for all of the films released the previous week. Chime in with your thoughts on the Oscar chances for these films in the comments section.
Avatar
This is one of only two major awards contender movies released this year that I have to see, and I really do plan it seeing it soon. It seems I’d be a fool not to predict its domination at the Oscars, since it has earned mostly glowing reviews and Golden Globe nominations for Best Picture, Director, Score, and Song. The last time James Cameron was nominated, he won and “Titanic” took home a boatload of Oscars. The interesting thing to note about that is that “Titanic” didn’t even score a nomination for Best Screenplay, and it’s likely “Avatar” won’t due to its sci-fi subject matter and a whole lot of competition. Otherwise, it’s probably safe in the aforementioned four categories, as well as Visual Effects, Sound, Score, Film Editing, Art Direction, and maybe even Cinematography. I’ll be able to make those predictions more securely once actually having seen the film…
Crazy Heart
This film is locked in two categories and that’s probably it, but it will be a serious threat to win in both. The first is Best Actor for Jeff Bridges, who has earned four Oscar nominations over the past forty years and delivers what many, including myself, call a career-best performance. He’s sure to be in the final five, and a strong possibility to beat Colin Firth (“A Single Man”) and George Clooney (“Up in the Air”). Don’t count on a nomination for costar Maggie Gyllenhaal, whose category confusion won’t help her since both categories already have a solid list of contenders. The other category in which this film will get nominated is Best Original Song, where “The Weary Kind” should definitely make it in.
Nine
This majestic musical from the director of “Chicago,” which won Best Picture seven years ago, did extremely well at the Golden Globes with five nominations, but it’s likely that only two to three of those will translate to the Oscars. “Cinema Italiano,” a Best Original Song contender, should have no trouble getting in if the number of nominees stays at five, and Penelope Cruz has done well with precursors to earn a Best Supporting Actress nomination. Plus, she’s last year’s winner in the category, which could either help (we love her!) or hurt (again?) her. With ten nominees in the Best Picture category, “Nine” could have a good shot but may fall out if the so-so reactions to the film are shared by Academy voters. Director Rob Marshall is almost definitely out, but the film should be able to score nominations for Best Costume Design and Best Art Direction, as well as Best Sound, Best Sound Editing, Best Cinematography, and Best Film Ediitng.
The Young Victoria
This period piece opened later and to positive reviews but little buzz. Emily Blunt probably came close to an Oscar nomination three years ago after earning a Golden Globe nod for “The Devil Wears Prada,” and she’ll likely come close again this year. Sandra Bullock (“The Blind Side”) is probably a step ahead of her, and the Best Actress category is sealed a bit too tightly for her to crack it. She still has a shot, so don’t write her off just yet, but don’t hold your fingers either. The film may have a better chance at scoring nominations for Best Art Direction and Best Costumes, like “The Duchess” did last year. Blunt will probably have to wait a bit, but someday she’ll be an Oscar nominee.
I can’t imagine any nominations for Did You Hear About the Morgans. That’s it for notable films released this past week. There are only a couple of weeks in the year left! Come back every Wednesday for an analysis of the previous Friday’s theatrical releases and their Oscar chances. Thanks for reading!
Avatar
This is one of only two major awards contender movies released this year that I have to see, and I really do plan it seeing it soon. It seems I’d be a fool not to predict its domination at the Oscars, since it has earned mostly glowing reviews and Golden Globe nominations for Best Picture, Director, Score, and Song. The last time James Cameron was nominated, he won and “Titanic” took home a boatload of Oscars. The interesting thing to note about that is that “Titanic” didn’t even score a nomination for Best Screenplay, and it’s likely “Avatar” won’t due to its sci-fi subject matter and a whole lot of competition. Otherwise, it’s probably safe in the aforementioned four categories, as well as Visual Effects, Sound, Score, Film Editing, Art Direction, and maybe even Cinematography. I’ll be able to make those predictions more securely once actually having seen the film…
Crazy Heart
This film is locked in two categories and that’s probably it, but it will be a serious threat to win in both. The first is Best Actor for Jeff Bridges, who has earned four Oscar nominations over the past forty years and delivers what many, including myself, call a career-best performance. He’s sure to be in the final five, and a strong possibility to beat Colin Firth (“A Single Man”) and George Clooney (“Up in the Air”). Don’t count on a nomination for costar Maggie Gyllenhaal, whose category confusion won’t help her since both categories already have a solid list of contenders. The other category in which this film will get nominated is Best Original Song, where “The Weary Kind” should definitely make it in.
Nine
This majestic musical from the director of “Chicago,” which won Best Picture seven years ago, did extremely well at the Golden Globes with five nominations, but it’s likely that only two to three of those will translate to the Oscars. “Cinema Italiano,” a Best Original Song contender, should have no trouble getting in if the number of nominees stays at five, and Penelope Cruz has done well with precursors to earn a Best Supporting Actress nomination. Plus, she’s last year’s winner in the category, which could either help (we love her!) or hurt (again?) her. With ten nominees in the Best Picture category, “Nine” could have a good shot but may fall out if the so-so reactions to the film are shared by Academy voters. Director Rob Marshall is almost definitely out, but the film should be able to score nominations for Best Costume Design and Best Art Direction, as well as Best Sound, Best Sound Editing, Best Cinematography, and Best Film Ediitng.
The Young Victoria
This period piece opened later and to positive reviews but little buzz. Emily Blunt probably came close to an Oscar nomination three years ago after earning a Golden Globe nod for “The Devil Wears Prada,” and she’ll likely come close again this year. Sandra Bullock (“The Blind Side”) is probably a step ahead of her, and the Best Actress category is sealed a bit too tightly for her to crack it. She still has a shot, so don’t write her off just yet, but don’t hold your fingers either. The film may have a better chance at scoring nominations for Best Art Direction and Best Costumes, like “The Duchess” did last year. Blunt will probably have to wait a bit, but someday she’ll be an Oscar nominee.
I can’t imagine any nominations for Did You Hear About the Morgans. That’s it for notable films released this past week. There are only a couple of weeks in the year left! Come back every Wednesday for an analysis of the previous Friday’s theatrical releases and their Oscar chances. Thanks for reading!
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Movie with Abe: Crazy Heart
Crazy HeartDirected by Scott Cooper
Released December 16, 2009
There are movies driven by music, and there are movies driven by performances. This is one case where it’s hard to discern which is more moving, though while the songs written for the film are undeniably great, it’s hard to beat Jeff Bridges, who delivers a career-topping performance as country singer Bad Blake. There’s something simply irresistible and enticing about the combination of Bridges, a real-life musician, and the lifestyle-defining country songs he sings at his gigs throughout the film. This is a road movie about a man who has nothing to tie him down anywhere but who begins to realize that maybe the way he lives his life isn’t nearly as fulfilling as he might have hoped.
Bridges really makes the film, putting his all into the character and making the small moments count for so much. Early in the film, Bad goes to pull a cigarette out of the pack and ends up with not one but three cigarettes drooping out of the side of his mouth. He couldn’t care less, and it’s likely not the first time it’s happened. It’s an intimate moment that’s both funny and pathetic, and makes Bad an endearing protagonist whose journey throughout the film becomes intricately interesting and wholly worthwhile.
Bad’s story is one driven by and tied to his music, and therefore the scenes which actually showcase him performing are the ones that are the most touching and rousing. Bridges points to the significance of the lyrics of the songs, like “I used to be somebody; now I’m somebody else,” suggesting the deterioration of the aging, overweight musician and the nostalgic manner in which he looks back at his life. Bridges also describes the film’s tribute to the notion of getting “caught up in the myth that there’s something good about being bad.” It’s a deeply contemplative film, with a lead character who tries his hardest not to dwell on the glory days of his past but who, in the end, just can’t help it.
Bridges is the driving force of the film, but he has ample support from the other lead performer. Maggie Gyllenhaal plays Jean Craddock, a small-town reporter eager for a big story and the chance to interview a living legend. It’s through his conversations with her that Bad really begins to come undone, and the two share a fascinating chemistry which really makes the film work. Robert Duvall and Colin Farrell enhance some smaller scenes in the film that add to the deconstruction of Bad’s character. In many ways, it’s a very familiar story that has been told numerous times before, but the performances elevate it considerably. The music always makes it more infinitely more appealing, particularly the fantastic song “The Weary Kind,” sung by Bad during the film as an ode to his career and a stellar definition of the way his life has panned out. Bridges hasn’t seen his fame go down the toilet, but Bad is certainly the role of his career, and he delivers outstandingly.
B+
Tuesday’s Top Trailer: Iron Man 2
Welcome to a new weekly feature here at Movies with Abe, Tuesday's Top Trailer. One of my favorite parts about going to see movies is the series of trailers that airs beforehand and, more often than not, the trailer is far better than the actual film. Each week, I'll be sharing a trailer I've recently seen. Please chime in with comments on what you think of the trailer and how you think the movie is going to be.
Iron Man 2 – Opening May 7, 2010
I didn’t catch this trailer in theatres, but I knew it was one that I had to watch right away. The sequel to one of my top five films from last year looks extraordinarily exciting, and it’s exactly the kind of film that deserves a sequel and could probably make it work. This trailer pretty much spoils the fantastic ending of the first film, but no matter – it looks like life for celebrity Tony Stark is pretty terrific. Robert Downey Jr. does a magnificent job of milking all the attention he gets, and that alone makes it seem worthwhile. But, lo and behold, this film does have a plot! Mickey Rourke, fresh off his comeback role of a lifetime last year in “The Wrestler,” cuts into the trailer midway through to express his resentment at the world for wrongs done to him. His Russian accent is awesome, and he looks quite fearsome with his electrified whips that seem to terrify the rather unflappable Stark. Throw in Scarlett Johansson, which generally enhances any film, and it’s a thrilling combination of stars and action that should be sure to please. A quick shot of an eye-patch-sporting Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury is a great nod to comic book fans excited to see him appear in something other than just the end credits. To top it all off, it doesn’t get any more exciting than that teaser at the end of Iron Man and War Machine fighting together. The first film was excellent, but the one thing it could have used was a partner for Iron Man. This film is going to be spectacular – can’t wait until May.
Iron Man 2 – Opening May 7, 2010
I didn’t catch this trailer in theatres, but I knew it was one that I had to watch right away. The sequel to one of my top five films from last year looks extraordinarily exciting, and it’s exactly the kind of film that deserves a sequel and could probably make it work. This trailer pretty much spoils the fantastic ending of the first film, but no matter – it looks like life for celebrity Tony Stark is pretty terrific. Robert Downey Jr. does a magnificent job of milking all the attention he gets, and that alone makes it seem worthwhile. But, lo and behold, this film does have a plot! Mickey Rourke, fresh off his comeback role of a lifetime last year in “The Wrestler,” cuts into the trailer midway through to express his resentment at the world for wrongs done to him. His Russian accent is awesome, and he looks quite fearsome with his electrified whips that seem to terrify the rather unflappable Stark. Throw in Scarlett Johansson, which generally enhances any film, and it’s a thrilling combination of stars and action that should be sure to please. A quick shot of an eye-patch-sporting Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury is a great nod to comic book fans excited to see him appear in something other than just the end credits. To top it all off, it doesn’t get any more exciting than that teaser at the end of Iron Man and War Machine fighting together. The first film was excellent, but the one thing it could have used was a partner for Iron Man. This film is going to be spectacular – can’t wait until May.
Monday, December 21, 2009
Movie with Abe: The Slammin’ Salmon
The Slammin’ SalmonDirected by Kevin Heffernan
Released December 11, 2009
A film from a comedy troupe can be very enjoyable because the performers working in concert can often make for true hilarity. A film with a title like “The Slammin’ Salmon,” however, doesn’t exactly show much promise. The comedy troupe known as Broken Lizard has produced films in the past both stupid and funny, like “Super Troopers,” and stupid and abysmal, like “Beerfest.” This one isn’t quite as despicable or unbearable as the latter, but it’s certainly not as entertaining or fun in any respect as the former. The members of the troupe are all putting in the utmost effort and acting over-the-top, but it’s just a film that can’t quite be salvaged.
“The Slammin’ Salmon” is a very gimmicky film, which presents a challenge within its first half-hour that serves as the driving force for the next hour. The humongous, menacing owner of a restaurant, former boxing champion the Slammin’ Salmon (Michael Clarke Duncan), needs to pay off $20,000 in money to the mob by midnight, and therefore all of the waiters have to compete to earn as much money as possible so that the Salmon can pay off his debt. It’s a movie that makes less and less sense as it goes on, with manager Rich (director Kevin Heffernan) and Salmon offering continually large rewards for the waiter with the highest sales, in a way that makes it seem lie it could never possibly pan out correctly. It’s not a movie concerned with making sense, of course, but it’s all just pretty ridiculous.
While Broken Lizard is somewhat entertaining, they’re all quite outrageous and obnoxious. It’s the cast members who aren’t players in the troupe who display much more skill. Duncan is particularly entertaining in the role of the Salmon, where he’s able to ham it up as much as possible and use his towering stature to intimidate and play with all of the other actors in the film. Cobie Smulders (“How I Met Your Mother”) provides the film’s only slightly acknowledged heart, and April Bowlby (“Two and a Half Men”) has a good time playing with the boys as a waitress whose desire to win is compromised by an accidental encounter with some boiling hot liquid.
“The Slammin’ Salmon” is mostly about gross-out comedy that delights in repeatedly making everything seem like it will turn out fine and then introducing the most preposterous and ludicrous of obstacles to hinder the happiness of its characters. It’s more frustrating than it is funny, and often even seems a bit tempered and held back for its own good. It also uses the typical crutch of drugs (prescription, in this case) to make one character seem all the crazier, and that’s a bit of a disappointment since it could have been cleverer without that. It never would have been a great film or even a decent one, but at least it’s more entertaining than the somewhat similar but considerably duller “The Strip,” so that’s a small victory for the Slammin’ Salmon.
D-
Monday Oscar Odds
Full-fledged, extensive Oscar predictions are coming in January, but I’d like to keep a running list of my predicted nominees up until that point. I’ll expand to include other categories later. Remember to check back in January for analysis and revised predictions.
After the announcements of the Golden Globe and SAG nominees, the contenders are starting to look a whole lot more solid. I usually try to predict slight surprises, but for the moment, I’m going to stick with what looks most likely at this point.
Best Picture
Avatar
An Education
The Hurt Locker
Inglorious Basterds
Invictus
Nine
Precious
A Serious Man
Up
Up in the Air
So it appears that Avatar is in since it’s received pretty much only raves. That’s the only one of this bunch I haven’t seen, and I plan to see it sometime in the coming weeks. The Golden Globes snubbed An Education, Invictus, and A Serious Man, which isn’t good news, but I think they should all be able to still make it. The only serious threat is The Messenger, which could easily break through and replace “An Education” or “A Serious Man.” Both Nine and Precious may also be less secure, due to iffy reviews and backlash against all the hype, respectively. If anything was going to take their places, it would probably be It’s Complicated, Julie & Julia, Star Trek, or District 9, but the above list looks good.
Best Director
Kathryn Bigelow, The Hurt Locker
James Cameron, Avatar
Clint Eastwood, Invictus
Jason Reitman, Up in the Air
Quentin Tarantino, Inglorious Basterds
Forget Rob Marshall (Nine). He may still have a shot, but his Golden Globe snub does not bode well. More importantly, these five directors, all nominated at the Golden Globes, all look pretty strong. Even if voters don’t love “Avatar” or “Invictus,” they’ll still likely embrace filmmakers James Cameron, who won in 1997 for “Titanic,” and Clint Eastwood, who has been nominated three time already this decade, winning in 2004 for “Million Dollar Baby.” The lone director slot doesn’t necessarily apply anymore because there are ten best picture nominees, and it also didn’t exist at all in 2008 and 2005. I’m fairly confident in these five filmmakers.
Best Actor
Jeff Bridges, Crazy Heart
George Clooney, Up in the Air
Colin Firth, A Single Man
Morgan Freeman, Invictus
Jeremy Renner, The Hurt Locker
After SAG nominated Jeremy Renner (The Hurt Locker), I feel comfortable adding him to the list, though swapping out the incredibly deserving Hal Holbrook (That Evening Sun) makes me sad. Renner still is the one who might not make it, after the Golden Globes snubbed him in favor of Tobey Maguire (Brothers). Ben Foster (The Messenger) might also have the possibility to upset, but I think Renner’s in.
Best Actress
Sandra Bullock, The Blind Side
Helen Mirren, The Last Station
Carey Mulligan, An Education
Gabourey Sidibe, Precious
Meryl Streep, Julie & Julia
I’m facing facts and officially subbing in Sandra Bullock (The Blind Side), even though she really doesn’t deserve it all. Poor Abbie Cornish (Bright Star) is getting snubbed everywhere, and now she has to fight off Golden Globe nominee Emily Blunt (The Young Victoria) if she has any chance of knocking out Bullock or Helen Mirren (The Last Station).
Best Supporting Actor
Matt Damon, Invictus
Woody Harrelson, The Messenger
Christopher Plummer, The Last Station
Stanley Tucci, The Lovely Bones
Christoph Waltz, Inglorious Basterds
So Stanley Tucci (The Lovely Bones) is officially in even though his movie is officially out, and Woody Harrelson (The Messenger) seems to be well on his way to an Oscar nomination. The SAG list was the same as the Globe list, leaving off Alfred Molina (An Education) and Christian McKay (Me and Orson Welles), and really no one else. I don’t think either of them have the strength to replace any of the above five, unless “The Last Station” doesn’t do well and Christopher Plummer misses out on a nomination.
Best Supporting Actress
Penelope Cruz, Nine
Vera Farmiga, Up in the Air
Anna Kendrick, Up in the Air
Julianne Moore, A Single Man
Mo’Nique, Precious
This was the Globe lineup, but SAG introduced a new name to the competition: Diane Kruger (Inglorious Basterds). Interesting choice, but most people’s reactions were the same as mine – too bad it wasn’t Melanie Laurent (Inglorious Basterds) instead. Julianne Moore (A Single Man) was the one who wasn’t nominated by SAG, but I think she’ll be back in because Kruger couldn’t really make it all the way to the Oscars. The only real threat is Samantha Morton (The Messenger), and that could happen.
Best Original Screenplay
District 9
The Hurt Locker
Inglorious Basterds
A Serious Man
Up
The inclusion of 500 Days of Summer as a Best Motion Picture – Comedy or Musical nominee at the Golden Globes make me think perhaps it’s stronger than it seems, but the inclusion of District 9 in the Best Screenplay category is an even more powerful indicator for me. The categories don’t necessarily match up, as “About Schmidt” won the Globe in 2002 and then wasn’t even among the ten recognized screenplays come Oscar time. It’s Complicated was a surprise nominee at the Globes, so it’s now a contender here, though not a major one. The Messenger could also pop up here, but I don’t think so.
Best Adapted Screenplay
An Education
Invictus
Julie & Julia
Precious
Up in the Air
This list still looks solid, though there’s always the threat of children’s stories like Where the Wild Things Are or Fantastic Mr. Fox being recognized. I’ll stick with these five; they look pretty solid.
Check back every Monday for a slightly updated list of Oscar predictions. Please chime in the comments with your thoughts!
After the announcements of the Golden Globe and SAG nominees, the contenders are starting to look a whole lot more solid. I usually try to predict slight surprises, but for the moment, I’m going to stick with what looks most likely at this point.
Best Picture
Avatar
An Education
The Hurt Locker
Inglorious Basterds
Invictus
Nine
Precious
A Serious Man
Up
Up in the Air
So it appears that Avatar is in since it’s received pretty much only raves. That’s the only one of this bunch I haven’t seen, and I plan to see it sometime in the coming weeks. The Golden Globes snubbed An Education, Invictus, and A Serious Man, which isn’t good news, but I think they should all be able to still make it. The only serious threat is The Messenger, which could easily break through and replace “An Education” or “A Serious Man.” Both Nine and Precious may also be less secure, due to iffy reviews and backlash against all the hype, respectively. If anything was going to take their places, it would probably be It’s Complicated, Julie & Julia, Star Trek, or District 9, but the above list looks good.
Best Director
Kathryn Bigelow, The Hurt Locker
James Cameron, Avatar
Clint Eastwood, Invictus
Jason Reitman, Up in the Air
Quentin Tarantino, Inglorious Basterds
Forget Rob Marshall (Nine). He may still have a shot, but his Golden Globe snub does not bode well. More importantly, these five directors, all nominated at the Golden Globes, all look pretty strong. Even if voters don’t love “Avatar” or “Invictus,” they’ll still likely embrace filmmakers James Cameron, who won in 1997 for “Titanic,” and Clint Eastwood, who has been nominated three time already this decade, winning in 2004 for “Million Dollar Baby.” The lone director slot doesn’t necessarily apply anymore because there are ten best picture nominees, and it also didn’t exist at all in 2008 and 2005. I’m fairly confident in these five filmmakers.
Best Actor
Jeff Bridges, Crazy Heart
George Clooney, Up in the Air
Colin Firth, A Single Man
Morgan Freeman, Invictus
Jeremy Renner, The Hurt Locker
After SAG nominated Jeremy Renner (The Hurt Locker), I feel comfortable adding him to the list, though swapping out the incredibly deserving Hal Holbrook (That Evening Sun) makes me sad. Renner still is the one who might not make it, after the Golden Globes snubbed him in favor of Tobey Maguire (Brothers). Ben Foster (The Messenger) might also have the possibility to upset, but I think Renner’s in.
Best Actress
Sandra Bullock, The Blind Side
Helen Mirren, The Last Station
Carey Mulligan, An Education
Gabourey Sidibe, Precious
Meryl Streep, Julie & Julia
I’m facing facts and officially subbing in Sandra Bullock (The Blind Side), even though she really doesn’t deserve it all. Poor Abbie Cornish (Bright Star) is getting snubbed everywhere, and now she has to fight off Golden Globe nominee Emily Blunt (The Young Victoria) if she has any chance of knocking out Bullock or Helen Mirren (The Last Station).
Best Supporting Actor
Matt Damon, Invictus
Woody Harrelson, The Messenger
Christopher Plummer, The Last Station
Stanley Tucci, The Lovely Bones
Christoph Waltz, Inglorious Basterds
So Stanley Tucci (The Lovely Bones) is officially in even though his movie is officially out, and Woody Harrelson (The Messenger) seems to be well on his way to an Oscar nomination. The SAG list was the same as the Globe list, leaving off Alfred Molina (An Education) and Christian McKay (Me and Orson Welles), and really no one else. I don’t think either of them have the strength to replace any of the above five, unless “The Last Station” doesn’t do well and Christopher Plummer misses out on a nomination.
Best Supporting Actress
Penelope Cruz, Nine
Vera Farmiga, Up in the Air
Anna Kendrick, Up in the Air
Julianne Moore, A Single Man
Mo’Nique, Precious
This was the Globe lineup, but SAG introduced a new name to the competition: Diane Kruger (Inglorious Basterds). Interesting choice, but most people’s reactions were the same as mine – too bad it wasn’t Melanie Laurent (Inglorious Basterds) instead. Julianne Moore (A Single Man) was the one who wasn’t nominated by SAG, but I think she’ll be back in because Kruger couldn’t really make it all the way to the Oscars. The only real threat is Samantha Morton (The Messenger), and that could happen.
Best Original Screenplay
District 9
The Hurt Locker
Inglorious Basterds
A Serious Man
Up
The inclusion of 500 Days of Summer as a Best Motion Picture – Comedy or Musical nominee at the Golden Globes make me think perhaps it’s stronger than it seems, but the inclusion of District 9 in the Best Screenplay category is an even more powerful indicator for me. The categories don’t necessarily match up, as “About Schmidt” won the Globe in 2002 and then wasn’t even among the ten recognized screenplays come Oscar time. It’s Complicated was a surprise nominee at the Globes, so it’s now a contender here, though not a major one. The Messenger could also pop up here, but I don’t think so.
Best Adapted Screenplay
An Education
Invictus
Julie & Julia
Precious
Up in the Air
This list still looks solid, though there’s always the threat of children’s stories like Where the Wild Things Are or Fantastic Mr. Fox being recognized. I’ll stick with these five; they look pretty solid.
Check back every Monday for a slightly updated list of Oscar predictions. Please chime in the comments with your thoughts!
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Movie with Abe: Brothers
Brothers
Directed by Jim Sheridan
Released December 4, 2009
Jim Sheridan knows how to portray a family. His 2003 film “In America” brilliantly captures the dynamic of an Irish family struggling to lead a good and fulfilling life upon immigrating to the United States. In that instance, Sheridan chose marvelous performers to portray the parents, Paddy Considine and Samantha Morton, and wonderfully gifted child actors to play the children, real-life sisters Emma and Sarah Bolger, in order to create an alternately heart-wrenching and heartwarming family tale. His latest film tries tackles a different story, one of a family torn apart by the horrors and devastation of war, and does so with altogether less success.
Problems start to develop for the film well before they do for the characters, and their primary root is in the casting choices. Tobey Maguire and Jake Gyllenhaal look like they could be brothers, and their stunning physical similarity lends credence to the idea of them playing siblings. Yet neither of them is right for his role. Gyllenhaal is hardly trying, while Maguire is trying much too hard. As the bad-boy brother fresh out of jail left to pick up the pieces after his brother is reportedly killed in Afghanistan, Gyllenhaal swaggers and saunters around as he tries to look distant, and it doesn’t become him. Maguire, on the other hand, hardly seems fit for war, and the high-pitched anger that doesn’t quite bellow from him is closer to comical than actually effective. It’s still a fearsome experience to see Sam (Maguire) break down, but hardly as powerful as it is disturbing and, more significantly, off-putting.
The remainder of the adult cast can’t hope to enliven this film either. The usually spectacular Natalie Portman has a scene or two that references her talents, but otherwise it’s a bland, unevocative performance. Sam Shepard and Mare Winningham are on board as the parental units for the two brothers, and despite their impressive acting experience, neither adds much to the film. The children aren’t much up to the task either, and as a result the whole family dynamic just doesn’t quite feel real. Like Maguire’s performance, it just makes things uncomfortable and awkward rather than legitimately gripping or moving.
“Brothers,” which is a remake of a Danish film by director Susanne Bier (“After the Wedding”), has a decently interesting premise, but it relies far too much on the weightiness of its plot to carry the film. No one is trying to make their characters come alive, and the script skips over developing the plot by simply acknowledging that some shift or transformation has occurred without actually demonstrating it. It’s a film that expects the story to tell itself, and that just doesn’t work. Its attempts to represent the effects of war on a person are nowhere near as compelling as those expressed by the far abler Jeremy Renner in “The Hurt Locker” and Ben Foster in “The Messenger.” This film feels like a mixture of those, watered down and devoid of all the elements that made those films worthwhile.
C
Directed by Jim Sheridan
Released December 4, 2009
Jim Sheridan knows how to portray a family. His 2003 film “In America” brilliantly captures the dynamic of an Irish family struggling to lead a good and fulfilling life upon immigrating to the United States. In that instance, Sheridan chose marvelous performers to portray the parents, Paddy Considine and Samantha Morton, and wonderfully gifted child actors to play the children, real-life sisters Emma and Sarah Bolger, in order to create an alternately heart-wrenching and heartwarming family tale. His latest film tries tackles a different story, one of a family torn apart by the horrors and devastation of war, and does so with altogether less success.
Problems start to develop for the film well before they do for the characters, and their primary root is in the casting choices. Tobey Maguire and Jake Gyllenhaal look like they could be brothers, and their stunning physical similarity lends credence to the idea of them playing siblings. Yet neither of them is right for his role. Gyllenhaal is hardly trying, while Maguire is trying much too hard. As the bad-boy brother fresh out of jail left to pick up the pieces after his brother is reportedly killed in Afghanistan, Gyllenhaal swaggers and saunters around as he tries to look distant, and it doesn’t become him. Maguire, on the other hand, hardly seems fit for war, and the high-pitched anger that doesn’t quite bellow from him is closer to comical than actually effective. It’s still a fearsome experience to see Sam (Maguire) break down, but hardly as powerful as it is disturbing and, more significantly, off-putting.
The remainder of the adult cast can’t hope to enliven this film either. The usually spectacular Natalie Portman has a scene or two that references her talents, but otherwise it’s a bland, unevocative performance. Sam Shepard and Mare Winningham are on board as the parental units for the two brothers, and despite their impressive acting experience, neither adds much to the film. The children aren’t much up to the task either, and as a result the whole family dynamic just doesn’t quite feel real. Like Maguire’s performance, it just makes things uncomfortable and awkward rather than legitimately gripping or moving.
“Brothers,” which is a remake of a Danish film by director Susanne Bier (“After the Wedding”), has a decently interesting premise, but it relies far too much on the weightiness of its plot to carry the film. No one is trying to make their characters come alive, and the script skips over developing the plot by simply acknowledging that some shift or transformation has occurred without actually demonstrating it. It’s a film that expects the story to tell itself, and that just doesn’t work. Its attempts to represent the effects of war on a person are nowhere near as compelling as those expressed by the far abler Jeremy Renner in “The Hurt Locker” and Ben Foster in “The Messenger.” This film feels like a mixture of those, watered down and devoid of all the elements that made those films worthwhile.
C
Movie with Abe: The Lovely Bones
The Lovely Bones
Directed by Peter Jackson
Released December 11, 2009
It’s necessary for a movie that isn’t an abstract art film to have a coherent premise. A film either starts as a result of some catalytic event or works toward it. In the case of the former, there needs to be something compelling which happens afterwards which makes the whole of the film worthwhile. There must be some mystery to be solved or some closure to be achieved, otherwise the film might as well end almost as soon as it begins. In the case of “The Lovely Bones,” it’s a tragic event which sparks the story, but where it goes after that is altogether foggier and far less fascinating.
Perky, intelligent young Susie Salmon (Saoirse Ronan) is a girl full of life who, within minutes of the film’s opening, reveals that she will soon be murdered. It’s a devastating and frightening road to the event itself, but when it comes time for the awful moment, Susie is whisked away, seemingly by the power of her own mind, to a world in between life and death where she is able to observe what goes on in days to come. Why Susie still remains behind to watch over her former life is unclear to her, and keeping her around seems even more puzzling because it adds an element of fantasy to the story that just confuses and confounds it.
“The Lovely Bones” is filled primarily by narration from the deceased Susie Salmon, commenting on her post-life epiphanies and the events that continue to swirl as she is unable to move on from the “in-between,” as her younger brother explains it. There’s no question that it’s absolutely mesmerizing to hear the versatile and wildly impressive Ronan (an Oscar nominee in 2007 for “Atonement”) spout off her take on her newfound resting place and the actions of her family members and her murder. Her voice is hypnotic and it’s easy to get lost for hours in her bright blue eyes. She makes Susie one of the most mature, dynamic young girls ever to grace cinema screens.
Yet the talent of the lead actress is almost irrelevant – what’s happening on screen isn’t nearly as interesting. Susie might as well not stick around for the denouement. Her father’s hapless search for a way to find out what happened is hopelessly drawn out, as is the meandering post-script of her murderer, whose proximity to the situation makes his ability to continue to go undetected all the more frustrating. Stanley Tucci’s fearsome performance is akin to Ronan’s, a stunning embodiment of a character whose existence in this film feels unnecessary. It’s one of those times where you wish you could just hop into the screen and shout at the characters to tell them that they’re so close and all they need to do is have a little common sense and piece together the clues. They’re certainly not going to get far by themselves. The film might have been more compelling as a twenty-minute build-up to Susie’s murder, since that part of the film is much more compelling and fulfilling. Director Peter Jackson gets caught up in cheesy CGI visuals and attempts to legitimize Susie’s predicament through her new joie de vivre, but it’s hardly convincing, and a particularly unenthusiastic bore.
C-
Directed by Peter Jackson
Released December 11, 2009
It’s necessary for a movie that isn’t an abstract art film to have a coherent premise. A film either starts as a result of some catalytic event or works toward it. In the case of the former, there needs to be something compelling which happens afterwards which makes the whole of the film worthwhile. There must be some mystery to be solved or some closure to be achieved, otherwise the film might as well end almost as soon as it begins. In the case of “The Lovely Bones,” it’s a tragic event which sparks the story, but where it goes after that is altogether foggier and far less fascinating.
Perky, intelligent young Susie Salmon (Saoirse Ronan) is a girl full of life who, within minutes of the film’s opening, reveals that she will soon be murdered. It’s a devastating and frightening road to the event itself, but when it comes time for the awful moment, Susie is whisked away, seemingly by the power of her own mind, to a world in between life and death where she is able to observe what goes on in days to come. Why Susie still remains behind to watch over her former life is unclear to her, and keeping her around seems even more puzzling because it adds an element of fantasy to the story that just confuses and confounds it.
“The Lovely Bones” is filled primarily by narration from the deceased Susie Salmon, commenting on her post-life epiphanies and the events that continue to swirl as she is unable to move on from the “in-between,” as her younger brother explains it. There’s no question that it’s absolutely mesmerizing to hear the versatile and wildly impressive Ronan (an Oscar nominee in 2007 for “Atonement”) spout off her take on her newfound resting place and the actions of her family members and her murder. Her voice is hypnotic and it’s easy to get lost for hours in her bright blue eyes. She makes Susie one of the most mature, dynamic young girls ever to grace cinema screens.
Yet the talent of the lead actress is almost irrelevant – what’s happening on screen isn’t nearly as interesting. Susie might as well not stick around for the denouement. Her father’s hapless search for a way to find out what happened is hopelessly drawn out, as is the meandering post-script of her murderer, whose proximity to the situation makes his ability to continue to go undetected all the more frustrating. Stanley Tucci’s fearsome performance is akin to Ronan’s, a stunning embodiment of a character whose existence in this film feels unnecessary. It’s one of those times where you wish you could just hop into the screen and shout at the characters to tell them that they’re so close and all they need to do is have a little common sense and piece together the clues. They’re certainly not going to get far by themselves. The film might have been more compelling as a twenty-minute build-up to Susie’s murder, since that part of the film is much more compelling and fulfilling. Director Peter Jackson gets caught up in cheesy CGI visuals and attempts to legitimize Susie’s predicament through her new joie de vivre, but it’s hardly convincing, and a particularly unenthusiastic bore.
C-
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Movie with Abe: The Princess and the Frog
The Princess and the Frog
Directed by Ron Clements and John Musker
Released November 25, 2009
Disney’s newest film is meant to be a permanent entry in its impressive library of classic fairy tales. It’s a traditionally inspiring story of a character without riches to boast of who dreams of a better life and thinks only of enriching the lives of those around her with her caring and wonderful nature. What’s significant about this story in particular is the identity of its central character and the format in which the film was made. It’s the first of nearly fifty Disney films to feature an African-American protagonist, and all of its characters are brought to life with hand-drawn rather than computer animation.
The style of animation in “The Princess and the Frog” is reminiscent of so many of Disney’s timeless films, and returning to a world where animals talk and magic and true love rule feels familiar and fabulous. Heroine Tiana hangs on to her father’s lifelong dream of running a restaurant with a dedication that parallels that of Cinderella. The setting of the story in the early 1900s in New Orleans creates a whole new dimension, allowing cultural elements like food and music to be incorporated in a truly fun fashion. It’s a unique movie in that sense, but as soon as the people and the animals start wandering around the swamp, it could easily be “The Jungle Book” or “The Lion King,” and it feels just as accessible and endearing.
“The Princess and the Frog,” like many Disney films before it, is not just an animated adventure, but also doubles as a musical. Songs from familiar Disney composer Randy Newman help make Tiana’s journey from rags to riches a soaring, lively rush. It allows minor characters to act as an ensemble, evoking memories of “Beauty and the Beast,” “Aladdin,” and “The Little Mermaid.” It aids in separating Tiana’s transformation into the person she always wanted to be into stages, with songs there to mark her progress and update the audience on her emotions.
It may feel like a familiar story, and the title brings to mind a story whose whole plot could be captured on a dozen short pages in a children’s book. Yet there is much more to discover here. Tiana whips up delicious New Orleans desserts and continually proclaims the unique greatness of her city. Prince Naveen arrives in town to find himself a wealthy heiress to marry, and his careless zeal oozes out of him uncontrollably. Once things go awry and both he and Tiana are turned into frogs, the real fun begins as they continually bicker back and forth and, surprise, surprise, come to learn that they do in fact have something in common. The token supporting animal, Louis, an alligator who aspires to play jazz with the best musicians of New Orleans, adds plenty of humor and hilarity to the dynamic of the already entertaining Naveen and the charming Tiana. The story of the princess and the frog is whimsical, enthralling, and frightening, and altogether a delight in the true Disney tradition.
B+
Directed by Ron Clements and John Musker
Released November 25, 2009
Disney’s newest film is meant to be a permanent entry in its impressive library of classic fairy tales. It’s a traditionally inspiring story of a character without riches to boast of who dreams of a better life and thinks only of enriching the lives of those around her with her caring and wonderful nature. What’s significant about this story in particular is the identity of its central character and the format in which the film was made. It’s the first of nearly fifty Disney films to feature an African-American protagonist, and all of its characters are brought to life with hand-drawn rather than computer animation.
The style of animation in “The Princess and the Frog” is reminiscent of so many of Disney’s timeless films, and returning to a world where animals talk and magic and true love rule feels familiar and fabulous. Heroine Tiana hangs on to her father’s lifelong dream of running a restaurant with a dedication that parallels that of Cinderella. The setting of the story in the early 1900s in New Orleans creates a whole new dimension, allowing cultural elements like food and music to be incorporated in a truly fun fashion. It’s a unique movie in that sense, but as soon as the people and the animals start wandering around the swamp, it could easily be “The Jungle Book” or “The Lion King,” and it feels just as accessible and endearing.
“The Princess and the Frog,” like many Disney films before it, is not just an animated adventure, but also doubles as a musical. Songs from familiar Disney composer Randy Newman help make Tiana’s journey from rags to riches a soaring, lively rush. It allows minor characters to act as an ensemble, evoking memories of “Beauty and the Beast,” “Aladdin,” and “The Little Mermaid.” It aids in separating Tiana’s transformation into the person she always wanted to be into stages, with songs there to mark her progress and update the audience on her emotions.
It may feel like a familiar story, and the title brings to mind a story whose whole plot could be captured on a dozen short pages in a children’s book. Yet there is much more to discover here. Tiana whips up delicious New Orleans desserts and continually proclaims the unique greatness of her city. Prince Naveen arrives in town to find himself a wealthy heiress to marry, and his careless zeal oozes out of him uncontrollably. Once things go awry and both he and Tiana are turned into frogs, the real fun begins as they continually bicker back and forth and, surprise, surprise, come to learn that they do in fact have something in common. The token supporting animal, Louis, an alligator who aspires to play jazz with the best musicians of New Orleans, adds plenty of humor and hilarity to the dynamic of the already entertaining Naveen and the charming Tiana. The story of the princess and the frog is whimsical, enthralling, and frightening, and altogether a delight in the true Disney tradition.
B+
Movie with Abe: Invictus
Invictus
Directed by Clint Eastwood
Released December 11, 2009
Biopics are a staggering undertaking. Even more daunting is the chronicling of some event recent enough to still be remembered by movie-going audiences, and a scenario in which the major players are still alive and often in power. Stephen Frears did it in 2006 with “The Queen” and succeeded, whereas Oliver Stone tried in 2008 with “W.” and crashed and burned. Esteemed director Clint Eastwood wanted to make a movie about Nelson Mandela, and somehow he managed to knead two stories together, creating both a moving sports film and an inspiring portrait of a unifying leader in one fantastic film.
“Invictus” is a film about South Africa, about a country struggling to reinvent and redefine itself after essentially being two nations for so many years. That monumental journey towards integration and forging one nation is represented through the stories of two very different individuals with similar ideas and the people less willing to move forward around them. The first is Nelson Mandela, the new president of South Africa who served 27 years in prison for anti-apartheid activities and sought to unify the country by abandoning all prejudices and working towards one common goal of creating a nation. The second is Francois Pienaar, the captain of the South African rugby team, who was approached by Mandela to lead his team to victory with his support as a way of facilitating a shared triumph for the entire nation, black and white.
The dynamic between Mandela and Pienaar is fascinating, but it’s those behind the scenes on both ends who experience a more dynamic transformation since they’re at first unwilling to shake hands and even try to work together. Pienaar’s father actively derides Mandela and what his presidency means for South Africa, while their black housekeeper cheers for the president and expresses awe when Pienaar announces that he has been called to meet the celebrated leader. Mandela’s deputies are met by the white presidential detail reporting for duty on Mandela’s first day in office, and watching them go from immature rivals to something much closer to comrades and friends is simply stunning.
The ensemble cast makes the film, but it’s the two main actors who, like the real-live people on whom their characters are based, really drive it forward. Morgan Freeman is astounding as Mandela, and his energy and determination really shine through in a magnificent way. He’s poised and powerful, but there is an extraordinarily personal feel to all of the conversations he has, and the way he connects with all of the people who look up to him. His dedication and leadership is matched by Matt Damon in a marvelously impressive performance as Pienaar, donning a South African accent, blond hair, and athletic physique, but also mimicking Mandela’s incredible drive to succeed. Bringing together a nation torn apart for decades by racial hatred and winning a sports trophy might seem completely unalike goals, but for these two men, they couldn’t be more in sync and dependent upon each other. Eastwood’s film is inspiring and altogether thrilling, and the feeling it produces by its end is one of hope, joy, accomplishment, and above all, unity.
A-
Directed by Clint Eastwood
Released December 11, 2009
Biopics are a staggering undertaking. Even more daunting is the chronicling of some event recent enough to still be remembered by movie-going audiences, and a scenario in which the major players are still alive and often in power. Stephen Frears did it in 2006 with “The Queen” and succeeded, whereas Oliver Stone tried in 2008 with “W.” and crashed and burned. Esteemed director Clint Eastwood wanted to make a movie about Nelson Mandela, and somehow he managed to knead two stories together, creating both a moving sports film and an inspiring portrait of a unifying leader in one fantastic film.
“Invictus” is a film about South Africa, about a country struggling to reinvent and redefine itself after essentially being two nations for so many years. That monumental journey towards integration and forging one nation is represented through the stories of two very different individuals with similar ideas and the people less willing to move forward around them. The first is Nelson Mandela, the new president of South Africa who served 27 years in prison for anti-apartheid activities and sought to unify the country by abandoning all prejudices and working towards one common goal of creating a nation. The second is Francois Pienaar, the captain of the South African rugby team, who was approached by Mandela to lead his team to victory with his support as a way of facilitating a shared triumph for the entire nation, black and white.
The dynamic between Mandela and Pienaar is fascinating, but it’s those behind the scenes on both ends who experience a more dynamic transformation since they’re at first unwilling to shake hands and even try to work together. Pienaar’s father actively derides Mandela and what his presidency means for South Africa, while their black housekeeper cheers for the president and expresses awe when Pienaar announces that he has been called to meet the celebrated leader. Mandela’s deputies are met by the white presidential detail reporting for duty on Mandela’s first day in office, and watching them go from immature rivals to something much closer to comrades and friends is simply stunning.
The ensemble cast makes the film, but it’s the two main actors who, like the real-live people on whom their characters are based, really drive it forward. Morgan Freeman is astounding as Mandela, and his energy and determination really shine through in a magnificent way. He’s poised and powerful, but there is an extraordinarily personal feel to all of the conversations he has, and the way he connects with all of the people who look up to him. His dedication and leadership is matched by Matt Damon in a marvelously impressive performance as Pienaar, donning a South African accent, blond hair, and athletic physique, but also mimicking Mandela’s incredible drive to succeed. Bringing together a nation torn apart for decades by racial hatred and winning a sports trophy might seem completely unalike goals, but for these two men, they couldn’t be more in sync and dependent upon each other. Eastwood’s film is inspiring and altogether thrilling, and the feeling it produces by its end is one of hope, joy, accomplishment, and above all, unity.
A-
Friday, December 18, 2009
Movie with Abe: The Messenger
The Messenger
Directed by Oren Moverman
Released November 13, 2009
Dealing with tragedy is never an easy thing, and showcasing that is just as difficult. “The Messenger” tackles it head-on by following two soldiers whose lives have already been complicated and affected by their war experiences abroad, and whose daily dose of heartbreak increases exponentially when they are tasked with informing next of kin that their family members have given their lives in the service of their country. That’s never something anyone wants to hear, and this film does of an extraordinary job of showing just how impossible both sides of the situation are.
“The Messenger” is an incredibly intimate film, which spotlights only three main characters, and takes the soldiers right into the homes of unsuspecting family members about to receive devastating, life-changing news from people they’ve never met and who they’ll likely never see again. There’s something about that intimacy which feels invasive and intrusive, and that’s conveyed exceedingly well by the discomfort on the faces of those charged with delivering the news. It’s easy to sympathize with both parties, and there’s a magnificent moment in the film where a killed soldier’s wife sees the men coming and knows what they’re about to say and pre-empts them by shaking their hands and saying, “I know this can’t be easy for you either.” The film is just as much about the messengers as it is about the people whose lives they touch and the messages they must deliver.
The sympathetic and intimate nature of the characters is due to a strong script and deft direction by first-time filmmaker Oren Moverman, but it’s due mostly to the skilled actors in their roles. The steely-eyed Ben Foster branches out from playing creepy villains (“Hostage,” “3:10 to Yuma”), and pulls together a staggering composite of a someone who likes living a life of solitude but stills yearns to make human connections. Playing off of him is Woody Harrelson, who gets serious and nostalgic as an alcoholic soldier who’s been doing this for way too long and become all too jaded and accustomed to it. Foster and Harrelson make for an unexpected and exceptional pair, and their conversations about life, women, and war feel searingly real. The people they meet in their line of work make for fascinating subjects of interaction, and a small role by Steve Buscemi as the father of a deceased soldier is particularly poignant. The always stellar Samantha Morton gives the film a much-needed life-affirming perspective, and her blasé reaction to her husband’s death and her subsequent bonding with Foster’s character is absolutely enthralling and engaging. There’s not very far to physically go in “The Messenger,” but there’s a deeply ingrained notion throughout the whole film that these men have been a lot of places, and that they carry around the weight of what they’ve seen and done with them every day. The film doesn’t take place abroad, but in some moments, it’s just as quietly momentous and moving as “The Hurt Locker.” Invoking that kind of intensity and emotion is an awe-inspiring feat, and that’s something this film does spectacularly.
B+
Directed by Oren Moverman
Released November 13, 2009
Dealing with tragedy is never an easy thing, and showcasing that is just as difficult. “The Messenger” tackles it head-on by following two soldiers whose lives have already been complicated and affected by their war experiences abroad, and whose daily dose of heartbreak increases exponentially when they are tasked with informing next of kin that their family members have given their lives in the service of their country. That’s never something anyone wants to hear, and this film does of an extraordinary job of showing just how impossible both sides of the situation are.
“The Messenger” is an incredibly intimate film, which spotlights only three main characters, and takes the soldiers right into the homes of unsuspecting family members about to receive devastating, life-changing news from people they’ve never met and who they’ll likely never see again. There’s something about that intimacy which feels invasive and intrusive, and that’s conveyed exceedingly well by the discomfort on the faces of those charged with delivering the news. It’s easy to sympathize with both parties, and there’s a magnificent moment in the film where a killed soldier’s wife sees the men coming and knows what they’re about to say and pre-empts them by shaking their hands and saying, “I know this can’t be easy for you either.” The film is just as much about the messengers as it is about the people whose lives they touch and the messages they must deliver.
The sympathetic and intimate nature of the characters is due to a strong script and deft direction by first-time filmmaker Oren Moverman, but it’s due mostly to the skilled actors in their roles. The steely-eyed Ben Foster branches out from playing creepy villains (“Hostage,” “3:10 to Yuma”), and pulls together a staggering composite of a someone who likes living a life of solitude but stills yearns to make human connections. Playing off of him is Woody Harrelson, who gets serious and nostalgic as an alcoholic soldier who’s been doing this for way too long and become all too jaded and accustomed to it. Foster and Harrelson make for an unexpected and exceptional pair, and their conversations about life, women, and war feel searingly real. The people they meet in their line of work make for fascinating subjects of interaction, and a small role by Steve Buscemi as the father of a deceased soldier is particularly poignant. The always stellar Samantha Morton gives the film a much-needed life-affirming perspective, and her blasé reaction to her husband’s death and her subsequent bonding with Foster’s character is absolutely enthralling and engaging. There’s not very far to physically go in “The Messenger,” but there’s a deeply ingrained notion throughout the whole film that these men have been a lot of places, and that they carry around the weight of what they’ve seen and done with them every day. The film doesn’t take place abroad, but in some moments, it’s just as quietly momentous and moving as “The Hurt Locker.” Invoking that kind of intensity and emotion is an awe-inspiring feat, and that’s something this film does spectacularly.
B+