Yearly Archives: 2011

Lamenting the Death of Sidney Lumet

Leave a reply

Upon first hearing his name, it doesn’t immediately hit the familiarity aspect of directors like Scorsese or Kubrick. Yet Sidney Lumet, who died today at age 86, reached an unparalleled greatness throughout a career that lasted over 50 years.

Throughout his career, Lumet made some of the most intense character pieces of all time. He also helped direct some of the greatest actors to their best performances. He began his career with a film you may have heard of: “12 Angry Men.” Lumet turned a gripping play into a gripping film, and showed his earliest instances of being able to use small spaces to create the most gripping tension you’ll ever feel.
One of Lumet’s other great examples of spacial tension was 1975′s “Dog Day Afternoon.” Perhaps the standard for all films about heists gone wrong, “Dog Day Afternoon” is still one of the great character-driven thrillers to come out of the 1970s. Without “Dog Day Afternoon,” I wouldn’t have an excuse to shout “Attica! Attica!” to random strangers on the street (not that I ever do that…). “Dog Day Afternoon” also marked one of his great films he made with Al Pacino, the other being 1973′s “Serpico.”
Perhaps Lumet’s greatest achievement was “Network.” “Network” is a little bit funny, and a little bit frightening. Some might wonder how Lumet and screenwriter Paddy Chayefsky were able to predict the modern nightmare of cable news in 1976. I guess you could attribute it to a little bit of undefinable cinematic magic. “Network” remains to this day one of the smartest satires I’ve ever seen. The line “I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore!” is still the perfect anthem for those dissatisfied with the powers that be.
Even though Lumet certainly made some duds throughout his career, his greatest hits certainly make up for them. Not to mention, he was one of the most fruitful directors working, making films until he was in his 80s. Few directors could get such good performances out of so many actors and just direct to absolute perfection.
To those who aren’t passionate fans of film, his name will not immediately ring a bell, but once you watch one of his films, you will never forget him.

Movie Review: Paul

Leave a reply

Comedies that have been made since, let’s say the 90s, have been strongly derived from science fiction. It seems odd to think that the people who were raised on “Star Wars” and “Star Trek” went on to make “Clerks” and “Knocked Up.” I never really connected the dots until I watched “Paul.” Sci-fi, in either the best or worst sense, can also be comedy.

“Paul” is one of those satires that’s a little mocking, yet very loving, at the same time. Only someone so in love with sci-fi and comic book culture could ever make fun of it in this way. “Paul” is one of those movies that was much better than it had any right to be, or at least much better then I ever thought it would be.
“Paul” begins in a place where the new heroes of the 21st century seem to dwell: Comic-Con. Best friends Graeme (Simon Pegg) and Clive (Nick Frost) come all the way from England to experience the convention. On the way back, they stop off at some alien landing sites and come across Paul (Seth Rogen), a foul-mouthed, weed smoking alien who just wants to go back home. Now, the duo must help Paul safely meet his ship, while avoiding some very sinister FBI agents (including an intentionally robotic Jason Bateman, along with the much more ridiculous Bill Hader and Joe Lo Truglio). Along the way they also pick up a Jesus freak (Kristen Wiig) and flee her psychotic father (John Carroll Lynch).
“Paul” might not land my 10 best list for the year, but I will say that it’s probably the best put together comedy I’ve seen so far this year (though the competition is pretty slim). Though this shouldn’t be surprising, based on the people involved. Pegg and Frost have already gracefully mocked zombie movies with “Shaun of the Dead” and action movies with “Hot Fuzz.” In both cases, they wrote movies that both mocked the genres while becoming entries into them. “Paul” is no exception. These people have obviously partaken in enough sci-fi to know how to make fun of it correctly.
“Paul” has such a sprawling cast of comedic talent, and each actor contributes exactly the way they should be. Pegg and Frost have been practicing British bromance for close to a decade now, and they really know how to do it right. Though this time, their relationship had a much difference balance. It was a little less of one actually trying to get things done, and the other being a total idiot. This time, their friendship was basically played up as a romance, with hilarious effect.
The best comedic minds in Britain blend with America’s funniest comedians in “Paul.” I guess someone who can make characters as awkward as Wiig can was destined to one day play a half blind hard-core Christian; I guess she fulfilled her destiny. Rogen meanwhile is good as ever, even in alien form. At times, Paul never seemed very alien, because no one bothered to make his character any different from the real Seth Rogen. This actually turns out to be a good thing, as Paul becomes a likable, almost human character. He’s like E.T., if only E.T. could speak fluent English and chain smoke.
“Paul” nailed all of its sci-fi and pop culture references, from the never-ending mothership to the meeting spot at Devil’s Tower. The film is directed by Greg Motolla, who impresses more and more with the range of comedies he can direct. He can go from gross out (“Superbad”), to a little dramatic (“Adventureland”), to one that has an FX alien as a main character.
What Motolla does best is make sappy ideas seem very sweet. Think about the power of the friendship in “Superbad.” That’s why I really wish “Paul” had a little more emphasis on the friendship between Graeme and Clive, because very little development and change occurs in it throughout the film. This is too bad, as this was always a strong and hilarious aspect in the other films Pegg and Frost made together. Nothing against Motolla, but perhaps frequent collaborator Edgar Wright would’ve been a good directorial choice here.
Then again, how do you fit a fully developed buddy comedy into a movie about a half naked alien? If Motolla, Pegg, and Frost could’ve pulled that off, they’d forever be comic geniuses. Maybe they didn’t get there, but they still made a perfectly acceptable, unstoppably hilarious satire. They have certainly followed this rule of good satire quite well: if you want to make a good satire (especially of pop culture), you must be both familiar, and a little in love, with the content you are making fun of.
Most Anticipated Movies of 2011 - Paul

Birdemic: The Movie That Could Make You Hate Movies

Leave a reply

I’m that kind of guy who enjoys watching terrible movies. They can have the ability to both help you appreciate good movies, and entertain in a way that few good movies ever could. Mostly, it will be because they are just plain laughably awful.
But tonight I witnessed the bad movie to end all bad movies. This was not just ordinary horrible movie. This was not an example of someone putting something together quickly with terrible results. No, this was the work of a master, someone with good intentions who failed so miserably. This was “Birdemic: Shock and Terror.”
Few words can describe what I witnessed for that 90 minute duration time. The first thought I had though, once the film ended, was this: I want to smash this television set with a baseball bat. Yes, I still had a great time watching “Birdemic.” Yes, at parts I laughed so hard I could barely breath. But it just left such a bad aftertaste. Right now, I could be writing my review of the masterful “Animal Kingdom,” but I feel I am committing a good act of public service by writing about “Birdemic” first.
For starters, here is a brief premise of “Birdemic”: a successful, young software salesman meets the girl of his dreams, and then all the birds in the world get angry about how humans treat the environment (I’m not joking) and start killing everyone.
The entire film is shot with a camera that seems to have even worse quality then the average phone. Meanwhile, the transitions and horrible sound quality make it seem like this film was edited on a version of iMovie from the 90s.
Now, director James Nguyen definitely went into this project with the best intentions. However, good intentions don’t make a good movie. And if you want to make a good parable on the evils of global warming, you shouldn’t include long monologues which are the equivalent of science class lectures. You also shouldn’t include a plot about birds who get angry over environmental issues. If you want something about Angry Birds that actually makes sense, you might as well just play this game.
Not every great filmmaker needed film school (Quentin Tarantino), but they all at least tried to understand what a good movie was before they made one themselves. Nguyen meanwhile directs as if he’s never watched a film in his life. This is literally the worst edited film I’ve ever seen. Most of its running time consists of people driving nowhere, with some snippets of plot in between. Having a little bit of downtime in a film is never a bad thing. Having that downtime take over your entire film, on the other hand, is absolutely unbearable. Oh, and did I mention the birds poop fireballs? That’s the only way to explain the film’s subpar (that’s the nicest way to describe them) special effects.
Now, here is the movie’s absolute worst offense. When I think of bad movies, I obviously think of “The Room.” Somehow, “Birdemic” did the impossible and manages to be even worse than “The Room.” “Birdemic” makes “The Room” look like it actually had a sensible plot and sense of direction. Most of the green screens used in “The Room” looked more realistic than the actual backdrops seen in “Birdemic.” Tommy Wiseau, you have finally met your match.
I haven’t seen every bad movie ever made. I haven’t seen “Troll 2″ or “Plan 9 from Outer Space,” and I have yet to finish “Freddy Got Fingered.” However, I can safely say this: “Birdemic” is the worst made movie I have ever seen. Still, I advise you to see it. Even though it may intensify your urge to break your TV and yell at inanimate objects, just so you can truly understand the limit of awfulness, and how to cross it.
Get a preview of the awfulness here.

Movie Review: Animal Kingdom

Leave a reply

No matter how smart and evolved the human species becomes, we tend to forget one thing: we are all animals. All it took for me to realize that was a little reality check from our friends down under in a deeply disturbing little gem called “Animal Kingdom.”

While most popular films about the criminal underworld depict the rise and fall of a certain criminal (or group of criminals), “Animal Kingdom” only focuses on the fall. In fact, this crime family never seemed to have much of a rise anyway.
“Animal Kingdom” begins in a small apartment where young Aussie Joshua “J” Cody (James Frecheville) sits near his dead mother, who has just overdosed. J is handed over to live with his grandmother (Jacki Weaver). She presides over J’s uncles, all of whom exist in the criminal underworld, each with a varying degree of insanity. After his uncles are involved in a standoff that ends with multiple dead cops, the family sinks even lower, and are threatened by a suspicious detective (Guy Pearce). After the detective offers J a way out of this troubled life, J faces two options: loyalty or self-preservation. Let the puzzle come together.

“Animal Kingdom” is a great example of a 21st century crime film. It certainly has many Americanized elements to it, yet filmmakers in Hollywood could definitely learn something from director David Michod. Everything he puts in the film helps to create such an unsettling atmosphere of constant fear and paranoia. His gloomy lighting choices and never-ending long shots are absolutely uncanny.

Then there is the way Michod handles violence. Every bullet wound is extremely quick, unexpected, and unsettling. A lot of films today show violence in a manner that is so quick, that you can barely comprehend it. However, in the typical action film, this is usually done to accommodate the modern ADD state of mind. However, Michod uses this fast pace so the viewer becomes more accustomed to the violence and therefore, more accustomed to the idea that this is a world where violence is no unusual thing; it can occur literally at any second.

Not to mention, the film also pulls off a very early in the film twist in which a main character is killed off. Like “Psycho” and “Children of Men” before it, this creates a sense that in this story, none of the characters are safe, no matter what the conventions of film tell us.


The entirety of “Animal Kingdom” certainly lives up to the metaphor presented in its title. What this film presents to us is that humankind is an animal kingdom: the strong succeed, the weak die off, and eventually, everyone finds their place. The film carries many haunting symbolic images to match this metaphor, such as flies swarming around a dead body which lies face down in an open field.
The film’s ensemble of Australia’s finest contribute to the animalistic mood. Weaver, as the over protective matriarch, got an Oscar nomination for a very good reason. She makes it impossible to tell whether her character is simply a good mother trying to protect her family, or a woman with very bad intentions. No matter what, she is always able to hide some sort of lingering darkness under a nice granny smile.

Meanwhile, the relatively new Frecheville gives a very quiet performance, yet it is one that shows a lot of inner pain and confusion. Meanwhile, Pearce continues to impress in another small, yet very important role. Here, he showed a rare ability to seamlessly deliver long, deep monologues. The most memorable is his speech about the animal kingdom and how humans fit into it (briefly mentioned above).

What I liked best about “Animal Kingdom” was something it did, something that American movies rarely do: it never glorifies crime. For every American crime movie that shows the consequences of being a criminal, they also have to show so much good coming out of it. However, “Animal Kingdom” removes all the glitz and glamour. It may be easy, it may have some positive outcomes, but in the end, there is no glory in crime. The criminal world (at least in Australia), is a little, well, animalistic. In the end, everyone is simply just trying to do what they can to survive.

If You Liked This Movie, You’ll Also Like: Goodfellas, Pulp Fiction, Reservoir Dogs, Trainspotting, The Proposition

Movie Review: Cedar Rapids

2 Replies

When done right, two genres can somehow fit together quite well. Even if one of them is a little immature, and the other tries to be sophisticated.

This is what the minds behind “Cedar Rapids” try to do. Whether or not it succeeds depends on how much you think laughs cover up for cliches.
If I could think of two words to describe “Cedar Rapids,” they would both begin with “Q”: quaint and quirky. Maybe it’s a little too quaint, and a little too quirky. “Cedar Rapids” begins in a very small Wisconsin town. Insurance salesman Tim Lippe (Ed Helms) has inhabited this town his whole life, and has yet to go very far. He’s also sleeping with his former teacher (Sigourney Weaver).
One day, Tim gets the opportunity of a lifetime, or at least, the opportunity of a lifetime for someone like him. He gets asked to speak at an insurance convention in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. Things in the outside world are not as comfortable as they are in his small town. He’s forced to room with the misguided, insane, and slightly brain dead Dean Ziegler (John C. Reilly), and Ronald Wilkes (Isiah Whitlock Jr.), a man who needs to cut loose and have a little fun.
On his trip, Tim also befriends a prostitute (Alia Shawkat), and a woman who could just be the love of his life (Anne Heche). And he has to deal with some unexpected corruption in the insurance industry.
“Cedar Rapids” seems to be following a new trend of making raunchy, edgy stories on an independent budget, something similar to last summer’s “Cyrus.” Like “Cyrus,” the result of “Cedar Rapids” is pretty hilarious with a lot of problems. What I ask for in a modern independent film, especially one that comes from Fox Searchlight, is some originality.
Its plot and style are very similar to that of last year’s “Up in the Air,” except it takes that film’s amazing twist and doesn’t make it surprising at all. That’s what more comedies could use today: surprise.
The film also seemed to be aspiring to be “The 40-Year-Old Virgin.” It has that same character who’s too good of a guy, yet he needs to grow up. However, “Cedar Rapids” doesn’t reach that film’s subtlety, hilarity, nor its surprising insightfulness. The real problem with “Cedar Rapids” is that it thinks its much deeper than it actually is.
The real strength of “Cedar Rapids” lies in its characters. Mainly, Ed Helms as Tim Lippe. As Lippe, Helms brings humanity, joy, and even some knowledge to such a strange role. This former “Daily Show” correspondent fills in the awkward leading man role perfectly.
The rest of the supporting characters also fill out the movie quite well. Reilly is hilarious as always, playing someone who has the potential to either be a serial killer or simply someone with a minor degree of down syndrome. Whitlock basically steals the entire movie when he pulls out a little impression from “The Wire.”
“Cedar Rapids” aspires to be one of those comedies where setting is the driving point of the story, and the whole thing would be a sort of geographical satire. It doesn’t quite reach that point and instead it gets caught up in a few over-the-top (yet very funny) gags in addition to a lot of gay innuendos. Instead, character becomes a driving point of the story. Maybe with just a little more focus this could have been a unpredictable, inspiring, and insightful independent comedy rather than just, well, a pretty funny one.

Last Post About the Oscars: They Suck (This Year)

Leave a reply

Oh, Academy. You could provide us with some amazing set pieces but this year, you couldn’t give us a great show. Too much nostalgia can’t cover a lack of charm. Not to mention, some undeserving winners.

I can’t be too angry about some of the winners tonight; I knew already that there was no way that “Black Swan” could trump “The King’s Speech.” But really, David Fincher still remains Oscarless? Worst of all, was the loss of “Exit Through the Gift Shop.” I have a feeling that the Academy was too afraid of the chaos Banksy would’ve caused if he won. But now, we will never know what could’ve happened. I bet Banksy wouldn’t have revealed his true identity, but whatever he would’ve planned would have probably made the entire show. And it also would’ve been much more entertaining than once again, having to hear someone yell about bankers being criminals. Seriously Hollywood, thanks for telling me something I haven’t heard a million times in the past three years.
While James Franco and Anne Hathaway are always entertaining and pretty to look at, for some reason, their chemistry just didn’t seem to work. I think it was less a reflection on their work and more a reflection on poor writing. Although, Franco didn’t seem totally there. Though, I would say they had a few enjoyable planned sketches. However, their onstage chemistry just did not cut it.
The highlights of the show were the small, spontaneous moments. One of them was Melissa Leo dropping the f-bomb, apparently the first time in Oscar history. The other great spontaneous moment was Kirk Douglas’s prolonged stay on stage. It might have to do with the fact that the man is almost 100 years old and he suffered a stroke, but there was something ridiculously endearing about it. He seemed more enthusiastic to be there than anyone else. He basically had to be dragged off the stage. Kirk Douglas, please come back to the Oscars anytime you’d like.
Perhaps the funniest planned moment of the night was the auto-tuned music video. It seemed a little more like something that would be on the MTV Movie Awards rather than the Academy Awards, but it was executed in such a way that it came off as actually funny rather than just trying to appeal to a younger audience.
There was truly one thing though that made the Oscars slightly more bearable this year, and it’s a little more serious. It was those montages. Now, usually the overlong tributes drive me crazy (and yes, some of them were still very unnecessary this year). This year though, some of them were constructed in a truly amazing way. The final montage of the Best Picture winners is probably the best the Academy has ever done. Setting the final speech of “The King’s Speech” to perfectly match up with clips from every Best Picture nominee was truly extraordinary. The montage was a reminder of the magic that forms when a truly great piece of filmmaking is assembled.
Even though I disagreed with the big winner this year, the montage reminded me why these movies were especially selected as Best Picture nominees: they each displayed something unique, uplifting, or maddening that could be found nowhere else in cinema this year. As Spielberg put it, the winner could go along with movies like “On the Waterfront” and the losers will go along with movies like “The Grapes of Wrath.” Neither seem like bad places to be.
Find the complete list of winners here.
Note: I just had to make Luke Matheny the main picture for this article. That is probably the best Jewfro in Hollywood.

Also, I unfortunately can’t post that great montage. And I also can’t find the Kirk Douglas clip. Thanks a lot, US copyright laws…

The Oscars: Who Will Win

Leave a reply

Best Picture: The King’s Speech


For a good portion of 2010, “The Social Network” seemed like the definite frontrunner. Along with sweeping every early award, it was a critic and audience darling. That’s a rare find. Then suddenly, a little indie presented as a classic Best Picture came along and a truly interesting Oscar race was born. While there could be a slim chance of a “Social Network” upset, the royalty-ladden “The King’s Speech,” which took home the Producers Guild Award, will be this year’s Best Picture winner.
Best Director: David Fincher (The Social Network)

Common sense might put Tom Hooper as winner here. He did win the Directors Guild Award, and his debut work on “The King’s Speech” was so impressive that it might as well have been the work of an old prBoldo. Yet, this year will be the rare year where the Picture and Director prize go to two separate films. This will be the year that David Fincher finally picks up his Best DirectBoldor statue for his dark yet incredibly absorbing take on the tale of the creation of Facebook. Maybe now I can finally forgive the Academy for not nominating him for “Se7en” or “Fight Club.”
Best Actor: Colin Firth (The King’s Speech)

BoldAt this point, there’s really no room for an upset. Colin Firth’s moving and inspiring portrayal of the troubled King of England will finally earn this Brit his long deserved Best Actor Oscar.


Best Actress: Natalie Portman (Black Swan)

There is a small chance that Annette Bening could pull a surprise win here after a series of snubs. Though it looks more likely that once again she’ll lose out to a younger actress (Hilary Swank beat her twice). Natalie Portman’s devastating performance as a young woman going through a psychological breakdown will earn her her first Oscar.
Best Supporting Actor: Christian Bale (The Fighter)

Seriously, does this prediction even need justification? Bale’s spot-on method acting as a crack addict and his climb to redemption are the kind of qualities the Academy always loves. Not to mention, he’s got quite a few precursor awards. And the man actually deserves this honor. Shockingly, this is Bale’s first Oscar nomination ever. It definitely won’t be his last nomination, or win, ever though.


Best Supporting Actress: Melissa Leo (The Fighter)

There is a big chance that Hailee Steinfeld’s stellar work in “True Grit” could make her one of the youngest Oscar winners ever. Though this year, with SAG on her side, and a snub in the past (“Frozen River”), Leo looks like the likely winner for her unforgettable performance as Mickey Warde’s controlling, yet loving, mother. Honestly though, the Academy should’ve just given her a joint nomination with every single of the crazy sisters.


Best Original Screenplay: David Seidler (The King’s Speech)

This is a tough one. “Inception” took the WGA award, though the Academy’s lack of love for Christopher Nolan could be an obstacle here. “The Kids Are All Right” could score this for being funny, warm, and socially groundbreaking. Even the smart character work of “The Fighter” has a nice chance here. Though in the end, it looks most likely that the Academy will also crown its Best Picture winner with the best writing. For making the past seem so alive and entertaining, Seidler deserves a little recognition.


Best Adapted Screenplay: Aaron Sorkin (The Social Network)

No contest. Aaron Sorkin took the story of Facebook and made it both accessible and entertaining. It has already produced some of the most memorable movie quotes of the young, new decade (“If you guys were the inventors of Facebook, you would have invented Facebook.”). One could argue that the real reason that Sorkin is destined to win is that his screenplay has swept the precursors. That may be true. Though actually, anyone who can make an ending somehow comparable to Rosebud in “Citizen Kane” deserves any Oscar imaginable.


The Other Categories:

Best Documentary: Exit Through the Gift Shop
Best Animated Film: Toy Story 3
Best Foreign Language Film: Biutiful
Editing: The Social Network
Cinematography: Black Swan
Score: The Social Network
Song: “If I Rise”
Art Direction: The King’s Speech
Costume Design: The King’s Speech
Sound Editing: Inception
Sound Mixing: Inception
Visual Effects: Inception
Score: The Social Network
Makeup: The Wolfman

The Oscars: Who Should Win

Leave a reply

In the coming weeks, you’ll find out who I think will be taking home the golden statues on February 27. But I would like to do something more important right now. Here now is who would be taking home all the Oscars if I could cast a ballot.

Best Picture: Black Swan

To some, “Black Swan” may seem like the most atypical Best Picture nomination out there. Yet, few other movies could fit the category so perfectly. After all, its story of being obsessed and enveloped into the process of making art mirrors the entire filmmaking process itself. The reason I really want “Black Swan” to win is that even three months after viewing it, I still have no idea what it is. And that makes it all the better. It’s exhilarating, weird, and sometimes even hard to watch and despite all that, it will never leave my head. It reminded me of watching something like “A Clockwork Orange” and “The Deer Hunter” for the first time: like those films, certain images from “Black Swan” will forever be engraved into my memory. It might be rare for us to ever see a movie about psychological deterioration this real, and this good, ever again.

Best Director: Darren Aronofsky

Because shouldn’t the Best Picture also have the best director? “Black Swan” represents a crossroads in Aronofsky’s career. It is a mixture of the distorted reality of “Pi” and “Requiem for a Dream” and the hyper-realism of “The Wrestler.” All of this perfectly formed a view of reality through a damaged psychological mind. Aronofsky is truly a genius at using the camera to put the audience into a certain state of mind and never lets them leave it, even after the end credits have rolled. He succeeds not only at creating a new world and a set of emotions, but letting the viewer live in them and be haunted by them. He may not win the Oscar this year, but if he continues to make movies as good as “Black Swan,” the trophy will one day soon be his.

Best Actor: James Franco/Colin Firth

This was a difficult one. Firth is the frontrunner here, and he has earned his praise by being able to bring so much compassion, warmth, and humor to what could’ve been a stale performance. He is also a year overd
e for the award (he should’ve won for “A Single Man”). Yet Firth’s brilliance this year did not stand as strong as James Franco’s riveting performance in “127 Hours.” Really, what other actor could pull off

a performance that involves them being stuck in a canyon, by themself, for 90 minutes? “127 Hours” was a one man show in the truest sense and if Franco had messed up this performance, this movie would never have worked. He didn’t and alas, “127 Hours” was more than just a great movie: it was a transformative, gut-wrenching experience. Mr. Franco, between earning all those PhDs please, don’t stop acting.



Best Actress: Natalie Portman

Sometimes, in order for an actor to truly show off their abilities, they must play that role
no one ever thought they could pull off, and then pull it off. That emotional girl from “Garden State” has transformed into a disturbed young woman, trying to break free from the chains holding her down. With this role, Portman proved herself an actress who will do literally anything to achieve perfection. Yes, that even includes brutalizing her own body. In the end, her eventual transformation and descent into madness doesn’t feel forced or over-the-top; it just feels so sad and real. Aronofsky made “Black Swan” a visual marvel, and Portman became the big, twisted heart in its center.
Best Supporting Actor: Christian Bale

Because who the hell else would I choose? Bale didn’t just steal every scene he was in in “The Fighter,” he makes every other character in the movie totally insignificant. Bale’s method acting is comparable to De Niro in his prime. Bale is so good that he is constantly trying to find new ways to act; as he acts with every inch of his body. Even when he isn’t front and center of ac certain scene, he still manages to steal it. For a character who suffers from a serious crack addiction, Bale brings an unexpected quality to the film, something missing from most films of this subject matter: joy. I could probably use this entire blog space to talk about Bale’s performance, but some things are better off left unsaid.


Best Supporting Actress: Hailee Steinfeld

You’d have to be a pretty talented fourteen-year-old to hold your own against the likes of Jeff Bridges and Matt Damon, but Hailee Steinfeld managed to do it. Rather than being some annoying teenage girl, she was instead poised and wise, outshining all of her superiors. In just one role, she has proved herself mature enough to do anything, even firing a rifle. In a world where teen idols include Justin Bieber and Miley Cyrus, Steinfeld is a nice breath of fresh air.

Best Original Screenplay: The Kids Are All Right

I desperately want to say that my choice is “Inception.” However, that would likely be just because I wish Christopher Nolan was nominated for Best Director. Also, “Black Swan” was criminally snubbed in this category. So instead, I’m going with that comedy I can’t get enough of: “The Kids Are All Right.” Lisa Cholodenko and Stuart Blumberg’s screenplay found a sense of humor deriving from character, rather than gags and forgettable one-liners. The whole thing has a quality of honesty that is missing from most movies made nowadays. Most importantly, it handled its subject matter with such truth and delicacy. No message was being shoved down our throats, this was simply a movie about a lesbian couple, and a dysfunctional family. In order to make something acceptable, it is best to show how similar, rather than how different, it is from our regular lives.

Best Adapted Screenplay: The Social Network

It takes a lot to be compared to “Citizen Kane” without sounding hyperbolic.
Of course, Aaron Sorkin was able to somehow make this a reality. For

a film about a bunch of court cases, it has a quality of fast-paced humor and entertainment missing from most films based on true stories nowadays. Despite the fact that a lot of this story may be fictionalized, it still managed to capture a moment. That moment is the moment when the internet suddenly became the new driving force of our lives. And then in the end, it made Mark Zuckerberg both a raging anti-hero and a tragic figure, someone to admire and even pity at the same time. Aaron Sorkin, you are the glue that held this fine piece of filmmaking together.


Why The King’s Speech Could Win Best Picture (and Why it Shouldn’t)

Leave a reply

Just when we thought we had a definite frontrunner, everything suddenly turned around. “The Social Network,” likely suffering from a case of peaking too early, has been dethroned by “The King’s Speech.”

Last night, director of “The King’s Speech” Tom Hooper took home the Directors Guild Award to add to the film’s Producer’s Guild Award. It is rare for a film to win those two awards and then not win big at the Oscars. Nothing is definite just yet, but “The King’s Speech” has certainly become a new force to be reckoned with.
Now, this might mean nothing. “Brokeback Mountain” took both the Director and Producer awards and famously lost to “Crash.” Usually though, this is a sign that “The King’s Speech” is a frontrunner.
Before I begin ranting and raving, I would like to clarify something. I in absolutely no way hated “The King’s Speech.” I thought it was a fantastic film. The directing and acting are phenomenal, the story is inspirational, and most importantly, boring subject matter (English aristocracy) was made timely and interesting. These are all factors that make “The King’s Speech” worthy of Oscar nominations. However, it doesn’t necessarily make it a winner.
The media likes to manufacture Oscar races, and this year it has become “The Social Network” vs. “The King’s Speech.” I’m going to throw “Black Swan” into this because it was my favorite movie of the year and this is my blog so I can do whatever I want.
Anyway, the main race between “The Social Network” and “The King’s Speech” represents a race that seems to happen every year: the hip, young film that represents something new and filmmaking, and the safe movie with a classic Hollywood story anyone can fall in love with. “The Social Network” is the story of young nerds turning the internet into what it is today. Meanwhile, “The King’s Speech” has everything most people associate with Oscar movies nowadays: Nazis, war, and overcoming disabilities.
I admired the ability of “The King’s Speech” to have all these elements yet not seem to be begging for awards. Yet, it still feels slightly like the Oscar movie we see every year. It has that uplifting ending about overcoming adversity. Compare that to “The Social Network,” which ended more on a loose thread than a moment of absolute clarity.
And that could be the reason it has begun to lead the pack. Not because it is simply a good choice, but a safe choice. Nobody truly hated “The King’s Speech” so who would throw a giant fit if it won? “The Social Network” was also universally loved, yet it contains some things that would probably drive an older voter crazy. The central conflict in the film is the battle of new money vs. old money; the young and ambitious vs. the old and privileged. Quite ironic, for the fact that “The King’s Speech” has much less Hollywood royalty behind it than “The Social Network” does.
When will the day come when voters get some chutzpah and vote for something they wouldn’t normally vote for? They have a few times in recent years. The best example I could think of is when “No Country for Old Men” beat “Atonement.” Even the recent “Slumdog Millionaire” which seemed like an atypical choice, ends with a poor boy overcoming poverty and finding the love of his life. Maybe the whole reason is that the typical human reaction of being afraid of what is new. Even “Citizen Kane” didn’t win Best Picture.
Or, if they want to, the Academy could be even more daring and pick “Black Swan” as Best Picture. If there’s any movie more ambiguous than “The Social Network,” it’s “Black Swan.” Who doesn’t love a good movie about a character changing? Even if it is for the worse. Maybe they could come even more out of left field and give “Toy Story 3″ the prize. Or how about “127 Hours?” When is the next time we will ever see a film about a guy trying to cut off his arm for 90 minutes?
“The King’s Speech” is a great movie that has resonated with audiences and critics alike, a rare feat these days. If it takes home the Best Picture prize, it would not be a crime against humanity (like many other past winners have been), but it just wouldn’t be very exciting. I’m sure that picking a Best Picture winner is a challenging and even painful process. One must pick a film that is representative of that year, one that is relevant today and will be relevant 20 years down the road as well. Who knows what will happen to “The King’s Speech” by then. All I know is that the movies that challenge us the most, the ones that make us ask questions, the ones that dare to try something new, are the ones that are never forgotten.

The Great Mistakes
Here are some of the worst decisions the Academy has made:
1941: How Green was My Valley (over Citizen Kane)
1964: My Fair Lady (over Dr. Strangelove)
1968: Oliver! (over un-nominated Once Upon a Time in the West, 2001: A Space Odyssey, and Rosemary’s Baby)
1976: Rocky (over Taxi Driver and Network)
1979: Kramer vs. Kramer (over Apocalypse Now)
1980: Ordinary People (over Raging Bull)
1990: Dances with Wolves (over Goodfellas)
1994: Forrest Gump (over Pulp Fiction)
1996: The English Patient (over Fargo)
1998: Shakespeare in Love (over Saving Private Ryan)
2009: The Hurt Locker (over Inglourious Basterds)

Oscars ’10: The Snubs

3 Replies

With every set of Oscar nominations comes a set of even more ridiculous snubs. Even with another year of ten best picture nominations, there were still plenty of egregious snubs to go around.
On this day, the day the Oscar nominations are announced, I would like to recognize not those were selected, but those who strangely missed the mark. Not everyone can make the cut, but these people and films certainly deserved to:
Andrew Garfield (The Social Network)

This one seemed like a sure thing. The man who is destined to be Spider-Man broke out this year and brought the pathos to “The Social Network.” With Zuckerberg being mainly emotionally cold, Garfield made Eduardo a character impossible not to connect with. Every emotion he injects into the film, he also injects into the audience. Then when his character turns from nice to angry in the film’s dramatic climax, the transformation is so believable that it makes the already devastating conclusion even worse. “The Social Network” might’ve been about Mark Zuckerberg, but it’s hard to believe there ever would’ve been a great story without Eduardo Saverin and Garfield’s performance.


Chloe Moretz (Kick-Ass)

There should have been room for two teenage actresses who could use a weapon in this year’s Oscars. So many have praised Hailee Steinfeld, but forget the almost similar performance given by Chloe Moretz as Hit-Girl in “Kick-Ass.” She managed to act lightyears more mature than her superiors while always maintaing child-like innocence. She showed off the kind of creepy excitement a typical tween might have over Robert Pattinson while slicing off limbs and dropping the c-bomb. Fourteen-year-olds don’t typically steal the show in a film, but Moretz did enough so that it was at times hard to remember that the movie is called “Kick-Ass” and not “Hit-Girl.”


Christopher Nolan (Inception)

Seriously, what does Christopher Nolan have to do to get a Best Director nomination? Is turning a confusing, mind-f***ing idea into both a work of art and a $300 million grossing summer blockbuster not enough? How about changing the rules of physics? Or how about returning blockbusters to their original state in which they began in the 1970s? The Best Screenplay nomination for “Inception” can be disputed, but few would argue if Nolan finally got his long deserved Best Director nod.

Leonardo DiCaprio (Shutter Island)

To this day, people have trouble taking DiCaprio’s performances seriously. The common excuse is his youthful looks make it hard for him to seem mature. If anyone still argues this, they obviously haven’t watched “Shutter Island” yet. DiCaprio went from good actor with some talent to great actor with soul. He was so smoothly able to handle the massive transformation of his character without loosing the ambiguity. Then there is the way he delivers that final line, “which would be worse, to live as a monster or to die as a good man” which is delivered in a way that is so heartbreaking that it could almost produce tears. With maybe a few more films, DiCaprio can truly become Scorsese’s new De Niro.

Danny Boyle (127 Hours)

Over directing usually isn’t an admiral trait in a director. Unless of course your name is Danny Boyle. Boyle made a story about one man in one location epic enough to be engaging for its entire running time. He injects every frame of this film with so much life. Everything from a drop of water to the desert sand seem to be living, breathing, interacting characters. That’s how you make a movie about a man stuck in a hole. Boyle, like a great director, realizes this essential fact: a good film is about what it’s about; a great film is about how it’s about.