Movie Review: Source Code

Leave a reply

Whenever humankind finally finds a time machine, they will not go back in time to see what the past was like. They will probably just use it to make their own lives better. Or perhaps one good person will use it to make the world better.


Time travel might not be the best phrase to put in with “Source Code,” but it’s the most relatable one I could come up with. Maybe it’s time travel, mixed with a little mind travel. That is the most I can give away, without spoiling it. Even with its small flaws, “Source Code” is by far one of the most satisfying mainstream thrillers playing in theaters.

“Source Code” is the second feature length film by Duncan Jones, who made quite a debut with 2009′s “Moon.” “Source Code” represents the same independent principles he set up with “Moon,” but geared toward a wider audience. Colter Stevens (Jake Gyllenhaal) is a soldier who has unwittingly been sent back on a train in order to diffuse a bomb onboard. While attempting to stop a terrorist attack, he discovers some terrible secrets about himself, and forms an unlikely love (Michelle Monaghan).


“Source Code” asked much more from me intellectually than I was expecting. Then again, maybe that was my fault for second guessing the director of “Moon.” I do not use this to speak negatively of “Source Code” though: a film like this is a relief in a world that gives us films such as “Fast Five.” It employs the classic “government agency with a mind-altering device” sci-fi premise mixed with a 21st century thriller about defeating terrorism.

If only I could’ve seen “Source Code” before I wrote my last philosophy paper, maybe I wouldn’t have bombed it. “Source Code” takes a philosophical approach to its almost time travel story. I say “almost” because there’s a few reservations behind the “time travel” in the film that I can’t really talk about here. Its rules feel a little bit like “Lost.” Basically, this film shows some interesting potential for Jones: he is another great mind for the sci-fi, likely to do similar changes to the genre that Abrams also amazingly pulled off.

Back to the philosophy though. If one were to ever find a way to revisit the past, “Source Code” asks all the right questions about it. Can you change major outcomes in the past, or will the same event happen no matter what you do? Is it possible for one body to be in two separate places at once, living two separate lives?


As both detective and emotionally damaged soldier, Gyllenhaal is compelling and convincing when slipping into either role. Jones knows how to point a camera just as well as his father (David Bowie) could play a guitar.

It is one thing to direct multiple different scenes in a movie, but to direct the same thing multiple times and make each time different is a gift. I loved how at the beginning, a shot of a train whizzing through a pleasant rustic scene is marked by a horrifying score and later on that same shot is given a much more pleasant background sound as the audience understands better what is about to happen. It is the director’s duty to guide the audience’s emotions, and through his wise choices, Jones does just that.



“Source Code” is also contains a strong screenplay by Ben Ripley. His dialogue is both entertaining and realistic, and the film flows so smoothly from one scene to another, even when jumping between the past and the present. The only real problem with it is that it suffers from Multiple Ending Disorder. This is when the film seems to end at least three to four times. I found at least one point where the film could’ve ended, and that final shot would have made it even stronger. Closure is always a good thing, but too much closure is unnecessary.

Even in this post bin Laden world, “Source Code” remains a huge standout among the films released in recent years chronicling the War on Terror. However, it really impresses most in its psychological and philosophical aspects. Mainly though, its just a great mystery, thriller, summer blockbuster that happened to be released in April.

If You Liked this Movie, You’ll also Like: Moon, Minority Report, Memento, The Sixth Sense, Blade Runner

There was a lot from “Source Code” that I unfortunately could not discuss in this review. Perhaps another, more thorough analysis will come.

Movie Review: Roger & Me

Leave a reply

I will admit that when I first started watching “Roger & Me,” I had no intention of writing a review of it. After all, it is a film I’m watching for a class in order to write an essay about it. However, maybe somewhere around the bunny murder scene, I felt there was just no way I couldn’t review it.


“Roger & Me” is the first film Michael Moore ever made. It’s also his most personal, and it might just be his best. It’s before he became extremely fixated at his own image and was focused more on actually trying to commit an act of social justice through film.

“Roger & Me” focuses on Moore’s hometown of Flint, Michigan. The town was once the prosperous center of America’s auto industry until General Motors CEO Roger Smith decided to shut down Flint’s plant and move all of those jobs overseas. The town soon became one of the poorest in America and suffered from problems such as homelessness, eviction, and violent crime. Moore’s main goal was to track Smith town and have him spend a day with Flint’s laid off auto workers. Of course, Smith doesn’t budge, and the film because something much more interesting: a documentary about trying to get an interview, and a look at the dangerous effects of globalization.

Michael Moore is one of the most polarizing filmmakers working today. Many have accused him of twisting reality in order to make his point in “Bowling for Columbine” and “Fahrenheit 9/11.” Some accusations are true, and others are highly politicized. The great thing about “Roger & Me” is that Moore never really takes any overt political standpoint. He is simply telling a human story from the perspective of someone who has actually been effected by the issue at hand. As someone who grew up in Flint, Moore must’ve realized he had an obligation to tell this story and tell it right. He certainly did just that.

The story of “Roger & Me” doesn’t get old thanks to Moore’s entertaining and energetic approach to such depressing subject matter. Moore’s emerging sarcastic voice is present here, as well as his pop culture prowess. Moore is always making connections and finding interesting new ways to make his enemies look ridiculous.

All joking aside, Moore crafts a vision of American poverty that’s something like a modern version of “The Grapes of Wrath.” The images of the now abandoned downtown Flint are a haunting vision of the American Dream gone wrong. Even more disturbing are scenes of a sheriff evicting people from their homes on Christmas and a woman who has to make her living off killing rabbits. Moore has no shame in showing us what she does in graphic detail.

“Roger & Me” remains startlingly relevant to this day. Two decades later, the film’s message on how globalization endangers American jobs still sticks. With Detroit’s continued problems due to the decline of car manufacturing in the city, it makes you wonder why people didn’t actually pay attention to the fall of Flint.

Had Moore gotten his interview with Roger Smith, the film would’ve been powerful, yet not as strong. It’s funny how Moore was able to get more accomplished by not completing his goal. But seriously, what could Smith had said that would’ve made GM look any better or worse? By not getting this interview, Moore made the entire company look both heartless and out of touch. With “Roger & Me,” Moore shows that the most powerful documentaries are the ones that let the subjects embarrass themselves.

Movie Review: Your Highness

Leave a reply

Wait just a minute. Am I watching the latest comedy by David Gordon Green, or a new installment of “Lord of the Rings”? No, this is just “Your Highness,” the latest film from the budding comedic mind of David Gordon Green and his usual comedic team. Seeing as this is his latest stoner comedy, and he is also the director of “Pineapple Express,” I have just one question: where is the weed? More on that in a bit.

I could explain the whole story of “Your Highness,” but you’ll enjoy it better if you just think about the concept, and not every little plot detail. “Your Highness” takes place in some medieval kingdom where everyone’s accents are a little bit British, and a little bit Elvish. The king has two sons: the strong, noble Fabious (James Franco), and the constantly lazy, always stoned Thadeous (Danny McBride), who has yet to enter into the real world. Then one day, Thadeous is called on a mission to save his brother’s bride (Zooey Deschanel), and on their mission, they also meet Natalie Portman.
Maybe this sounds weird for a film that has a joke about a minotaur erection, but “Your Highness” could have had Shakespearian potential to it. Now, I am not saying it could have been as intelligent or witty as anything Shakespeare ever wrote, but I just believe the people behind it could have made a satire that is a little more, well, sophisticated. Seriously, after a while, a certain amount of gay jokes can become tiresome.
By saying this, I hope I’m not just sounding like some humorless, stuck-up film critic because honestly, a lot of this movie is very funny. People often dismiss jokes concerning bodily functions as dumb humor. Yet, if you do something funny with a gross joke, rather than just let it sit there, it becomes legitimately funny.
However, the problem with “Your Highness” is that those are really the only jokes the movie has. I expected much more from the team that made the smartest stoner comedy I’ve ever seen: “Pineapple Express.” In “Pineapple Express,” humor was found in the action, characters, and the concept itself. This is such a funny and original concept and yet, not enough of the ridiculousness of it was put to good use. While McBride is an excellent comedic actor, he just might not be as strong of a writer as Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg are.
All of the actors in the film do their best, yet none of them can really reach their full potentials because of the writing. James Franco plays the role pretty much exactly as you’d expect him to. While McBride does great work in supporting roles, he is becoming a much better comedic leading man. His role here is pretty similar to his role as Kenny Powers in “Eastbound and Down”: a cocky, spoiled burnout with a lot of bad habits. Meanwhile, Natalie Portman, while a great screen presence as always, could have had a bit more comedy in her role. They basically wrote her as the straight-faced woman warrior, when I wish her performance was a little more like this.

The main problem with “Your Highness” is that it’s too timid to create humor in the unexpected. A lot of it seems forced, and not enough of it seems loose and free flowing. Therefore, it doesn’t feel like a true stoner comedy. When you’re trying to mix humor with dragons and knights, you shouldn’t be afraid to embrace the weirdness of your subject. Just think about the ending of “Role Models,” or the entirety of “Paul.” “Your Highness” never finds that proper balance between paying tribute and making fun of the subject it satirizes.


Also, the idea of this being a stoner comedy is more of a marketing ploy than an actual truth. That illegal plant that makes you giggle a lot is barely a presence in the film.

Am I maybe not getting “Your Highness”? Could another viewing change my opinion of the film? It took a while for critics and the general public to fully understand “Pineapple Express.” However, when I watched “Pineapple Express” for the first time, I realized there was just too much hidden in it for it to be fully appreciated after just one viewing. Unfortunately, I don’t feel that same attachment with “Your Highness.”

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