Category Archives: The Hurt Locker

The Oscars: The Show Goes On

1 Reply

Despite a feud between ABC and Cablevision that left millions unable to watch the big show, the Academy Awards still went on as planned.

As expected, “The Hurt Locker” took home the big prize at the Academy Awards, along with five other Oscars. Also, as expected, “Hurt Locker” director Kathryn Bigelow broke one of the last glass ceilings and became the first woman ever to take home the Best Director prize.

Perhaps the only real surprises of the night came in the Screenplay categories. The Best Adapted Screenplay category seemed like a done deal: “Up in the Air” had it basically since it came out in December. It’s balance of comedy and drama, along with its ability to be both original and faithful, made it seem like a shoo-in. Instead, the heart-wrenching screenplay for “Precious” took home the prize. It seemed as if “Precious” had lost much of its momentum after its November release. Guess I was wrong on that one.

Meanwhile, in Best Original Screenplay, “The Hurt Locker” and “Inglourious Basterds” were virtually tied. It seemed that “Basterds” was a frontrunner, as “Hurt Locker” was much more of an achievement in directing and editing than it was in writing.

However, this night was a “Hurt Locker” sweep, so Tarantino unfortunately walked home empty handed. However, the film didn’t get totally shut out: Waltz got his well-deserved Best Supporting Actor trophy. He also gave what was probably the best speech of the night. Seriously, this man has a knack for taking ordinary words and making them sound like poetry. As Waltz’s Landa might say, “that’s a bingo!” Lets hope he rides this to a fortuitous future career.

Another win, although expected, was still no less exciting. Jeff Bridges won the first Oscar of his long career for his performance as a burnt out country singer in “Crazy Heart.” He movingly thanked his parents, saying the award was as much for them as it was for him. There’s nothing much more to say about the greatness of Bridges besides this: “The Dude Abides.”

No surprises in the female acting categories, either. Mo’Nique took home an Oscar for something that will not be lost in time and Sandra Bullock won for “The Blind Side.” I have not seen “The Blind Side” yet, so therefore I can’t judge Bullock’s worthiness. However, from what I’ve seen of her, I do know that she is a good actress, and never a great one. Perhaps she can prove me wrong.

Now, onto the show itself. It was a night of ups and downs, or as the Dude would say, “strikes and gutters.” The biggest up were the two hosts: Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin. Both men are funny and charismatic, but two hosts seemed like two much. However, it was perfect in every way. The two actors read off their scripted banter in the most perfect harmony. And they threw out a few good improvised lines, as well.

The pair of Baldwin and Martin were a welcome improvement over last year, when the Academy attempted the “song-and-dance man” approach with Hugh Jackman, with little success. While Baldwin and Martin would be great recurring hosts, Neil Patrick Harris proved himself an eligible contender contented his surprise performance at the beginning of the telecast. The combination of Baldwin and Martin (along with other performers like Harris) made a mostly predictable show easier to watch.

Before the winners were even announced, the Best Picture race was defined as a race between “The Hurt Locker” and “Avatar,” a true David and Goliath story.

This isn’t the first David and Goliath Oscar race, but this was one of the very first where David came out the victor. In the past, it seemed an A-list cast and a successful box office gross were key to getting the crown. It makes you think now that maybe “Goodfellas” could’ve beaten “Dances with Wolves,” “Pulp Fiction” could’ve beaten “Forrest Gump,” or even “L.A. Confidential” could’ve beaten “Titanic.”

Will “The Hurt Locker” be remembered down the road as a cinematic classic, or one of Oscar’s biggest mistakes? Maybe in the future it’ll be known as the best film made about the Iraq War, with “Inglourious Basterds” and “A Serious Man” being masterpieces ahead of their time, “Avatar” a fun blockbuster that changed visual cinema, “District 9” a sci-fi film on the same level with “Blade Runner,” and “Up in the Air” as an example for aspiring filmmakers of how to write a good script.

What I’m trying to say is that no matter your number one preference, and no matter what won, this was a rare year where almost every film and filmmaker earned their nominations. Here’s to hoping 2010 is going to be another good year for cinema.

See the Full List of Winners Here.

The Oscars: Who Should Win

2 Replies

You’ll find out later in the week who I think will actually win the Awards. But for now, I’d like to share the directors, writers, and actors who would win if only I could hand out the trophies. A few you won’t surprised by, and a few you just might be.

Best Picture: Inglourious Basterds
It was the best movie of 2009 when it came out in August, and it’s still the best movie today. While this is a strong year for Best Picture nominees (for the most part), “Basterds” is more movie than any of these movies. It was almost even a magnum opus. It probably won’t pick up the Best Picture statue, but history certainly will be kind to these “Basterds.”
Best Director: Quentin Tarantino or Kathryn Bigelow
How could this be? Am I really rooting against Tarantino? While I’d love seeing him earn the first Best Director Oscar of his career, Bigelow did something special with “The Hurt Locker.” I don’t root for her solely because her win would make history, but because she directed the action so elegantly, and so ingeniously found suspense not in the moment the bomb blows up, but rather the moment before it could potentially blow our hero away.
Best Actor: Colin Firth (A Single Man)
Jeff Bridges gave a fine performance in “Crazy Heart.” I root for him in a way because, well, he’s the Dude, man. But the more I think about it, the more I find it impossible to neglect my admiration for Firth. Throughout the flawed “A Single Man,” he was so perfectly understated. His reaction to his lover’s death is one that has been engrained into my memory. Simply, he showed he showed he had amazing talent I didn’t even know existed.
Best Actress: Carey Mulligan (An Education)
It’s hard to pinpoint exactly what about Mulligan’s performance was so Oscar worthy. Maybe it was just that simply through her emotions and expressions, she turned Jenny from a cardboard figure into a three dimensional human being. Her looks have often been compared to that of Audrey Hepburn. Her acting should be, as well.
Best Supporting Actor: Christoph Waltz (Inglourious Basterds)
Am I a horrible Jew for saying I was charmed by a Nazi? Probably. I don’t care, because Waltz created possibly the most interesting and complex Nazi ever put on screen. At times, his performance is as terrifying and manipulative as it is breezy and funny. He created a character who single-handedly defines what it means to be “Tarantinoesque.” May you have a long and prosperous future of fine work ahead of you, Mr. Waltz.
Best Supporting Actress: Mo’Nique (Precious)
I still remember the day I walked out of “Precious” (then “Push”) at Sundance. Even though the whole film had made an impression on me, Mo’Nique’s performance stole the entire show. She gives the horrible Mary very few redeeming qualities, but she never neglects to make her feel human, whether that means good or bad. But then, there’s that final, heart-wrenching monologue, in which she inspires a sort of pathetic sympathy. In January 2009 I said, this performance deserves an Oscar. In March 2010, it will win one.
Best Original Screenplay: Inglourious Basterds
There’s not much more that can be said about “Basterds” that I haven’t said already, but I’ll give it a try. Tarantino’s writing deserves to win because it’s written so eloquently, and so flawlessly. Despite the fact that the time period limits Tarantino from much of his pop culture references, this script still shows his amazing ability to make long stretches of dialogue both utterly intense and extremely fascinating. We don’t get any conversations about “Like a Virgin” or cheeseburgers, but we do get an explanation for the war put in the terms of rodents. Also, we get some conversations about cinema that only a true cinephile would be able to give us.
Best Adapted Screenplay: Up in the Air
I debated giving this one to “In the Loop,” for its overly creative cursing. But the script of “Up in the Air” works both in completed film form, and on its own. In Jason Reitman’s script, he stayed loosely faithful to the book he was adapting and added his own story in. He also kept that fine balance between relevant tragedy and light-hearted yet smart humor. Simply, this script flows like water and never seems to hit a false note. There would be no great movie without this great script.
Best Animated Film: Fantastic Mr. Fox
It might be blasphemous to pass over a Pixar film. However, they’ve had their moment in the sun for countless years. The true best animated film of the year was from the mind of both Wes Anderson and Roald Dahl. It ignored CGI animation and instead stuck with traditional models. Strangely, in that sense, it seemed all the more real. It’s a witty labor of love that criminally did not receive all of the love it deserved.

The Hurt Locker: A New Frontrunner?

Leave a reply

Well, I guess was wrong.

Just one week ago, all of the Oscar buzz was in favor of “Avatar.” After dominating the box office for over a month, the film picked up the Golden Globes for Best Picture and Director. From reporters to ordinary moviegoers, no one would stop talking about “Avatar.” It was riding an unstoppable wave to the top.
Then, one of the most important precursors to the Oscars, the Producers Guild of America, announced its pick for Best Picture: “The Hurt Locker.” While “The Hurt Locker” picked up nearly every major critics’ award, it went home empty handed at the Globes and Screen Actors Guild Awards.
Now, just one award might not mean “Avatar” is a total goner. However, the Globes are not known as a very good predictor for the Oscars (sorry, “Hangover” fans). The Guild Awards are usually much more accurate, as much of the voting body for the Guilds also vote for the Oscars. Meanwhile, the HFPA, who vote for the Globes, are an entirely separate voting body.
This news still stuns me. While “The Hurt Locker” is one of the most critically acclaimed films of the year, its box office can’t help it much. “The Hurt Locker” made about $12 million domestically. That’s less than half of what “Avatar” made on its opening day.
Now, Best Picture winners don’t necessarily need to be blockbusters like “Avatar,” however I do recall people saying that the $54 million gross was too low.
Going beyond money, “The Hurt Locker” makes sense as a Best Picture winner. Not only is it a masterpiece, but it’s a defining film of our time. It is by far the best film made yet about the Iraq War. It’s a film that combines brilliant directing and technical mastery with fantastic performances and solid writing. Not to mention, it can go down as one of the most suspenseful films I’ve ever seen.
Also, awarding “The Hurt Locker” would be something of a brilliant move on the Academy’s part. In a year where the Academy extended the field to 10 movies in order to attract bigger movies (and more viewers), nominating a little seen independent film like “The Hurt Locker” would be a hilarious screw you to the American public. Well, at least I’ll be laughing.
“The Hurt Locker” might even have a bigger shot in the Best Director category. Kathryn Bigelow did an outstanding job giving her film a documentary feel and bringing out the highest level of tension in situations that involved absolutely no blood shed. This is the kind of work someone should win Awards for, and depending on which direction the DGA goes, I have a strong feeling that this could end up being the first year a woman picks up the prize for Best Director.
Then again, the Oscar nominations have yet to even come out. Who knows, maybe voters will shock us all and nominate neither. That’s highly unlikely. One thing is for sure though: after years of easily predicted frontrunners (“No Country for Old Men,” “Slumdog Millionaire”), we finally have little clue who is going to win. This could turn out to be one of the more exciting Oscar years in our lifetime.
Side Note: I can’t forget to mention that “Inglourious Basterds,” still my favorite movie of the year, one the SAG Award for Best Ensemble. Actors make up the largest portion of the Academy, and there is always a possibility that “Basterds” could pull of an upset like “Crash” did after it beat out “Brokeback Mountain” for the Best Ensemble prize. I can dream, can’t I?

Why Avatar Could Win Best Picture

Leave a reply

I know, the nominations won’t be out for another few weeks, but I think I already see a winner emerging.

Even if it’s too early to tell, “Avatar,” which has basically rewritten the book on blockbuster filmmaking, will be the Oscar champion this year. Maybe voters will choose it because this year, there are 10 nominees for Best Picture. This is a throwback to the early days of the Oscars, and selecting “Avatar” might be the voters’ way of saying they missed the good old days when a studio could make a lavish blockbuster that was actually, well…good.
Even if it does contain a radically new style of filmmaking, “Avatar” has everything a voter would look for in a movie: action, romance, humor, and drama. Mostly though, Academy members seem to favor the film freshest in their minds (with the rare exception of “Crash” in 2005), and “Avatar” is all anyone is talking about. This factor seems likely what propelled “Slumdog Millionaire” to be the little-film-that-could last year.
However, as great as “Avatar” was, does it even deserve the trophy? While “Avatar” was a milestone in special effects, its story and characters lacked in certain places. A film should win Best Picture for its quality, not just its importance.
However, “Avatar” does face some tough competition. As Owen Gleiberman points out, this year’s race is mainly between the big budgeted “Avatar” and the smaller, character study of “Up in the Air.” Both films are fresh in our minds and excellent for very different reasons. One film chronicles a shift in how films are made, while another represents how a good story on film should be told.
“Avatar” could loose out to “Up in the Air” the same way the film “Avatar” is so often compared to, “Star Wars,” did. “Star Wars” lost to “Annie Hall,” another classic black comedy heavy on character and light on action.
From the way I see it, Academy voters select winners using three different techniques: their heart, their brain, and hype. If voters decide to vote with their hearts, “Up in the Air” will be the likely winner. If they vote with their brains (highly unlikely), the winner would be either “Inglourious Basterds” or “The Hurt Locker.”
This year, they’ll go with the hype and select “Avatar.” I’m not saying this because of a dislike of “Avatar,” nor am I trying to start a backlash. I have remained just as wowed by “Avatar” as everyone else has. With “Avatar,” James Cameron captured one of the most vividly amazing worlds ever created by the human imagination. This film will usher in a new era of fine filmmaking. However, without the groundbreaking special effects, the story would not have been strong enough to support “Avatar.”
Also, I don’t believe the greatness of “Avatar” is all hype. All I’m saying is that “Avatar” represents what voters think a Best Picture film should look like, rather than what a Best Picture film actually should be. That is precisely why you can count “Avatar” as this year’s frontrunner.

Summer ’09 in Movies

Leave a reply

Summer 2009 came and went. It was a summer of record highs and record lows. No, I’m not talking about the temperature; I’m talking about what happened inside the movie theater. Every summer, Hollywood tries to blow away audiences with high budget blockbusters and high concept comedies. This summer, as with any summer, a select few struck a chord with moviegoers. Now is time to examine the 2009 summer in movies.

Summer started strong. To no one’s surprise, Pixar scored another hit with “Up.” Even without 3D glasses, “Up” was as stunning as it was moving.

Perhaps the biggest surprise of the summer came earliest: “The Hangover.” What at first seemed like a typical buddies-go-to-Vegas-comedy turned into the funniest movie of the summer. What made the film work so well was it’s mixture of psychological thriller with slapstick comedy and Carrot Top cameos.

Perhaps the two most anticipated comedies of the summer, “Bruno” and “Funny People,” did not quite win over audiences. Of all the movies this summer, these two no doubt alienated audiences the most. I, however, was on the side of admiration. While “Bruno” didn’t reach “Borat” levels of hilarity, it’s impossible not to be impressed by Sacha Baron Cohen’s shameless audacity and ability to get a laugh even in the most frightening situations.

“Funny People” is the third film directed by Judd Apatow (“The 40-Year-Old Virgin,” “Knocked Up”), and certainly his most different. It’s his first film dealing with death, and his first one with an organized plot structure reaching an unknown conclusion rather than a plot that was a string of unpredictable events leading to a known conclusion. I don’t know which approach is better but in the end, both work.

Perhaps summer’s biggest disappointment was “Public Enemies.” What could’ve been a classic Depression-era crime thriller on the level of “Bonnie and Clyde” turned out to be a giant dud, and a waste of the brilliant talents of Christian Bale and Johnny Depp. Perhaps the main reason is that Michael Mann (“Collateral”) only seems to want to direct action, and not characters. On that note, he can’t direct action sequences very well either.

As for the big blockbusters, it was a mixed bag. “Star Trek” scored major points. I did not see “Transformers 2” or “G.I. Joe,” because the movies-based-on-toys trend is one that must soon come to a halt. The tonic to this Hollywood’s blockbuster problem was the stunning “District 9.” Maybe it was such a cure because it was more Cape Town than Tinseltown as it was shot by first time South African filmmaker Neill Blomkamp. The film managed to mix bizarre sci-fi fantasy with an allegory on apartheid and immigration. It was the perfect mix of action and brains I was searching for all summer long.

As usual, the best summer fare came from the art house. Kathryn Bigelow’s “The Hurt Locker” is the Iraq War film this generation has been waiting for. Shot eerily like a documentary, “The Hurt Locker” is perhaps the most realistic look at the war put on screen so far. It’s about a bomb diffuser so whenever a bomb goes off, naturally it goes off in slow motion; you can watch metal melting off a car as a bomb goes off. Michael Bay could learn a thing or two from a film like this.

This summer’s “Little Miss Sunshine” Award for indie surprise goes to “(500) Days of Summer.” While commercials have portrayed the film as a romantic comedy, it is far from that. It is the most inventive anti-romantic comedy you’ll see in a long time.

This summer’s award for best film came late. It is one that I should’ve seen coming though: “Inglourious Basterds.” Quentin Tarantino (“Pulp Fiction,” “Kill Bill”) is at the top of his game, employing Spaghetti Western style to Nazi occupied France.

What is it that an auteur like Tarantino proves about this summer in movies? Well, he proves that in the end, originality always wins.

What the Success of G.I. Joe Says About America

Leave a reply

Like him or not, comedian Bill Maher often makes some interesting (and very true) observations. On his show last Friday, he remarked how stupid and misinformed Americans have become (I can’t find the video, but the transcript is here).

I feel myself starting to agree. But I’m not talking about stupidity when it comes to politics, I’m talking about stupidity when it comes to entertainment. For example, “G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra” grossed an astonishing $56.2 million on its opening weekend. I haven’t seen “G.I. Joe” yet; I haven’t even seen “Transformers 2″ yet and nor do I ever plan on viewing either of them. Why don’t I want to see them? Simply because they’re based on toys. If I wanted to see a story about toys, I would take the G.I Joe and Transformers action figures I have out of my cabinet and hit them up against each other, while making up dialogue.
Now, it might be unfair of me to judge either of these movies without actually seeing them. But as critical consensus shows, I’m not missing much. On Rotten Tomatoes, “G.I. Joe” recieved  39% approval rating while “Transformer 2″ received an abysmal 20%.  So, why is it that “Transformers 2″ is on its way to making $400 million while “G.I. Joe” is starting to make what looks like a big final fortune? Simply put: stupidity. Why can’t anyone think of an original idea anymore? Why must movies be made for the simple purpose of merchandising?
Maybe the reason isn’t so much that studios don’t want to create original ideas as much as they’ve forgotten how to. It kind of reminds of “Fahrenheit 451;” the reason books were banned wasn’t so much that the government didn’t want people to read them as much as people had stopped reading them and there was really no use for them anymore. Likewise, when you stop thinking of original screenplays, the ideas never come back.
But our popular culture hasn’t fallen that low yet, and we certainly aren’t in a dark age as Roger Ebert suggests. There are still some great movies out there now that nobody is seeing. Take for example, “The Hurt Locker.” It’s by far the best film this summer (and maybe even this year, if you don’t count unreleased Sundance entries). It’s currently tracking an amazing 98% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes. So why then, is it still playing in just 535 theaters? Like “Transformers” and “G.I. Joe,” “The Hurt Locker” is filled with actions and explosions. I believe there is an audience for this film, you just can’t ignore the fact that some people look for a more meaningful experience when they go to the movies. And even those who don’t might find something to like in this movie, if only they are given the chance.
Before I sum up all of my points and reach a conclusion, there are still two films I’d like to mention that are perceived by most as the biggest disappointments of the summer: “Bruno” and “Funny People.” I’ll admit that both were not as masterful as I had hoped, but that didn’t stop me from being entertained and even fascinated by both. For all their faults, both tried to do something new and original. They strived to break new ground rather than be part of existing trends. Now, the message their poor box office receipts will send to studios is never to make a daring comedy ever again.
But there is one glimmer of hope: the wide release of the upcoming “District 9.” Yes, it’s a blockbuster. But it’s not based on a toy, a video game, or even a comic book; it’s a purely inspired, purely original idea. It’s a film about aliens, but it’s also an allegory on apartheid. So as long as studios find ways to provide smart movies to a wide audience, there is a chance for the survival of intelligence in Hollywood. But as long as movies like “G-Force” are raking in big bucks and movies like “Twilight” are dominating awards*, it’s survival will remain on life support.
In conclusion, maybe it’s not the people that are dumb, it’s the movies. And once Hollywood figures that out, this supposed “Dark Age” will finally come tumbling down.
*I meant the MTV Movie Awards/Teen Choice Awards; nothing major like the Oscars or Golden Globes. 

Movie Review: The Hurt Locker

Leave a reply

Sometimes, the only way to understand tragedy is to face it–especially when it’s projected on film. The War in Iraq has been going on for just over six years now. Over the past few years, many fine filmmakers have tried to tackle the subject, but none have come close to truly understanding it. Kathryn Bigelow, however, has perhaps come closest. Her latest film, “The Hurt Locker,” is a masterpiece, and one that may define this generation for some time to come.

“The Hurt Locker” takes place in Baghdad in 2004. It begins with Sergeant Thompson (Guy Pearce), a bomb disarmer. After Thompson is killed in an explosion, he is replaced by William James (Jeremy Renner). James is different from his fellow soldiers. During his military career, he disarmed over 840 bombs, and thus has become fearless. The word “dangerous” certainly does not appear in his vocabulary.
The movie doesn’t really have a plot. It is not about a major assassination attempt or a mission to destroy an enemy target. It is simply about soldiers trying to survive in Iraq; trying to survive a war where with no distinct enemy. It is a war where any civilian walking down the street could be carrying a case of C4.
At times, “The Hurt Locker” doesn’t even feel like a movie. Maybe that’s because of the grainy, shaky-cam style in which it is shot. But it could also be that every situation feels so real and so scary that it might as well have been real footage someone shipped back from Baghdad.
Maybe the reason previous films about Iraq never connected with mainstream audiences is because it was too soon to be trying to figure out the War while it was still going strong. As the War seems to finally be winding down, now seems like the time to start reflecting on it. After all, the best films about Vietnam didn’t come out until years after the conflict ended. “The Deer Hunter” was released three years after the war ended, “Apocalypse Now” was released four years after the war ended, “Platoon” eleven years, and “Full Metal Jacket” twelve years. “The Hurt Locker” is to date the best film made about Iraq. I believe though, that it may not remain that way; the film has opened up a new era of how war is portrayed on film.
In addition to being the best film made about Iraq, I believe that it is not an understatement to say that “The Hurt Locker” is one of the best war movies ever made. At times, it is scarier than any horror film. Every gun shot and every explosion send an immediate jolt to the heart.
Unlike most action films today which seem to go through every scene as quickly as possible, “The Hurt Locker” has no problem slowing things down. The scenes of a bullet being fired and a bomb blowing up are both shot in real time. When the first bomb blows up, things are slowed down so much that you can literally see metal melting and the sidewalk lift off up the ground. It is nothing short of stunning. Perhaps the scene that stuck out most was the sniper shootout. This scene takes no restraints in showing the effects of violence, and both sides are so far off that literally anything could happen at any moment.
I believe “The Hurt Locker” is a movie that can be both enjoyable and moving to anyone. It does not matter whether or not you support the War, because “The Hurt Locker” does what a good war film should do: it leaves politics out. It doesn’t say we should be there. It doesn’t say we shouldn’t be there. But it does seem to ask why we are there.
The real issue at hand though, is the idea of war in general and what it does to the human soul. In one of the film’s pivotal scenes, James admires the way his infant son seems to love everything. James remarks that as one ages, you can’t love everything like that. You only stick to one, two things at most. For him, that thing is war. In a way, director Kathryn Bigelow shapes the character of William James to be something like Willard from “Apocalypse Now,” or John Rambo. That is, the soldier that has been through war so much that he now depends on it. At this point, killing (or in James’s case, disarming bombs) has become the only thing they are good at, and the only thing they really have to live for.
Many people seem to forget the true difficulties our men and women face in Iraq. “The Hurt Locker” shows it in a way that no news report could. It portrays a world in which everything is a potential danger, and anything can be made into a weapon. At one point, Sergeant Sanborn (Anthony Mackie, in an unforgettable performance) reveals that he feels that so few people care about him, and his fear of being forgotten. This comment is not referring to his friends and family, but to the country in general. News everyday of soldiers being killed by car bombs seems typical to the point that no one even notices anymore. “The Hurt Locker” shows that no matter what, we must not forget.
I believe “The Hurt Locker” is this year’s top contender for a Best Picture nomination. And in a year where there will be ten nominees instead of five, snubbing this unforgettable film would be almost impossible.