You could be forgiven for getting Adventureland and Zombieland confused. Both of them have titles that are essentially Noun + "land." The plots are as follows: in Adventureland Jesse Eisenberg plays a socially awkward, hypersensitive, kid who falls for a girl (Kristen Stewart), who in turn falls for him. Along the way, he gets some advice from an older man-of-the-world type (Ryan Reynolds) and a third party (Martin Starr). However, in Zombieland Jesse Eisenberg plays a socially awkward, hypersensitive, kid who falls for a girl (Emma Stone), who in turn falls for him. Along the way he gets some advice from an older man-of-the-world type (Woody Harrelson), and a third party (Abigail Breslin). Oh, and in Zombieland those four characters are the only people on Earth who aren't zombies.
And therein lies the the key to what takes a pile of dreck (Adventureland) and turns it into watchable film (Zombieland). In both movies, the main plotline involves Jesse Eisenberg's desperate attempts to attach himself to the female lead. However, the people who made Zombieland understood that in order to make that whole bit, which becomes an unbearable disarray of mixxed up emoting and longing and lusting after each other in Adventureland, they would have to distract the viewer with zombies. Slate pointed out (and I agree) that Zombieland is to Adventureland what "Pride and Prejudice and Zombies" is to "Pride and Prejudice."
There are, of course, other things that make Zombieland better than Adventureland. For instance, someone told Ryan Reynolds that he wasn't allowed to be Ryan Reynolds in the film, but instead some innocuous attractive male character. Which is a shame, because Reynolds is naturally pretty hilarious. He pretty much is the humor contained in Waiting. Contrast that with Woody Harrelson, who is allowed to go wild, and it's great. He completely overplays his macho stereotype, so that we, as viewers, can instantly know his character (and his likely course of actions), and are allowed to write him off as a flat character. Plus, the twinkie obsession was hilarious. Likewise, the choice of female leads was also pretty key. Emma Stone's character is cheerfully sardonic, and she never hesitates to own the camera. Kristen Stewart's character in Adventureland, however is about as fun and interesting as a briar patch. Stewart seems to equate acting with biting her lower lip, something she uses for pretty much every emotion: interest, frustration, confusion, thinking things over, being upset, etc. etc. Don't get me wrong, she's very nice looking, in a bland vanilla ice cream sort of way, and the lip biting makes her look vulnerable, but there are times when I wish the director had cut, and taken her aside and pointed out that, generally, when we close our mouths, our teeth go on the inside, not the outside. It's really quite a contrast with Eisenberg, who, despite his perpetually wary hangdog espression, learned a long time ago how to slightly modify his facial features differently to convey a wide range of emotions.
I saw Zombieland first, so this might easily be a sort of The Prestige vs The Illusionist type of argument, where the one you saw first shapes how you perceive the second. Both Zombieland and Adventureland scored well on the aggregates, so reviewers view them both positively, although their scores are within a couple percentage points of each other, indicating that they're liked about the same.
If I had to buy one, if, having not seen either, I had to put one on my DVD queue (and I did put one on my DVD queue), it would hands down be Zombieland (and it was).
Monday, March 22, 2010
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Un Prophete "A Prophet" (2009)
The winner of the Grand Prix at this year's Cannes, and nominated at for Best Foreign Film at this year's Oscars, this is by far one of the best movies I've watched in the past year (at least). Essentially, this is a prison film, but to confine it within the parameters of that genere is to do it no justice at all. It is perhaps the French answer to The Godfather and is an excellent challenge to it.
The film focuses on Malik, a young street thug doing six years for assaulting a police officer. Inside prison, Malik learns to navigate the constantly changing waters that pits the incarcerated Corsicans against the incarcerated Arab Muslims. Malik becomes a sort of (at first) unwilling protege of Luciani, the Corsican prison boss, which has the effect of making life both simulataneously easier and more difficult on him.
As an American viewer, the French prison system seems bizarrely relaxed, with prisoners receiving leave time (a day where they are allowed to actually leave prison, provided they return on their own volition), no distinctive prison uniform, and some cells equipped with televisions.
However, despite this, the film does convey a message that I do understand: that prison can take what was otherwise a petty thug, and turn them into a hardened, violent, career criminal. Terming this a French Godfather is particularly apt, as Malik's transformation is particularly stunning, and a little reminiscent of Michael Corleone's unwitting ascension, as he climbs up the prison's ladder slowly but surely.
This transformation is deftly demonstrated in Malik by Tahar Rahim, who conveys much of it in very subtle ways. Malik's manner at the beginning is often jumpy and sullen, generally reacting angrily and without thinking. By the end, he carries himself with a confidence commesurate with his position in the prison, almost jovial. His expression barely changes, but in one moment you might see anger, and in another, you will see an almost childlike fascination, Tahar's eyes shining brightly.
Likewise, Neils Arestrup, who plays Luciani, also does an amazing job, playing a man desperately coming to terms with the fact that he is fast becoming irrelevant within the prison where he will spend the rest of his life. The character also serves as both the film's mentor figure and its primary villain, as Malik's rise is directly related to Luciani's fall, despite their close relationship. In many ways, it is also a story of revenge, with Malik destroying the man who involved him in a world he did not choose to be involved in. Unlike Godfather style vengeance, in which characters are riddled with bullets, Malik's victory over Luciani is far more complete, and in many ways more viciously satisfying.
Obviously, because this movie is still playing in theatres, getting it on your queue would be difficult. So instead, take a trip down to your local independent cinema and watch it. You'll be glad you did.
Directed by Jacques Audiard, Written by Audiard, Thomas Bidegain, Abdel Raouf Dafri, Nicolas Peufallit, Starring Tahar Rahim, Niels Arestrup and Adel Bencherif.
The film focuses on Malik, a young street thug doing six years for assaulting a police officer. Inside prison, Malik learns to navigate the constantly changing waters that pits the incarcerated Corsicans against the incarcerated Arab Muslims. Malik becomes a sort of (at first) unwilling protege of Luciani, the Corsican prison boss, which has the effect of making life both simulataneously easier and more difficult on him.
As an American viewer, the French prison system seems bizarrely relaxed, with prisoners receiving leave time (a day where they are allowed to actually leave prison, provided they return on their own volition), no distinctive prison uniform, and some cells equipped with televisions.
However, despite this, the film does convey a message that I do understand: that prison can take what was otherwise a petty thug, and turn them into a hardened, violent, career criminal. Terming this a French Godfather is particularly apt, as Malik's transformation is particularly stunning, and a little reminiscent of Michael Corleone's unwitting ascension, as he climbs up the prison's ladder slowly but surely.
This transformation is deftly demonstrated in Malik by Tahar Rahim, who conveys much of it in very subtle ways. Malik's manner at the beginning is often jumpy and sullen, generally reacting angrily and without thinking. By the end, he carries himself with a confidence commesurate with his position in the prison, almost jovial. His expression barely changes, but in one moment you might see anger, and in another, you will see an almost childlike fascination, Tahar's eyes shining brightly.
Likewise, Neils Arestrup, who plays Luciani, also does an amazing job, playing a man desperately coming to terms with the fact that he is fast becoming irrelevant within the prison where he will spend the rest of his life. The character also serves as both the film's mentor figure and its primary villain, as Malik's rise is directly related to Luciani's fall, despite their close relationship. In many ways, it is also a story of revenge, with Malik destroying the man who involved him in a world he did not choose to be involved in. Unlike Godfather style vengeance, in which characters are riddled with bullets, Malik's victory over Luciani is far more complete, and in many ways more viciously satisfying.
Obviously, because this movie is still playing in theatres, getting it on your queue would be difficult. So instead, take a trip down to your local independent cinema and watch it. You'll be glad you did.
Directed by Jacques Audiard, Written by Audiard, Thomas Bidegain, Abdel Raouf Dafri, Nicolas Peufallit, Starring Tahar Rahim, Niels Arestrup and Adel Bencherif.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Flame & Citron (2008)
Set in Denmark during WWII, Flame and Citron is about two operatives for the Danish resistance, who work under the codenames Flame and Citron (as in the fruit).
The film is an espionage thriller, with constantly twisting plot turns, but its focus is not (sadly) about the strange ambiguity of war (as its trailer seemed to imply it is), but instead focuses more on Flame's (Thure Lindhardt) attraction to Ketty (Stine Stengade), a woman member of the Danish resistance, as well as his fixation on killing the Danish Gestapo Chief, Karl Heinz Hoffman (played by Christian Berkel, an excellent character actor used as the bartender in Inglorious Basterds and far more effectively in Valkyrie and more still in Downfall).
Some time is allowed for Citron's much stronger and more interesting story, which involves his sacrifice of his relationship with his wife and daugther in order to continue his work in the resistance supporting Flame (who conducts most of the assassinations). Citron is excellently played by Mads Mikkelsen, whom you may have seen crying blood as Le Chiffre, the primary villain (for the first half, at least) in "Casino Royale" (2006). Citron is a drunk, a poor husband and father, but by God, he's at least human, placed under the unimaginable stress of his job thwarting the Nazi occupation.
The film, while not being a very great meditation on whether the characters are actually the force for good they want to believe themselves to be due to their violent actions (and yet, it comes so close only to shrug it off. Oh, for might-have-beens!), is an excellent dissection of the pressures the men undergo. They go to Stockholm a great deal to talk to the Danish government-in-exile, which often begs them to stop their violent crusade, in order for diplomatic solutions to take effect. Of course, our heroes meet this with witty reparte, and then slaughter some German official.
Indeed, every time the film comes close to confronting the main characters with the horror of their actions, to the point where you think they must take some action to prove their virtue, Flame shrugs it off and Citron drains a glass of scotch. And that's it. There's a very memorable sequence where they riddle a car full of bullets only to find it is not Hoffman, but instead some other officer, and his little boy, who is gutshot. For the life of me, I can't remember what happens when Citron tells Flame that the kid has been killed, but don't worry if I ruined a scene for you, because after that talk, that's the last you'll ever hear about him.
For me, this was a disappointing film that aspired to heights it did not reach, but if you manage to avoid the trailer and approach it with an open mind, you should do fine. If you like period spy thrillers, you should check this out, if you don't mind subtitles (I actually like them). It's not Casino Royale or Bourne, but it's still a decent flick.
Directed by Ole Christian Madsen, Written by Madsen and Lars K. Andersen, Starring Thure Lindhardt, Mads Mikkelsen, Peter Mygind, Stine Stengade, and Christian Berkel
The film is an espionage thriller, with constantly twisting plot turns, but its focus is not (sadly) about the strange ambiguity of war (as its trailer seemed to imply it is), but instead focuses more on Flame's (Thure Lindhardt) attraction to Ketty (Stine Stengade), a woman member of the Danish resistance, as well as his fixation on killing the Danish Gestapo Chief, Karl Heinz Hoffman (played by Christian Berkel, an excellent character actor used as the bartender in Inglorious Basterds and far more effectively in Valkyrie and more still in Downfall).
Some time is allowed for Citron's much stronger and more interesting story, which involves his sacrifice of his relationship with his wife and daugther in order to continue his work in the resistance supporting Flame (who conducts most of the assassinations). Citron is excellently played by Mads Mikkelsen, whom you may have seen crying blood as Le Chiffre, the primary villain (for the first half, at least) in "Casino Royale" (2006). Citron is a drunk, a poor husband and father, but by God, he's at least human, placed under the unimaginable stress of his job thwarting the Nazi occupation.
The film, while not being a very great meditation on whether the characters are actually the force for good they want to believe themselves to be due to their violent actions (and yet, it comes so close only to shrug it off. Oh, for might-have-beens!), is an excellent dissection of the pressures the men undergo. They go to Stockholm a great deal to talk to the Danish government-in-exile, which often begs them to stop their violent crusade, in order for diplomatic solutions to take effect. Of course, our heroes meet this with witty reparte, and then slaughter some German official.
Indeed, every time the film comes close to confronting the main characters with the horror of their actions, to the point where you think they must take some action to prove their virtue, Flame shrugs it off and Citron drains a glass of scotch. And that's it. There's a very memorable sequence where they riddle a car full of bullets only to find it is not Hoffman, but instead some other officer, and his little boy, who is gutshot. For the life of me, I can't remember what happens when Citron tells Flame that the kid has been killed, but don't worry if I ruined a scene for you, because after that talk, that's the last you'll ever hear about him.
For me, this was a disappointing film that aspired to heights it did not reach, but if you manage to avoid the trailer and approach it with an open mind, you should do fine. If you like period spy thrillers, you should check this out, if you don't mind subtitles (I actually like them). It's not Casino Royale or Bourne, but it's still a decent flick.
Directed by Ole Christian Madsen, Written by Madsen and Lars K. Andersen, Starring Thure Lindhardt, Mads Mikkelsen, Peter Mygind, Stine Stengade, and Christian Berkel
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Visioneers (2008)
Visioneers is a film you've probably never heard of. In fact, it's probably only seen the light of day at all because its star, Zack Galifianakis, was in the far more successful and big-budget The Hangover, which brought him to the attention of most people.
The plot is your basic Corporate Dystopia. George Washington Winsterhammerman (Galifianakis) works for the Jeffers Corporation (the largest and most profitable corporation in the world) which has basically sucked all the life out of people. The negative side-effects of this mindless existence has caused people to explode when they get too excited. George has begun dreaming, one of the warning signs before explosion, so much of the film concerns George and his wife (played by Judy Greer, who you'll know as the female lead's kinda wacky girlfriend in every romantic comedy ever) living with this fear of George's soon to be exploding.
The movie is not over-the-top funny, instead drawing its comedy from the overall ridiculousness of the situations that the characters approach as totally normal. Galifianakis normally plays a crazy man who thinks himself to be the only sane man in a crazy world, but in this case, he's the only sane man in a crazy world. He's not only the unlikely hero of the story, but he's also an unlikely protagonist; for much of the film there are characters undergoing far more radical changes than he is, his wife, his son, his brother, for instance.
The film doesn't exactly drag in places, but it's also quite clear there are spots where it's not quite firing on all cylinders, either. There is a minimalist approach to dialogue, with a lot of repetition, and long stretches of film where the camera focuses on Galifianakis experiencing some form of inner struggle, as demonstrated by his hangdog expression.
Ultimately, the film resolves into a love story, which actually is played to a largely positive effect here, rounding out its depressing soliloquy on the evils of corporate drone-ism.
Visioneers isn't doing anything exceptionally novel, either in terms of plot or of character. It's basically a Wes Anderson film without Wes Anderson, but it's still, on the whole, good. I wouldn't go out of my way to see it, but if you want to kill a couple of hours, you could do a whole lot worse. Give it a try, if you have time.
The plot is your basic Corporate Dystopia. George Washington Winsterhammerman (Galifianakis) works for the Jeffers Corporation (the largest and most profitable corporation in the world) which has basically sucked all the life out of people. The negative side-effects of this mindless existence has caused people to explode when they get too excited. George has begun dreaming, one of the warning signs before explosion, so much of the film concerns George and his wife (played by Judy Greer, who you'll know as the female lead's kinda wacky girlfriend in every romantic comedy ever) living with this fear of George's soon to be exploding.
The movie is not over-the-top funny, instead drawing its comedy from the overall ridiculousness of the situations that the characters approach as totally normal. Galifianakis normally plays a crazy man who thinks himself to be the only sane man in a crazy world, but in this case, he's the only sane man in a crazy world. He's not only the unlikely hero of the story, but he's also an unlikely protagonist; for much of the film there are characters undergoing far more radical changes than he is, his wife, his son, his brother, for instance.
The film doesn't exactly drag in places, but it's also quite clear there are spots where it's not quite firing on all cylinders, either. There is a minimalist approach to dialogue, with a lot of repetition, and long stretches of film where the camera focuses on Galifianakis experiencing some form of inner struggle, as demonstrated by his hangdog expression.
Ultimately, the film resolves into a love story, which actually is played to a largely positive effect here, rounding out its depressing soliloquy on the evils of corporate drone-ism.
Visioneers isn't doing anything exceptionally novel, either in terms of plot or of character. It's basically a Wes Anderson film without Wes Anderson, but it's still, on the whole, good. I wouldn't go out of my way to see it, but if you want to kill a couple of hours, you could do a whole lot worse. Give it a try, if you have time.
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Bugsy (1991)
Bugsy is a biopic about the "Father of Las Vegas," the WWII-era Jewish gangster Benjamin "Bugsy" Siegel. The film takes large liberties with its protagonist's actual life, and, as all biopics do, ends with the main character dead (although, since he's a gangster, we don't have to spend all that time watching him age).
The story isn't great (or historically accurate) but the cast is on fire. Warren Beatty plays the title role, Annette Benning plays his mistress Viriginia Hill, with Ben Kingsley as his boss Meyer Lansky, and Harvey Keitel (wearing an obvious bald wig) as his underling Mickey Cohen.
Beatty is on fire, even playing a Bugsy Siegel who apparently has been neutered of his violent tendancies (the man had a long rap sheet that included most prominently rape and murder) and his infamously short temper. Instead, Bugsy's rage is a triggered event, which infuses the film with some dramatic irony. For instance, when a character calls him "Bugsy" Siegel within earshot, he exudes an implied danger to that person while remaining pretty calm. The other main trigger is stealing, which causes him to get out of control. In what is probably the best scene of the movie he loses it on an underling and forces him to do more and more outrageous actions to prove that the underling is both a scumbag and won't do it again.
That said, it's not a great film, even for it's great cast. Much of the film focuses on Bugsy and Viriginia's relationship and love story, even while acknowledging that they both slept around plenty. It almost feels a little shoehorned in, and unrealistic, as each demands fidelity from the other and is constantly on the look-out for this.
Really, Beatty is the only thing that drives Bugsy forward. His personable charm, his portrayal of the character's odd idealistic eccentricites (such as building a casino in the middle of desert, or planning to assassinate Mussolini as his duty as both an American and a Jew), and the violent tempermant, Beatty is, as always, a charm to watch do his thing.
Usually, I end these reviews with an "add it to your queue" and there's no change here, except to add a caveat: "if you like Warren Beatty." Don't make this your first Beatty film, but if you already appreciate him, then you could do a lot worse than watching this film.
By the by, Netflix sent me the "Extended Cut" which may explain why the movie seemed to drag in places. I'm not sure if they have a theatrical version available, but if you dislike long movies, you might want to look around for one.
The story isn't great (or historically accurate) but the cast is on fire. Warren Beatty plays the title role, Annette Benning plays his mistress Viriginia Hill, with Ben Kingsley as his boss Meyer Lansky, and Harvey Keitel (wearing an obvious bald wig) as his underling Mickey Cohen.
Beatty is on fire, even playing a Bugsy Siegel who apparently has been neutered of his violent tendancies (the man had a long rap sheet that included most prominently rape and murder) and his infamously short temper. Instead, Bugsy's rage is a triggered event, which infuses the film with some dramatic irony. For instance, when a character calls him "Bugsy" Siegel within earshot, he exudes an implied danger to that person while remaining pretty calm. The other main trigger is stealing, which causes him to get out of control. In what is probably the best scene of the movie he loses it on an underling and forces him to do more and more outrageous actions to prove that the underling is both a scumbag and won't do it again.
That said, it's not a great film, even for it's great cast. Much of the film focuses on Bugsy and Viriginia's relationship and love story, even while acknowledging that they both slept around plenty. It almost feels a little shoehorned in, and unrealistic, as each demands fidelity from the other and is constantly on the look-out for this.
Really, Beatty is the only thing that drives Bugsy forward. His personable charm, his portrayal of the character's odd idealistic eccentricites (such as building a casino in the middle of desert, or planning to assassinate Mussolini as his duty as both an American and a Jew), and the violent tempermant, Beatty is, as always, a charm to watch do his thing.
Usually, I end these reviews with an "add it to your queue" and there's no change here, except to add a caveat: "if you like Warren Beatty." Don't make this your first Beatty film, but if you already appreciate him, then you could do a lot worse than watching this film.
By the by, Netflix sent me the "Extended Cut" which may explain why the movie seemed to drag in places. I'm not sure if they have a theatrical version available, but if you dislike long movies, you might want to look around for one.
Monday, March 8, 2010
The Four Most Important Awards at the Oscars
-The Hurt Locker got Best Picture
-Kathryn Bigelow got Best Director
-Jeff Bridges got Best Actor
and
-SANDRA BULLOCK??! got Best Actress.
I am soooo glad Avatar did not win Best Picture, and that James Cameron did not win Best Director. Avatar was a gripping adventure flick but ultimately it was a mess. It was as patronizing as could be, with a blatant political message and ugly stereotypes (such as Mighty Whitey or "White Messiah" complex. Seriously. They dump him into an alien body and he becomes the tribe's best warrior, over people who have spent their lives living that way? I'm calling bull), bad dialogue, and a script that easily could've have been trimmed, but wasn't because the Director had way too much control, as well as pretty much borrowing specific points of the plotlines from every film ever made, even James Cameron's old films. You can blame this stuff all on James Cameron, too, because he had the primary writing credit. He wrote his own film, then he had it made, then he directed it, and while it is visually an intense moviegoing experience, if you saw it without 3D, I imagine you were treated to 2+ hours of the Hi-Def dreck that I saw.
To some extent, I do feel like Kathryn Bigelow's award was contingent on Best Picture. The Academy could not have given her the award, but then delivered Best Picture to some other film without somebody noting (as many suggested would happen, including the NYTimes' Carpetbagger) that it would've been convienent for the Academy to make history with the first woman director to win, and then give the Best Picture Oscar to something else, (specifically Avatar) to appease the masses who haven't seen The Hurt Locker. Which is not to say The Hurt Locker didn't deserve a win. Au contaire, it was the best of the films nominated (that I've seen, which is everything but Precious, A Serious Man, An Education, and The Blind Side). I couldn't really say if there was a better film that wasn't nominated, but that's my feeling. It didn't quite move me in the way that other films have (Hunger, for example, which passed unnoticed at the Oscars last year). Moon could've been a nice choice.
Jeff Bridges won best Actor, something he easily should've won five times over by now. Luckily, the Dude Abides.
And now the real gist of this post: Sandra Bullock. To win her Oscar, Sandra played a tenacious football mom, in a movie that was supposed to be a story about Michael Ohler, but instead became a movie about Sandra Bullock's character. Which wasn't written for her. They wrote it for Julia Roberts, who had the good sense to duck it. Maybe if Julia hadn't, they would've given the Award to someone else, seeing as they already gave her an Oscar for the exact same character in Erin Brockovich. Here's who the Oscars had to snub in order to give Bullock the award:
Here's what I think happened: They had a nominee pool of two previous winners, two complete newcomers, and Sandra Bullock. Rather than being ballsy and saying "Hey, you know, one of you new girls turned in an Oscar-worthy performance right off the bat, welcome to Hollywood" or going "Meryl, you're incredible (as always), here's your award" they said "Hey, Sandra, you talked with a Texan accent this time around, and you clearly can't suffer from the Oscar curse, (seeing how your career is already cursed, seriously, Miss Congeniality 2?), so here's your statue. Cheers."
So, how would I characterize this Oscars? Gutless. Good work on the sexism bit, it was nice after 81 years of men winning (80 years of white men, winning) you finally noticed that women have been directing films since at least the 1930s and kicked one over to them. Maybe next year, you can work on your racism. Giving Mo'Nique a Best Supporting Actress award isn't enough. Sorry.
-Kathryn Bigelow got Best Director
-Jeff Bridges got Best Actor
and
-SANDRA BULLOCK??! got Best Actress.
I am soooo glad Avatar did not win Best Picture, and that James Cameron did not win Best Director. Avatar was a gripping adventure flick but ultimately it was a mess. It was as patronizing as could be, with a blatant political message and ugly stereotypes (such as Mighty Whitey or "White Messiah" complex. Seriously. They dump him into an alien body and he becomes the tribe's best warrior, over people who have spent their lives living that way? I'm calling bull), bad dialogue, and a script that easily could've have been trimmed, but wasn't because the Director had way too much control, as well as pretty much borrowing specific points of the plotlines from every film ever made, even James Cameron's old films. You can blame this stuff all on James Cameron, too, because he had the primary writing credit. He wrote his own film, then he had it made, then he directed it, and while it is visually an intense moviegoing experience, if you saw it without 3D, I imagine you were treated to 2+ hours of the Hi-Def dreck that I saw.
To some extent, I do feel like Kathryn Bigelow's award was contingent on Best Picture. The Academy could not have given her the award, but then delivered Best Picture to some other film without somebody noting (as many suggested would happen, including the NYTimes' Carpetbagger) that it would've been convienent for the Academy to make history with the first woman director to win, and then give the Best Picture Oscar to something else, (specifically Avatar) to appease the masses who haven't seen The Hurt Locker. Which is not to say The Hurt Locker didn't deserve a win. Au contaire, it was the best of the films nominated (that I've seen, which is everything but Precious, A Serious Man, An Education, and The Blind Side). I couldn't really say if there was a better film that wasn't nominated, but that's my feeling. It didn't quite move me in the way that other films have (Hunger, for example, which passed unnoticed at the Oscars last year). Moon could've been a nice choice.
Jeff Bridges won best Actor, something he easily should've won five times over by now. Luckily, the Dude Abides.
And now the real gist of this post: Sandra Bullock. To win her Oscar, Sandra played a tenacious football mom, in a movie that was supposed to be a story about Michael Ohler, but instead became a movie about Sandra Bullock's character. Which wasn't written for her. They wrote it for Julia Roberts, who had the good sense to duck it. Maybe if Julia hadn't, they would've given the Award to someone else, seeing as they already gave her an Oscar for the exact same character in Erin Brockovich. Here's who the Oscars had to snub in order to give Bullock the award:
- Hellen Mirren as Leo Tolstoy's long-suffering wife.
- Carey Mulligan as Girl Coming of Age
- Gabourey Sidibe as Girl Going Through Incredibly Traumatic Exeperiences (including rape) - based on real life
- Meryl Streep as Julia Child
Here's what I think happened: They had a nominee pool of two previous winners, two complete newcomers, and Sandra Bullock. Rather than being ballsy and saying "Hey, you know, one of you new girls turned in an Oscar-worthy performance right off the bat, welcome to Hollywood" or going "Meryl, you're incredible (as always), here's your award" they said "Hey, Sandra, you talked with a Texan accent this time around, and you clearly can't suffer from the Oscar curse, (seeing how your career is already cursed, seriously, Miss Congeniality 2?), so here's your statue. Cheers."
So, how would I characterize this Oscars? Gutless. Good work on the sexism bit, it was nice after 81 years of men winning (80 years of white men, winning) you finally noticed that women have been directing films since at least the 1930s and kicked one over to them. Maybe next year, you can work on your racism. Giving Mo'Nique a Best Supporting Actress award isn't enough. Sorry.
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Chrisoph Waltz Wins Best Supporting Actor
All I'm saying is I knew that was an Oscar Worthy (which, I realizes, pre-supposes the Oscars are worth something) performance the second I saw him. Landa pretty much made Inglourious Basterds for me. I haven't seen any of the other actors' performances, so I can't judge. The man was a fucking brilliant Magnificent Bastard, and it would be hard to believe that anyone could've beaten him. The rest of the nominees looked like they were cast in pretty subdued roles; Matt Damon as the Afrikaaner soccer player, Woody Harrelson as the drunkard lieutenant, Christopher Plummer (who's awesome, by the by) as Leo Tolstoy (a writer. Not prone to lots of emotion) and Stanley Tucci as the quiet child murderer. They were up against a guy playing a charismatic psychotic SS officer, in a fucking Quentin Tarantino movie. Yeah, predetermined.
Mo'Nique won for her performance in Precious: Based on the Novel "Push" by Sapphire (world's longest movie title, I've got to figure). I haven't seen the movie yet, and I may never. Tearjerkers very rarely grab my attention, though that's not to say I don't enjoy them, just that I don't go out of my way for to enjoy them. Haven't seen Penelope Cruz or Maggie Gyllenhaal do their bits, but Vera Farmiga and Anna Kendrick in Up in the Air (which I legitimately enjoyed, and thought was a well constructed narrative) definitely didn't deserve to be up there. They just weren't the performances for it. I don't how you get an Oscar Nomination for playing roles we've all seen 100s of times before.
Up won Best Animated Feature, which is nice, I guess, seeing as Pixar always wins. It'll help them feel better when they don't win Best Picture.
Logorama won Best Animated Short. It's a pretty sweet one, too, although, much as my experience goes with the Best Supporting Actor, I've only seen the one (which was recommended to me because World on Fire is also the theme song from the Fallout series). Very creative use.
Not sure The Hurt Locker deserves the Best Original Screenplay win, especially over Inglourious Basterds. I thought THL was pretty standard for plotlines, while IB was just great. That was such a well-tied together movie, much like all Tarantino films.
Of the Best Adapted Screenplay, there's really no surprise there for Precious, and I think that's probably the right choice.
With 1 hour left, here's hoping Sandra Bullock doesn't win!
Mo'Nique won for her performance in Precious: Based on the Novel "Push" by Sapphire (world's longest movie title, I've got to figure). I haven't seen the movie yet, and I may never. Tearjerkers very rarely grab my attention, though that's not to say I don't enjoy them, just that I don't go out of my way for to enjoy them. Haven't seen Penelope Cruz or Maggie Gyllenhaal do their bits, but Vera Farmiga and Anna Kendrick in Up in the Air (which I legitimately enjoyed, and thought was a well constructed narrative) definitely didn't deserve to be up there. They just weren't the performances for it. I don't how you get an Oscar Nomination for playing roles we've all seen 100s of times before.
Up won Best Animated Feature, which is nice, I guess, seeing as Pixar always wins. It'll help them feel better when they don't win Best Picture.
Logorama won Best Animated Short. It's a pretty sweet one, too, although, much as my experience goes with the Best Supporting Actor, I've only seen the one (which was recommended to me because World on Fire is also the theme song from the Fallout series). Very creative use.
Not sure The Hurt Locker deserves the Best Original Screenplay win, especially over Inglourious Basterds. I thought THL was pretty standard for plotlines, while IB was just great. That was such a well-tied together movie, much like all Tarantino films.
Of the Best Adapted Screenplay, there's really no surprise there for Precious, and I think that's probably the right choice.
With 1 hour left, here's hoping Sandra Bullock doesn't win!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
