It's actually not as bad as the trailer made it out to be. They actually may have had something had the director not been Raja Gosnell, who goes for the lowest common denominator way too often: I'm Too Sexy as a gag? Really? That was tired fifteen years ago.
The base story is essentially Homeward Bound/The Incredible Journey in Mexico. Drew Barrymore voices the lead as a pampered princess from Beverly Hills, but most of the other voices, in Mexico are Hispanic. The voice work is pretty well done, and the film was more harmless than I expected.
A different director, and I might have even recommended the film. Grade: C
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
Paul Blart: Mall Cop (2009)
How the hell did this make 140 million dollars?
There's no there there. There's not much in the way of jokes. Sure, I get it, he's fat. Kevin James has talent as a comic actor, which makes a lot of it at least tolerable. But Kevin James does not seem to be much of a writer. I do not know what everyone saw in this film. Gade: C-
There's no there there. There's not much in the way of jokes. Sure, I get it, he's fat. Kevin James has talent as a comic actor, which makes a lot of it at least tolerable. But Kevin James does not seem to be much of a writer. I do not know what everyone saw in this film. Gade: C-
The Road (2009)
Here's what happens in The Road:
Walking, walking, walking, walking ... Stop, hide, pull gun. Walking, walking, walking, walking, walking, walking ... Stop, hide, pull gun. Walking, walking, walking, walking, walking ... Add gloomy, gray back grounds. Repeat.
I've just saved you two hours. Grade: D+
Walking, walking, walking, walking ... Stop, hide, pull gun. Walking, walking, walking, walking, walking, walking ... Stop, hide, pull gun. Walking, walking, walking, walking, walking ... Add gloomy, gray back grounds. Repeat.
I've just saved you two hours. Grade: D+
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Big (1988)
I came across this on HBO and showed it to my 10 year old for the first time. It is as good as I remembered. I believe Tom Hanks is 12 in this movie. His body language and his facial reactions are simply not that as an adult, but as a naive kid.
And I love that of a friendship, it is the naive child that becomes big, and the more dominant, more knowing friend who helps him figure out what to do in the early stages. It is one of many sure handed steps the film takes. While the character comedy is so well done, the satire of the business world is able to co-exist.
This film should stumble somewhere, but never does. Penny Marshall is more sure handed here than with any film she has ever made. And this remains my favorite Hanks performace to date. Because I really believe he was 12 when he made this movie. He had to be... Right? Grade: A+
And I love that of a friendship, it is the naive child that becomes big, and the more dominant, more knowing friend who helps him figure out what to do in the early stages. It is one of many sure handed steps the film takes. While the character comedy is so well done, the satire of the business world is able to co-exist.
This film should stumble somewhere, but never does. Penny Marshall is more sure handed here than with any film she has ever made. And this remains my favorite Hanks performace to date. Because I really believe he was 12 when he made this movie. He had to be... Right? Grade: A+
Oscar acting awards
I wrote a month ago on my reads at that point. Since then, some awards and nominations have come inmaking predictions almost a little too easy at this point. Are there really no surprises in these categories?
In Best Actor, I have not changed my mind that George Clooney is a shoo-in for a nomination for Up In The Air. The film is one of the clear Best Picture frontrunners, and he is a main reason why the film works so well. Almost at lock status is Colin Firth for A Single Man. One of those actors who is always good, he's overdue for a nomination which will help his chances even more.
Speaking of overdue: Jeff Bridges does not yet have an Oscar. He has been so good, for so long, and been nominated three times (though some how, not for Fearless, for which I am stll bitter). Crazy Heart is one of those small films that people root for and the general public by and large ignores. I believe Bridges will get to shed the overdue label this year. Obviously, he will be nominated.
Invictus has not quite gotten the traction this awards season many suspected it would. But it is Morgan Freeman. While I am less sure of his nomination than the three above, I have Freeman penciled in for a nomination.
As the awards season began, I though that Jeremy Renner was kind of a fall back nomination if nothing else materialized. Well nothing else in my mind has materializing. When Renner failed to get a Golden Globe nomination, I was downplaying his chances. Then SAG did nominate him, and they are more important. Besides, who else is there to nominate? So at this point, I see the same five nominees in the Oscars as in the SAG awards.
For Best Actress, I remain behind Meryl Streep to win for Julie and Julia. It clearly appears the better liked of her two films this year, and, well, she is ridiculously due to win. She last won over 25 years ago. That's no way to treat our best actress working today.
Two young newcomers are excellent in films that are contenders for best picture. Gabourney Sidibe is amazing in Precious and so is Carey Mulligan in An Education. I would be shocked if either is missing.
Similar to Morgan Freeman is Helen Mirren. I am skeptical about The Last Station doing well in the Oscar race, and actually see it doing worse than Invictus. But it is Helen Mirren. So I am going to pencil her in.
The fifth slot is open. Maggie Gyllenhaal has a legitmate shot for Crazy Heart, which will be seen because of Bridges. I do think that Marion Cotillard has a shot for Nine. But for now, I think the leader for this slot is Sandra Bullock for The Blind Side. For now.
Best Supporting Actress has three locks from two films who are in the best picture race. Both Vera Farmiga and Anna Kendrick are locked in for Up in the Air. Even better is who I have as the loikely winner, as nothing in Mo'Nique's previous work prepared me for how powerful and brave her performance was in Precious.
I see three people fighting for the last two slots. Right now, I have the two previous nominees, Julianne Moore for A Single Man and Penelope Cruz for Nine, ahead of the SAG nominated performance of Diane Kruger for Inglourious Basterds. But I have a hard time seeing anyone else in this race.
Inglourious Basterds has the most likely contender for Best Supporting Actor. Christoph Waltz is simply the best thing about the film. In a weak field, I guess also nomination worthy is Christopher Plummer for The Last Station.
Stanley Tucci is one actor overdue for a nomination, and as the awards season has gone on he seems to be getting more mentions for a film that has disappeared from the awards races, The Lovely Bones, than for the performance opposite Streep in Julie and Julia. Being good in both films actually helps him.
Likewise, Matt Damon was so good in The Informant that it is a shame he hasn't got more traction in Best Actor. But that will help him get nominated for Invictus in this category.
I think the battle for the last slot is between Woody Harrelson in The Messenger and Albert Molina for An Education. Harrelson is a former nominee, but Molina is overdue, and is in the film that will be seen by more Oscar voters to check out Carey Mulligan, so I favor Molina. But any combination of the above six that includes Waltz would not surprise me.
That's how I see the acting races today. I reserve the opportunity to change my opinion, but most of this logic will remain in place until the day the nominations are announced. Then the logic gets changed to match the actual nomination and what I had wrong. The game continues...
In Best Actor, I have not changed my mind that George Clooney is a shoo-in for a nomination for Up In The Air. The film is one of the clear Best Picture frontrunners, and he is a main reason why the film works so well. Almost at lock status is Colin Firth for A Single Man. One of those actors who is always good, he's overdue for a nomination which will help his chances even more.
Speaking of overdue: Jeff Bridges does not yet have an Oscar. He has been so good, for so long, and been nominated three times (though some how, not for Fearless, for which I am stll bitter). Crazy Heart is one of those small films that people root for and the general public by and large ignores. I believe Bridges will get to shed the overdue label this year. Obviously, he will be nominated.
Invictus has not quite gotten the traction this awards season many suspected it would. But it is Morgan Freeman. While I am less sure of his nomination than the three above, I have Freeman penciled in for a nomination.
As the awards season began, I though that Jeremy Renner was kind of a fall back nomination if nothing else materialized. Well nothing else in my mind has materializing. When Renner failed to get a Golden Globe nomination, I was downplaying his chances. Then SAG did nominate him, and they are more important. Besides, who else is there to nominate? So at this point, I see the same five nominees in the Oscars as in the SAG awards.
For Best Actress, I remain behind Meryl Streep to win for Julie and Julia. It clearly appears the better liked of her two films this year, and, well, she is ridiculously due to win. She last won over 25 years ago. That's no way to treat our best actress working today.
Two young newcomers are excellent in films that are contenders for best picture. Gabourney Sidibe is amazing in Precious and so is Carey Mulligan in An Education. I would be shocked if either is missing.
Similar to Morgan Freeman is Helen Mirren. I am skeptical about The Last Station doing well in the Oscar race, and actually see it doing worse than Invictus. But it is Helen Mirren. So I am going to pencil her in.
The fifth slot is open. Maggie Gyllenhaal has a legitmate shot for Crazy Heart, which will be seen because of Bridges. I do think that Marion Cotillard has a shot for Nine. But for now, I think the leader for this slot is Sandra Bullock for The Blind Side. For now.
Best Supporting Actress has three locks from two films who are in the best picture race. Both Vera Farmiga and Anna Kendrick are locked in for Up in the Air. Even better is who I have as the loikely winner, as nothing in Mo'Nique's previous work prepared me for how powerful and brave her performance was in Precious.
I see three people fighting for the last two slots. Right now, I have the two previous nominees, Julianne Moore for A Single Man and Penelope Cruz for Nine, ahead of the SAG nominated performance of Diane Kruger for Inglourious Basterds. But I have a hard time seeing anyone else in this race.
Inglourious Basterds has the most likely contender for Best Supporting Actor. Christoph Waltz is simply the best thing about the film. In a weak field, I guess also nomination worthy is Christopher Plummer for The Last Station.
Stanley Tucci is one actor overdue for a nomination, and as the awards season has gone on he seems to be getting more mentions for a film that has disappeared from the awards races, The Lovely Bones, than for the performance opposite Streep in Julie and Julia. Being good in both films actually helps him.
Likewise, Matt Damon was so good in The Informant that it is a shame he hasn't got more traction in Best Actor. But that will help him get nominated for Invictus in this category.
I think the battle for the last slot is between Woody Harrelson in The Messenger and Albert Molina for An Education. Harrelson is a former nominee, but Molina is overdue, and is in the film that will be seen by more Oscar voters to check out Carey Mulligan, so I favor Molina. But any combination of the above six that includes Waltz would not surprise me.
That's how I see the acting races today. I reserve the opportunity to change my opinion, but most of this logic will remain in place until the day the nominations are announced. Then the logic gets changed to match the actual nomination and what I had wrong. The game continues...
Friday, December 25, 2009
Oscar best picture at this point
How exactly is ten nominations changing the game? Well, there's two categories right now. One is for the films that are serious contenders for best picture, and second are for those just trying to get in the game.
The first list in my view is four films: Avatar, The Hurt Locker, Precious, and Up in the Air. All four are finding enough notice in the end of the year mention for me to have a hard time envisioning a list missing any of them. I also expect all four to get director nominations, which may be one way to seperate the pretenders from the contenders when the actual nominations list.
In a sub category is where I place Up. It is unique enough to get many votes for nomination, but I have a hard time seeing an animated film winning the big prize. Still, I place it in position 5.
Since there has not been ten films in over 50 years, no one knows anything as to where the 6-10 films come from. And many seem to be forgetting the preferential nomiations system of the Academy. So what gets nominated may be what has love from a small group rather than acceptance from a large one.
This is where I remain skeptical about An Education. I've seen the film. I've loved it. But I would not put it first on my ballot, and I suspect it won't be first on many voter's ballots. It is the classic film that every one will respect, and nominate the lead performance, but I just don't see the nomination.
The small film that I suspect will rise up and grab a nomination which is being overlooked in a lot of circles is Crazy Heart. Jeff Bridges is a mortal lock for a best actor nomination, and I believe he's the frontrunner to win it. So it will be seen. And its subject matter is unique enough to differentiate it from the other contenders. So I have it getting a nomination.
In a similiar vein, also overlooked for picture, but more mainstream, is Julie and Julia. I also think it will take a slot. As many people have talked about a mainstream film like Star Trek getting a nomination, they forgot that Sci-Fi is not mainstream to Oscar voters (and besides, Sci-Fi voters will vote for Avatar first). But Julie and Julia is mainstream. Plus, with a Streep performance that will be nominated, people will check out the film.
So what else? I guess Inglorious Basterds. It certainly is unlike any of the movies above. I think it is overrated, but I think there will be enough who put it above other choices for a nomination.
That leaves two slots. I think the surprises are above. The lists on most cites probably mention the contenders for the last two slots, in a race between An Education, Nine, Invictus, The Last Station, A Serious Man, A Single Man, and... well, it does seem to be beloved... The Blind Side. I'll guess the musical and the Eastwood film.
What about director? I still think there is room for a curve ball. I mentioned that I believe all four of my primary contenders will be nominated. But there is a healthy contingent of auteurists in the director's branch, and few auteurs in the list of contendersI just listed for picture. Someone from out of the blue would not surprise me. While I am just short of predicting it at this time, do not count out the chances of Michael Haneke getting a nomination for The White Ribbon.
The first list in my view is four films: Avatar, The Hurt Locker, Precious, and Up in the Air. All four are finding enough notice in the end of the year mention for me to have a hard time envisioning a list missing any of them. I also expect all four to get director nominations, which may be one way to seperate the pretenders from the contenders when the actual nominations list.
In a sub category is where I place Up. It is unique enough to get many votes for nomination, but I have a hard time seeing an animated film winning the big prize. Still, I place it in position 5.
Since there has not been ten films in over 50 years, no one knows anything as to where the 6-10 films come from. And many seem to be forgetting the preferential nomiations system of the Academy. So what gets nominated may be what has love from a small group rather than acceptance from a large one.
This is where I remain skeptical about An Education. I've seen the film. I've loved it. But I would not put it first on my ballot, and I suspect it won't be first on many voter's ballots. It is the classic film that every one will respect, and nominate the lead performance, but I just don't see the nomination.
The small film that I suspect will rise up and grab a nomination which is being overlooked in a lot of circles is Crazy Heart. Jeff Bridges is a mortal lock for a best actor nomination, and I believe he's the frontrunner to win it. So it will be seen. And its subject matter is unique enough to differentiate it from the other contenders. So I have it getting a nomination.
In a similiar vein, also overlooked for picture, but more mainstream, is Julie and Julia. I also think it will take a slot. As many people have talked about a mainstream film like Star Trek getting a nomination, they forgot that Sci-Fi is not mainstream to Oscar voters (and besides, Sci-Fi voters will vote for Avatar first). But Julie and Julia is mainstream. Plus, with a Streep performance that will be nominated, people will check out the film.
So what else? I guess Inglorious Basterds. It certainly is unlike any of the movies above. I think it is overrated, but I think there will be enough who put it above other choices for a nomination.
That leaves two slots. I think the surprises are above. The lists on most cites probably mention the contenders for the last two slots, in a race between An Education, Nine, Invictus, The Last Station, A Serious Man, A Single Man, and... well, it does seem to be beloved... The Blind Side. I'll guess the musical and the Eastwood film.
What about director? I still think there is room for a curve ball. I mentioned that I believe all four of my primary contenders will be nominated. But there is a healthy contingent of auteurists in the director's branch, and few auteurs in the list of contendersI just listed for picture. Someone from out of the blue would not surprise me. While I am just short of predicting it at this time, do not count out the chances of Michael Haneke getting a nomination for The White Ribbon.
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Revisiting the Pirates of the Caribbean
One other thing I plan on working on is my pledge to watch all the Disney films before 2000. I did not put them on my magical 3000 films to see list, but I do have a few films on the lists since 2000. Namely, I've yet to see either Narnia film, or either of the Pirates of the Caribbean sequels.
I'll write about the Disney list later, but to prepare for the Pirates sequels, I rewatched the first one. I had the same reaction as the first time I watched it. A truly OK film with one great element: Johnny Depp's performance. It's one of the great performaces of the decade: something that kept me in the film wanting to see what he would do next.
The rest of the film? Not so much. The pirates, sadly are boring. When the title characters are boring, there's a problem. The two kids (Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightly) are fine, though both have been better elsewhere, but the pirates needed reworked. But Depp is worth the price of admission, so I recommend the film for that alone. Grade: B
I'll write about the Disney list later, but to prepare for the Pirates sequels, I rewatched the first one. I had the same reaction as the first time I watched it. A truly OK film with one great element: Johnny Depp's performance. It's one of the great performaces of the decade: something that kept me in the film wanting to see what he would do next.
The rest of the film? Not so much. The pirates, sadly are boring. When the title characters are boring, there's a problem. The two kids (Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightly) are fine, though both have been better elsewhere, but the pirates needed reworked. But Depp is worth the price of admission, so I recommend the film for that alone. Grade: B
Reboot
As I approach the new year, and make my resolutions, along with the annual one to lose weight, is a reolution to actually update this blog more than once a month. I've been trying to write the perfect reviews, and for someone who hasn't regularly written in more than a decade, that hasn't worked out so well.
That stops at the beginning of the year. I am working on my first ten best list in years, and will try to finish it by the end of the year. Three hints were in the newletter I just posted. Not four, as Slumdog was last year's film, but I didn't see it until after last year's newsletter was sent.
So now Plan B: I will post something on every film I watch. It might be a sentence, or a paragraph. But it's going to be more rambling, more free form, than I have normally written, because in order to write well, first I need to write, and grow back into the magnificent writer I once was. (Yes, that is sarcasm.)
And as for my other resolution, I used our Wii fit today, for what the machine told me was the first time in 308 days. 244 pounds. I have work to do on that resolution, too.
That stops at the beginning of the year. I am working on my first ten best list in years, and will try to finish it by the end of the year. Three hints were in the newletter I just posted. Not four, as Slumdog was last year's film, but I didn't see it until after last year's newsletter was sent.
So now Plan B: I will post something on every film I watch. It might be a sentence, or a paragraph. But it's going to be more rambling, more free form, than I have normally written, because in order to write well, first I need to write, and grow back into the magnificent writer I once was. (Yes, that is sarcasm.)
And as for my other resolution, I used our Wii fit today, for what the machine told me was the first time in 308 days. 244 pounds. I have work to do on that resolution, too.
Christmas family newsletter
Allison, our family resident artist, is now 6 years old. She is in the first grade at Snyder Park. She is in a Friday program at the Springfield Art Museum. Arts and crafts remain her greatest interest at home as well. She does not share her siblings' interest in sports, having played soccer in the spring and enjoying the playing in practice much more than the actual games. Her favorite entertainment is Disney princesses as well as the fairy world of Tinkerbell. She also watches Shaun the Sheep most mornings with Tracey and Scott.
Tommy is 8 years old and classified as a second grader at Warder Park, and in his third year in the special needs class at that school with Miss Stoll, who is fantastic. Tommy still feeds overnight through a tube in his stomach, and he has been having problems with that stomach tube lately. The doctor says it is all in his head. He is in his second season bowling, He enjoys watching the family play with the Wii, especially when it is bowling or Mario Kart Racing. His favorite shows remain Dora the Explorer and Go Diego Go.
Ten year Old Tracey is now in the fifth grade at Snyder Park, and just recently performed in the holiday concert in the school choir. He has just finish his seventh season in Springfield Thunder soccer, with a first place finish in the spring and a .500 season in the fall. His indoor soccer team is currently leading the league. Tracey enjoys watching Survivor and The Amazing Race with his father, playing video games, especially with his neighbor Isaiah, and spending weekend time with grandpa.
Megan turned 17 in October. She is a junior at Springfield High School, and was on the advanced honor roll in the first quarter. She played JV volleyball for Springfield this year, playing the back line and once again excelling at serving. Her biggest activity at home is reading, especially if the book features vampires, wizards or Wookiees. And yes, she was there again for the opening night if the Twilight sequel New Moon.
Laura continues to be a fulltime mother. This especially means dealing firsthand with Tommy's regular and irregular appointments. She continues to follow the Ohio State Buckeyes, who once again won the Big Ten in football and play in the Rose Bowl this New Year's Day. She continues to follow the Cleveland Browns, who once again tried her patience. With her kids, she most often reads with Megan and does crafts with Allison. Along with Tracey and Scott, she also became a regular viewer of the TV show Chuck.
Work has been tough for Scott this year. Budget cuts year after year have really hurt the ability of the Clark County Child Support Agency to do its job. The first layoffs in 15 years occurred this year. Scott's original caseload 10 years ago was about 500 cases. He now shares a caseload with two others numbering 4803. Physical health has also been a struggle, with knee surgery needed but currently delayed due to needing to better control his diabetes. On the positive note, he continues to be an assistant coach for Tracey's soccer team, rooted for the St. Louis Cardinals as they won their division and the Pittsburgh Steelers as they won the Super Bowl, and saw great movies such as Slumdog Millionaire, Up, Precious, and Adventureland.
Family adventures this year included a weekend in the Hocking Hills of Ohio with Scott's extended family and seeing Disney On Ice in Dayton. Extended family news include the first girl cousin on Laura's side (parents Emily and Nathan) and the engagement of Scott's sister to Carl (wedding next June).
Tommy is 8 years old and classified as a second grader at Warder Park, and in his third year in the special needs class at that school with Miss Stoll, who is fantastic. Tommy still feeds overnight through a tube in his stomach, and he has been having problems with that stomach tube lately. The doctor says it is all in his head. He is in his second season bowling, He enjoys watching the family play with the Wii, especially when it is bowling or Mario Kart Racing. His favorite shows remain Dora the Explorer and Go Diego Go.
Ten year Old Tracey is now in the fifth grade at Snyder Park, and just recently performed in the holiday concert in the school choir. He has just finish his seventh season in Springfield Thunder soccer, with a first place finish in the spring and a .500 season in the fall. His indoor soccer team is currently leading the league. Tracey enjoys watching Survivor and The Amazing Race with his father, playing video games, especially with his neighbor Isaiah, and spending weekend time with grandpa.
Megan turned 17 in October. She is a junior at Springfield High School, and was on the advanced honor roll in the first quarter. She played JV volleyball for Springfield this year, playing the back line and once again excelling at serving. Her biggest activity at home is reading, especially if the book features vampires, wizards or Wookiees. And yes, she was there again for the opening night if the Twilight sequel New Moon.
Laura continues to be a fulltime mother. This especially means dealing firsthand with Tommy's regular and irregular appointments. She continues to follow the Ohio State Buckeyes, who once again won the Big Ten in football and play in the Rose Bowl this New Year's Day. She continues to follow the Cleveland Browns, who once again tried her patience. With her kids, she most often reads with Megan and does crafts with Allison. Along with Tracey and Scott, she also became a regular viewer of the TV show Chuck.
Work has been tough for Scott this year. Budget cuts year after year have really hurt the ability of the Clark County Child Support Agency to do its job. The first layoffs in 15 years occurred this year. Scott's original caseload 10 years ago was about 500 cases. He now shares a caseload with two others numbering 4803. Physical health has also been a struggle, with knee surgery needed but currently delayed due to needing to better control his diabetes. On the positive note, he continues to be an assistant coach for Tracey's soccer team, rooted for the St. Louis Cardinals as they won their division and the Pittsburgh Steelers as they won the Super Bowl, and saw great movies such as Slumdog Millionaire, Up, Precious, and Adventureland.
Family adventures this year included a weekend in the Hocking Hills of Ohio with Scott's extended family and seeing Disney On Ice in Dayton. Extended family news include the first girl cousin on Laura's side (parents Emily and Nathan) and the engagement of Scott's sister to Carl (wedding next June).
Sunday, November 22, 2009
A few Oscar notes
It seems to me like eveyone has been kind of thrown off by the ten best picture nominations this year. The buzz seems to be less pronounced so far. But I have a few observations.
Only two summer films are serious contenders for a picture nomination. This summer it seemed like several films got mentioned. But some were just silly. Star Trek? Come on. Harry Potter? No. Art house films? Anyone remember any of them?
But Up seems to be in the picture much as Wall-E last year. And had there been ten nominees last year, I think Wall-E would have been nominated. And The Hurt Locker seems to be just so well made that it has to at least get considered.
The two films that I think have gathered the buzz to clearly be in the race are Precious and Up in the Air. Clearly, the festival darling this year has been Precious. It does not matter what the film is about, when you win audience awards at both Sundance and Toronto, you are in the race. And Up in the Air is proven to most who have seen it that Juno was not a fluke for Jason Reitman. And Oscar voters would like to have their faith in Reitman verified.
In David Poland's list of the top contenders, he has the top four as Up in the Air, Up, Precious and An Education. I'm not seeing the fourth one yet. It might break out, but it hasn't yet. It lloks to me as possibly an art house film that the critics love but that doesn't get enough into the mainstream. The verdict should be in soon, as the film is already in release (in fact, I'm seeing it today).
It's too soon to truly judge on many of the December films. But I do think something is going to jump into the picture that is being overlooked right now. And that the overlooked film is NOT Alvin and the Chipmunks 2.
It also is odd to me that no frontrunner seems to be announced in the best actor race. In my mind, the only lock for that category is George Clooney for Up in the Air. But I don't think voters are ready to hand him a second acting Oscar, so a front runner is going to materialize that is hiding now.
I think the opposite is true in best actress. I think the frontrunner is an obvious one: Meryl Streep for Julie and Julia. Let's face it, she's due. Two actresses have won this category twice since she last won. It has now been more than 25 years! That's just not going to do for the best actress of her generation. Plus, she nailed the charisma and appeal of Julia Child while making it more than just an impersonation.
There way well not be much experience in the category this year. There is a serious chance of nominations for a combination of Abbie Cornish, Saoirse Ronan, Carey Milligan, and the lock nomination of Gabourney Sidibe. When the voters think over the experience of this field, Streep's excellence for over 3 decades will work in her favor.
One other note: there will be five animated feature nominees this year. I count Up, Coraline, The Princess and the Frog, and Ponyo. I have no read on what will be fifth on the list.
Only two summer films are serious contenders for a picture nomination. This summer it seemed like several films got mentioned. But some were just silly. Star Trek? Come on. Harry Potter? No. Art house films? Anyone remember any of them?
But Up seems to be in the picture much as Wall-E last year. And had there been ten nominees last year, I think Wall-E would have been nominated. And The Hurt Locker seems to be just so well made that it has to at least get considered.
The two films that I think have gathered the buzz to clearly be in the race are Precious and Up in the Air. Clearly, the festival darling this year has been Precious. It does not matter what the film is about, when you win audience awards at both Sundance and Toronto, you are in the race. And Up in the Air is proven to most who have seen it that Juno was not a fluke for Jason Reitman. And Oscar voters would like to have their faith in Reitman verified.
In David Poland's list of the top contenders, he has the top four as Up in the Air, Up, Precious and An Education. I'm not seeing the fourth one yet. It might break out, but it hasn't yet. It lloks to me as possibly an art house film that the critics love but that doesn't get enough into the mainstream. The verdict should be in soon, as the film is already in release (in fact, I'm seeing it today).
It's too soon to truly judge on many of the December films. But I do think something is going to jump into the picture that is being overlooked right now. And that the overlooked film is NOT Alvin and the Chipmunks 2.
It also is odd to me that no frontrunner seems to be announced in the best actor race. In my mind, the only lock for that category is George Clooney for Up in the Air. But I don't think voters are ready to hand him a second acting Oscar, so a front runner is going to materialize that is hiding now.
I think the opposite is true in best actress. I think the frontrunner is an obvious one: Meryl Streep for Julie and Julia. Let's face it, she's due. Two actresses have won this category twice since she last won. It has now been more than 25 years! That's just not going to do for the best actress of her generation. Plus, she nailed the charisma and appeal of Julia Child while making it more than just an impersonation.
There way well not be much experience in the category this year. There is a serious chance of nominations for a combination of Abbie Cornish, Saoirse Ronan, Carey Milligan, and the lock nomination of Gabourney Sidibe. When the voters think over the experience of this field, Streep's excellence for over 3 decades will work in her favor.
One other note: there will be five animated feature nominees this year. I count Up, Coraline, The Princess and the Frog, and Ponyo. I have no read on what will be fifth on the list.
Saturday, November 14, 2009
No comment
My 10 year old son, the one who thinks Transformers 2 is the bestest movie ever, snookered his grandfather into renting GI Joe today. He excitedly brought it home, opened the case ... and there was no disc inside the case.
Write your own jokes, people.
Write your own jokes, people.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Staring at Goats
Is it possible to like a comedy which you don't laugh much at it? I've done it before. If the film remains intriguing and interesting, if the characters are absorbing, if I remain wanting to know what happens next, then yes, I can recommend it.
And that's precisely where I view The Men Who Stare At Goats. It's a film which is based on true events (though clearly some exaggerating has occurred) which belongs in the so strange its true category. I found the narration and the character of a reporter portrayed by Exan McGregor helped bring me into the film. The events are crazy, and sometime in the future I will probably watch the film and laugh repeatedly as it catches me right.
This was not that time, and I didn't laugh that much. But I was amused, and intrigued and I wanted to know more of the story. McGregor plays Bob Wilton, who after his wife leaves him head out to Kuwait looking to find a big story around the Iraq war. There he finds Lyn Cassady, who claims to be "supersoldier". Bob finds Lyn's story fascinating and joins him in exploring Iraq while learning the story of supersoldiers.
In flashback, we learn Lyn was one of the members of the First Earth Battalion. We learn how this came from research done by Bill Django (Jeff Bridges) based on his experiences in Vietnam who essentially incorporated new age ideas into trying to move the military into preserving peace rather than fighting war. So far so good.
But the way to bring about peace is to create superpowers through their minds, to find psychic powers, and apparently to incorporate the Jedi philosophy. This of course, gets ridiculous, and is where much of the humor of the film comes from. While I wasn't laughing as much as the filmmakers intended, I wanted to know more.
Of course, this being the military, politics does come into it, which is where Larry Hooper (Kevin Spacey) comes in. He is looking for an angle, and the new age ideas of Django ultimately become something less idealistic. Eventually, because why have the framing story in Iraq if it doesn't, this back story is going to inform what ultimately happens in Iraq.
Director Grant Helov smartly doesn't show off any great visual flourishes. He understands the story is the star here, so he tells it as straight forward as possible. As the plot I just described begins to show, this is one goofy story. I cannot remember a movie with as crazy a story as this. So why get silly with it?
It's a great cast, and they play it sraight. Which is why the movie ultimately drew me in. If the film had spent the time winking at me, I would have checked out. But instead, I was drawn in because through all the silliness of the plot, I believed in the characters. When Django's idealism is betrayed, I wanted to know his ultimate result. I was always intrigued, I was already interested.
I just wished I would have laughed more.
Grade: B-
And that's precisely where I view The Men Who Stare At Goats. It's a film which is based on true events (though clearly some exaggerating has occurred) which belongs in the so strange its true category. I found the narration and the character of a reporter portrayed by Exan McGregor helped bring me into the film. The events are crazy, and sometime in the future I will probably watch the film and laugh repeatedly as it catches me right.
This was not that time, and I didn't laugh that much. But I was amused, and intrigued and I wanted to know more of the story. McGregor plays Bob Wilton, who after his wife leaves him head out to Kuwait looking to find a big story around the Iraq war. There he finds Lyn Cassady, who claims to be "supersoldier". Bob finds Lyn's story fascinating and joins him in exploring Iraq while learning the story of supersoldiers.
In flashback, we learn Lyn was one of the members of the First Earth Battalion. We learn how this came from research done by Bill Django (Jeff Bridges) based on his experiences in Vietnam who essentially incorporated new age ideas into trying to move the military into preserving peace rather than fighting war. So far so good.
But the way to bring about peace is to create superpowers through their minds, to find psychic powers, and apparently to incorporate the Jedi philosophy. This of course, gets ridiculous, and is where much of the humor of the film comes from. While I wasn't laughing as much as the filmmakers intended, I wanted to know more.
Of course, this being the military, politics does come into it, which is where Larry Hooper (Kevin Spacey) comes in. He is looking for an angle, and the new age ideas of Django ultimately become something less idealistic. Eventually, because why have the framing story in Iraq if it doesn't, this back story is going to inform what ultimately happens in Iraq.
Director Grant Helov smartly doesn't show off any great visual flourishes. He understands the story is the star here, so he tells it as straight forward as possible. As the plot I just described begins to show, this is one goofy story. I cannot remember a movie with as crazy a story as this. So why get silly with it?
It's a great cast, and they play it sraight. Which is why the movie ultimately drew me in. If the film had spent the time winking at me, I would have checked out. But instead, I was drawn in because through all the silliness of the plot, I believed in the characters. When Django's idealism is betrayed, I wanted to know his ultimate result. I was always intrigued, I was already interested.
I just wished I would have laughed more.
Grade: B-
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Who am I and what am I doing?
So what is the plan with this blog? First, I want to get some practice writing, just because I want to write for the pleasure of it. In high school and college, I wrote for school papers. I wrote for a small paper here in Springfield. But I haven't written this decade. And I want to get that muscle working again.
The idea is to start watching more movies, especially classic older movies, and writing on what I watch. In the past month, I've watched mostly recent movies, and not written anything. I still hope to write on what I've watched recently. But I would like to mix it up a bit more.
In 2006, I put together three "need to see" lists of 1,000 films each, none of which I've seen. The films were from the period through the year 2000. For the years 2001-2007, I've added 100 films to the list. So now I have a list of 3700 films. And last month, I saw the 22nd film from the lists. I will never complete the task, but I sure would like to pick up the pace.
In addition, my other list is all the Disney films up to the year 2000, as I put no Disney films on the "need to see" list. I want to see how many of these films I can watch, most of which with my kids. They are the studio which most intrigues me.
I have more to write, but now I must leave to go stare at some men who stare at goats. Maybe I'll even write about it.
The idea is to start watching more movies, especially classic older movies, and writing on what I watch. In the past month, I've watched mostly recent movies, and not written anything. I still hope to write on what I've watched recently. But I would like to mix it up a bit more.
In 2006, I put together three "need to see" lists of 1,000 films each, none of which I've seen. The films were from the period through the year 2000. For the years 2001-2007, I've added 100 films to the list. So now I have a list of 3700 films. And last month, I saw the 22nd film from the lists. I will never complete the task, but I sure would like to pick up the pace.
In addition, my other list is all the Disney films up to the year 2000, as I put no Disney films on the "need to see" list. I want to see how many of these films I can watch, most of which with my kids. They are the studio which most intrigues me.
I have more to write, but now I must leave to go stare at some men who stare at goats. Maybe I'll even write about it.
One month later...
Well, that didn't work. One month without a post. So what happened?
1. I am just wrapping up a three week battle with bronchitis, which has wiped me out.
2. I am worn out because my birthday was last Thursday. (By the way, I was born on the same date as Sam Rockwell, so happy 41st birthday to him too.)
3. Most recent movies in theaters did not interest me.
4. I was too torn up from the St. Louis Cardinals being swept from the baseball playoffs.
5. I've gotten really good at a pinball game I have for my Playstation and have spent many hours playing.
...all of the above are true, yet none are the real reason I haven't posted. I haven't written much in the past ten years, and am trying to find my sea legs. And once I locked up trying to write the BEST REVIEW EVER of Where the Wild Things Are, I resorted to my old problem of: if I can't write it perfect, don't right it at all.
So now I try again.
1. I am just wrapping up a three week battle with bronchitis, which has wiped me out.
2. I am worn out because my birthday was last Thursday. (By the way, I was born on the same date as Sam Rockwell, so happy 41st birthday to him too.)
3. Most recent movies in theaters did not interest me.
4. I was too torn up from the St. Louis Cardinals being swept from the baseball playoffs.
5. I've gotten really good at a pinball game I have for my Playstation and have spent many hours playing.
...all of the above are true, yet none are the real reason I haven't posted. I haven't written much in the past ten years, and am trying to find my sea legs. And once I locked up trying to write the BEST REVIEW EVER of Where the Wild Things Are, I resorted to my old problem of: if I can't write it perfect, don't right it at all.
So now I try again.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Survivor and The Amazing Race, 3 weeks in
The only current prime time shows that I watch regularly are Survivor and The Amazing Race. (Chuck will not be back until next year.) However, my feelings towards the shows are decidedly different.
Survivor is a great idea which I don't think has been executed particularly well the past few seasons. The Amazing Race, on the other hand is a great idea with great execution. In a nutshell, that's why The Amazing Race has won every Emmy for Competitive Reality Show.
The Amazing Race is three legs into this season, and that's a good thing. The casting has moved away from the model/actors on too many reality shows and cast people from other walks of life. Theis season is filled with people I find interesting, whether it's the father/son team from Montana who work together very well, even though the son has dyed red hair and many tattoos, or simply two Harlem Globetrotters.
There are two reasons the show works. First of all, the teams teams of two are friends/family members, and is fascinating to watch how existing relationships change over the race, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. Second, this is not a show that rewards bad behavior. It's about the race. Do the teams sometimes interact well? Yes. But that does not determine the outcome. The fastest team wins.
Unfortunately, Survivor seems to be more and more about the bad behavior. Sure, the show's first winner was Richard Hatch, who has shown off his share of bad behavior. But he was all about gameplay, and he created the bluprint most of the players still use. He was interesting because of the gameplay.
Last season, the season was all about "Coach", a self-important doofus who hung around long on the show not because of his great gameplay but because, being a fool, he was easy for the group dominating the game to manipulate. Yet it basically became the Coach show, with soooo much focus on him that it threw the whole season out of whack. The three who drove the game, Taj, Stephen, and winner JT, were each far more interesting players and people, but some of the key moments were missing from the show.
They are doing it again. It's the Russell show this season. Ironically, Russell may be a better player than Coach, but I have a hard time understaning how destroying your tribe helps you. But the show has spent so much time with him that I can't name half the players on the other tribe after three episodes (the other Russell, Yasmin, Shambo, and ... 7 over guys). What's the game strategy? We know what Russell is doing, but who else?
Besides the questionable editing, the casting is getting worse. A couple of years ago, the casting was heavily minority, and that season including the best one-two punch ever, Yul and Ozzy. Instead of getting the hint that more normal people and more diversity was the way to go, the producers seemed to believe the disgusting behavior of Adam that season was what people loved. That, and more eye candy, and less strategy.
Would I have casted Russell this seaon? yes, actually. He's there to play. But he needed better foils. And there's no excuse for the casting of this racist jerk named Ben. I will admit, seeing him dropkicked by a unaminous vote this week was satisfying, as Jaison put Ben in his place at tribal, but couldn't have casting have picked up that he should not have been on the show in the first place.
So survivor, quit looking for pretty models. Quit casting for villains. Put normal people, see how they handle a tough situation, and allow me to enjoy this game. Look to The Amazing Race, and try to follow their example.
Survivor is a great idea which I don't think has been executed particularly well the past few seasons. The Amazing Race, on the other hand is a great idea with great execution. In a nutshell, that's why The Amazing Race has won every Emmy for Competitive Reality Show.
The Amazing Race is three legs into this season, and that's a good thing. The casting has moved away from the model/actors on too many reality shows and cast people from other walks of life. Theis season is filled with people I find interesting, whether it's the father/son team from Montana who work together very well, even though the son has dyed red hair and many tattoos, or simply two Harlem Globetrotters.
There are two reasons the show works. First of all, the teams teams of two are friends/family members, and is fascinating to watch how existing relationships change over the race, sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. Second, this is not a show that rewards bad behavior. It's about the race. Do the teams sometimes interact well? Yes. But that does not determine the outcome. The fastest team wins.
Unfortunately, Survivor seems to be more and more about the bad behavior. Sure, the show's first winner was Richard Hatch, who has shown off his share of bad behavior. But he was all about gameplay, and he created the bluprint most of the players still use. He was interesting because of the gameplay.
Last season, the season was all about "Coach", a self-important doofus who hung around long on the show not because of his great gameplay but because, being a fool, he was easy for the group dominating the game to manipulate. Yet it basically became the Coach show, with soooo much focus on him that it threw the whole season out of whack. The three who drove the game, Taj, Stephen, and winner JT, were each far more interesting players and people, but some of the key moments were missing from the show.
They are doing it again. It's the Russell show this season. Ironically, Russell may be a better player than Coach, but I have a hard time understaning how destroying your tribe helps you. But the show has spent so much time with him that I can't name half the players on the other tribe after three episodes (the other Russell, Yasmin, Shambo, and ... 7 over guys). What's the game strategy? We know what Russell is doing, but who else?
Besides the questionable editing, the casting is getting worse. A couple of years ago, the casting was heavily minority, and that season including the best one-two punch ever, Yul and Ozzy. Instead of getting the hint that more normal people and more diversity was the way to go, the producers seemed to believe the disgusting behavior of Adam that season was what people loved. That, and more eye candy, and less strategy.
Would I have casted Russell this seaon? yes, actually. He's there to play. But he needed better foils. And there's no excuse for the casting of this racist jerk named Ben. I will admit, seeing him dropkicked by a unaminous vote this week was satisfying, as Jaison put Ben in his place at tribal, but couldn't have casting have picked up that he should not have been on the show in the first place.
So survivor, quit looking for pretty models. Quit casting for villains. Put normal people, see how they handle a tough situation, and allow me to enjoy this game. Look to The Amazing Race, and try to follow their example.
Zombieland delivers as advertised
One of my favorite reviews in Leonard Maltin's movie book is the one for Scooby Doo 2: "It is what it is." Of course, that's meant in a negative context, but the same comment could be used to review Zombieland in a positive context.
This has been one of the best marketed films of the year. The trailer was funny, and did a good job of setting up the concept: a comedy about surviving a zombie occupied world. The trailer showed many funny gags from the film but most of them are from the first few minutes, leading the film to be mostly unspoiled, other than the existance of the four major characters and that the finale takes place in an amusement park.
Jesse Eisenberg is the narrator of the film, and the film derives much of its humor from his zombie rules of survival. The first sequence demonstrates some of those rules visually, such as "Cardio," as he basically outruns two zombies. A lot of Eisenberg's survival involves avoiding rather than confronting the zombies.
Which is exactly opposite of the approach of the first human he meets in the film, played by Woody Harrelson. Harrelson's character is very much the destroy all zombies attitude. So the conflict driving the comedy is not just how the characters approach the zombies, but each other. Both do recognize the dangers of getting to attached in such a dangerous world, so we never learn the characters' names. Instead they are dubbed by their hometowns, so Harrelson is "Tallahassee" and Eisenberg is "Columbus".
Before the amusement park climax, they will meet up with sisers played by Emma Stone and Abigail Breslin, who are dubbed repectively Wichita and Little Rock, and a very funny star cameo I will not reveal here (although to say I am not referring to the Mike White brief appearance).
The four human leads play their roles straight, letting the humor of the script develop in a natural way. Playing the film as a "comedy" would not have worked here. Credit goes to director Ruben Fleischer for finding the right pitch to play the film.
Is it a great film? Not really. It is a bit short, and does have a couple of lagging patches. But for me, the film has a laugh ratio well into the recommend level. If gross effects distract you or the concept disgusts you, this isn't your film. But if the trailer or the concept has you interested, by all means check it out.
It is what it is.
Grade: B+
This has been one of the best marketed films of the year. The trailer was funny, and did a good job of setting up the concept: a comedy about surviving a zombie occupied world. The trailer showed many funny gags from the film but most of them are from the first few minutes, leading the film to be mostly unspoiled, other than the existance of the four major characters and that the finale takes place in an amusement park.
Jesse Eisenberg is the narrator of the film, and the film derives much of its humor from his zombie rules of survival. The first sequence demonstrates some of those rules visually, such as "Cardio," as he basically outruns two zombies. A lot of Eisenberg's survival involves avoiding rather than confronting the zombies.
Which is exactly opposite of the approach of the first human he meets in the film, played by Woody Harrelson. Harrelson's character is very much the destroy all zombies attitude. So the conflict driving the comedy is not just how the characters approach the zombies, but each other. Both do recognize the dangers of getting to attached in such a dangerous world, so we never learn the characters' names. Instead they are dubbed by their hometowns, so Harrelson is "Tallahassee" and Eisenberg is "Columbus".
Before the amusement park climax, they will meet up with sisers played by Emma Stone and Abigail Breslin, who are dubbed repectively Wichita and Little Rock, and a very funny star cameo I will not reveal here (although to say I am not referring to the Mike White brief appearance).
The four human leads play their roles straight, letting the humor of the script develop in a natural way. Playing the film as a "comedy" would not have worked here. Credit goes to director Ruben Fleischer for finding the right pitch to play the film.
Is it a great film? Not really. It is a bit short, and does have a couple of lagging patches. But for me, the film has a laugh ratio well into the recommend level. If gross effects distract you or the concept disgusts you, this isn't your film. But if the trailer or the concept has you interested, by all means check it out.
It is what it is.
Grade: B+
The wrong week
What was I thinking! This was the wrong time for me to try to start a blog. It's not that my daughter's volleyball season is coming to an end, or that my son's soccer season has a month to go, or that my other son's bowling season just started. And it's not that I haven't been doing regular writing for ten years, so I am a bit rusty.
My idea was to watch movies regularly, but I did not realize that wasn't the week for that. Because this is the week that PBS ran a 12 1/2 hour documentary on the National Parks, and I watched it. That chewed up most of my time.
I wanted to get started this month, but this may have been the wrong week. So I'm already in catch up mode. I've seen two movies this week, one (cough) mini-series, and had three other posts I want to make. I'll see how many of the six I can get up today.
Edited to add: This week doesn't bode well either, as my favorite sports team is the St. Louis Cardinals, they made the playoffs this year, and the playoffs start this Wednesday.
My idea was to watch movies regularly, but I did not realize that wasn't the week for that. Because this is the week that PBS ran a 12 1/2 hour documentary on the National Parks, and I watched it. That chewed up most of my time.
I wanted to get started this month, but this may have been the wrong week. So I'm already in catch up mode. I've seen two movies this week, one (cough) mini-series, and had three other posts I want to make. I'll see how many of the six I can get up today.
Edited to add: This week doesn't bode well either, as my favorite sports team is the St. Louis Cardinals, they made the playoffs this year, and the playoffs start this Wednesday.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Introduction
It has been a rough month at work. I work for the Department of Jobs and Family Services here in Ohio. Ohio agencies relying on state funding have seen that funding cut by around 25%. There's no easy way to cut that, and the pain has been coming down.
There's been a hiring freeze for awhile, so the number of staff has already been reducing. But two weeks ago the agency laid off 33 staff. In child support, we said goodbye to six more staff, all of them good at their jobs. A few years ago, we had 85 staff members in child support. Now we have 50.
And more cuts are needed.
Our director proposed that all staff take 10 unpaid days off over the next year. The union recommended rejecting the proposal because, apparently, they don't like the director. The vote to reject was 145 to 39. I was one of the 39.
The money's got to come from somewhere. I've yet to figure here from where. The biggest expense is personnel, and at some point, that's where the cuts have to come from. So now everyone is waiting for the other shoe to drop.
It's in this atmosphere that I have decided to respond the only way I know how: to write about movies.
I would descibe myself as a movie buff. In my failed attempt at a college education, I wrote movie reviews for the school paper. And given the turmoil of my work life, I need to add something I enjoy to my life.
Wish me luck.
There's been a hiring freeze for awhile, so the number of staff has already been reducing. But two weeks ago the agency laid off 33 staff. In child support, we said goodbye to six more staff, all of them good at their jobs. A few years ago, we had 85 staff members in child support. Now we have 50.
And more cuts are needed.
Our director proposed that all staff take 10 unpaid days off over the next year. The union recommended rejecting the proposal because, apparently, they don't like the director. The vote to reject was 145 to 39. I was one of the 39.
The money's got to come from somewhere. I've yet to figure here from where. The biggest expense is personnel, and at some point, that's where the cuts have to come from. So now everyone is waiting for the other shoe to drop.
It's in this atmosphere that I have decided to respond the only way I know how: to write about movies.
I would descibe myself as a movie buff. In my failed attempt at a college education, I wrote movie reviews for the school paper. And given the turmoil of my work life, I need to add something I enjoy to my life.
Wish me luck.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
