Well it isn't final yet. And I haven't written any analysis. But I am leaving this here on Tuesday, January 26 as a place holder while I debate these choices with myself. The lists are in order of likelihood, so I think Avatar is the most likely Best Picture nominee.
And I am officially giving up on the Documentary and Foreign Language categories. Until I can figure what in the world is going on with them, I give up even trying to guess.
BEST PICTURE
Avatar
Up in the Air
The Hurt Locker
Inglorious Basterds
Precious
Up
Julie & Julia
Crazy Heart
An Education
The Blind Side
BEST DIRECTOR
James Cameron (Avatar)
Kathryn Bigelow (The Hurt Locker)
Jason Reitman (Up in the Air)
Quentin Tarentino (Inglorious Basterds)
Lee Daniels (Precious)
BEST ACTOR
Jeff Bridges (Crazy Heart)
George Clooney (Up in the Air)
Colin Firth (A Single Man)
Morgan Freeman (Invictus)
Jeremy Renner ( The Hurt Locker)
BEST ACTRESS
Meryl Streep (Julie & Julia)
Sandra Bullock (The Blind Side)
Carey Mulligan (An Education)
Gabourney Sidibe (Precious)
Helen Mirren (The Last Station)
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Christoph Waltz (Inglorious Basterds)
Woody Harrelson (The Messenger)
Stanley Tucci (The Lovely Bones)
Matt Damon (Invictus)
Christian McKay (Me and Orson Welles)
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Mo'Nique (Precious)
Vera Farmiga (Up in the Air)
Anna Kendrick (Up in the Air)
Julianne Moore (A Single Man)
Maggie Gyllenhaal (Crazy Heart)
BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
Inglorious Basterds
Up
The Hurt Locker
A Serious Man
(500) Days of Summer
BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
Up in the Air
An Education
Precious
Crazy Heart
District 9
BEST ANIMATED FEATURE
Up
Coraline
The Princess and the Frog
The Fantastic Mr. Fox
Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs
BEST ART DIRECTION
Inglorious Basterds
Public Enemies
Sherlock Holmes
Avatar
The Young Victoria
BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY
Inglorious Basterds
The Hurt Locker
Avatar
The White Ribbon
HArry Potter and the Half Blood Prince
BEST COSTUMES
Coco Before Chanel
Nine
The Young Victoria
Sherlock Holmes
Julie & Julia
BEST EDITING
The Hurt Locker
Avatar
Star Trek
Inglorious Basterds
District 9
BEST MAKEUP
District 9
Star Trek
The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus
BEST ORIGINAL SCORE
The Informant!
Up
Sherlock Holmes
Avatar
The Fantastic Mr. Fox
BEST ORIGINAL SONG
"The Weary Kind" (Crazy Heart)
"Down in New Orleans" (The Princess and the Frog)
"I See You" (Avatar)
"You've Got Me Wrapped Around Your Little Finger" (An Education)
"(I Want To) Come Home" (Everybody's Fine)
BEST SOUND EDITING
Avatar
The Hurt Locker
Star Trek
Transformers 2
2012
BEST SOUND MIXING
Avatar
The Hurt Locker
Star Trek
District 9
Up
BEST VISUAL EFFECTS
Avatar
District 9
Where The Wild Things Are
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Sunday 1/24/10
WHY I DON'T WATCH IDOL
I watched American Idol regularly for a few seasons. And the basic formula, in which only one singer is cut per week, is brillant because it invites rooting interests. That part of the formula still works.
But they lost me after the season Jordin Sparks. She was not the most talented singer that seaon. But she was the most marketable, and the not so subtle hands of the producers trying to get the winner they wanted, one year after having been stuck with a winner they hated in Taylor Hicks.
Honestly, that wasn't the main reason they lost me. I actually tried to watch the next season, and threw in the towel after half an hour. And I haven't been back. And the reason is on display right now.
In the Jordin season, there just wasn't as much fun throughout the season. And the reason was simple: the groundwork hadn't been laid. The opening episodes, in the tryouts, should be the establishment of the future stars. At that point, showing the tryouts of most of the contestants who make it, as well as a few who don't but just miss, would make for interesting television.
Then in the Hollywood sessions, the raw talent can start to shine, and the audience can develop its rooting interest. By the time the show is down to fan voting, the fans will know who they are voting for.
But we all know that is not what happens. Why do that when we can make fun of the pour untalented souls who dare to try out? There is a screening process to get to a televised tryout, so that make it even more ridiculous. They are sending through the weakest singers so America can point and laugh, and the judges can literally laugh.
This is high school behavior. The popular rich kids can sit on their butts and laugh at the others daring to gain their acceptance. So American Idol turns its first few episodes into insultfests, the real contestants get no airtime, and by the time the fan voting rolls around no one knows the majority of the contestants.
Well whatever, but I got tired of the bad taste in my mouth. And a funny thing happened when I stopped watching: I didn't miss it. I still don't. I'll probably never watch again.
USING OTHER AWARD SHOWS TO PREDICT OSCAR
Some analyses of the Oscar nominations have Golden Globe winners having an influence. Not really. They are not a true indicator. No one who votes for the Golden Globes is an Oscar voter. So why watch? Because most of the audience members at the event are Oscar voters. How the audience responds is the indicator.
So when Mo'Nique gets louder applause than her fellow nominees, that is an indicator the stories she isn't handling her campaign correctly are hogwash. She is still the heavy favorite to win supporting actress Oscar. The clear indicator from the evening was the standing ovation Jeff Bridges received. He is going to win the Oscar for best actor. That proved he is an absolute lock, and is also an indicator Crazy Heart could be a picture nominee.
However, there is crossover between the SAG awards and the Oscars. Like all guilds, they are an indication of strong candidates. The big news from last night was Sandra Bullock's win. I had her as barely in the actress race. Clearly, I was wrong. She will be nominated. I still don't think she will beat Streep, but for now, the nomination is the thing, and Bullock will get her first nomination this year. And this is also an indication The Blind Side is beloved, and has a shot at a picture nomination.
I watched American Idol regularly for a few seasons. And the basic formula, in which only one singer is cut per week, is brillant because it invites rooting interests. That part of the formula still works.
But they lost me after the season Jordin Sparks. She was not the most talented singer that seaon. But she was the most marketable, and the not so subtle hands of the producers trying to get the winner they wanted, one year after having been stuck with a winner they hated in Taylor Hicks.
Honestly, that wasn't the main reason they lost me. I actually tried to watch the next season, and threw in the towel after half an hour. And I haven't been back. And the reason is on display right now.
In the Jordin season, there just wasn't as much fun throughout the season. And the reason was simple: the groundwork hadn't been laid. The opening episodes, in the tryouts, should be the establishment of the future stars. At that point, showing the tryouts of most of the contestants who make it, as well as a few who don't but just miss, would make for interesting television.
Then in the Hollywood sessions, the raw talent can start to shine, and the audience can develop its rooting interest. By the time the show is down to fan voting, the fans will know who they are voting for.
But we all know that is not what happens. Why do that when we can make fun of the pour untalented souls who dare to try out? There is a screening process to get to a televised tryout, so that make it even more ridiculous. They are sending through the weakest singers so America can point and laugh, and the judges can literally laugh.
This is high school behavior. The popular rich kids can sit on their butts and laugh at the others daring to gain their acceptance. So American Idol turns its first few episodes into insultfests, the real contestants get no airtime, and by the time the fan voting rolls around no one knows the majority of the contestants.
Well whatever, but I got tired of the bad taste in my mouth. And a funny thing happened when I stopped watching: I didn't miss it. I still don't. I'll probably never watch again.
USING OTHER AWARD SHOWS TO PREDICT OSCAR
Some analyses of the Oscar nominations have Golden Globe winners having an influence. Not really. They are not a true indicator. No one who votes for the Golden Globes is an Oscar voter. So why watch? Because most of the audience members at the event are Oscar voters. How the audience responds is the indicator.
So when Mo'Nique gets louder applause than her fellow nominees, that is an indicator the stories she isn't handling her campaign correctly are hogwash. She is still the heavy favorite to win supporting actress Oscar. The clear indicator from the evening was the standing ovation Jeff Bridges received. He is going to win the Oscar for best actor. That proved he is an absolute lock, and is also an indicator Crazy Heart could be a picture nominee.
However, there is crossover between the SAG awards and the Oscars. Like all guilds, they are an indication of strong candidates. The big news from last night was Sandra Bullock's win. I had her as barely in the actress race. Clearly, I was wrong. She will be nominated. I still don't think she will beat Streep, but for now, the nomination is the thing, and Bullock will get her first nomination this year. And this is also an indication The Blind Side is beloved, and has a shot at a picture nomination.
WHOOPS
I thought I had published this Sunday evening. I came back to my Dashboard to start preparing my Oscar prediction piece and saw it had not published yet. Sorry.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Nine (2009)
Towards the end of the credits of Nine, there is actually a credit announcing Fiat, Alfa Romeo, and some other fancy car I'll never drive as the official cars of Nine. That was immediately after a credit declaring the official watch of Nine.
Sadly, that's what at the heart and soul of Nine. It was coldly calculated to win awards, and does not have any apparent reason for being. It would be easy to blame director Rob Marshall (Chicago), but the problems lie deeper than that. It's not directed particularly well, but even if it was, I don't think the film would have worked anyway.
Your musical is in trouble when its score is forgettable. I've not seen Nine on the stage, but I imagine some of spectacle comes across better live, and overcomes the music, which just doesn't connect in the head.
Another big problem is the way the numbers are put together. The camera hurls around constantly and there are quick cuts galore, making it far too much work to follow. It wasn't quite Michael Bay: the musical, but it was way too close to that.
Making matters worse is the structure of the film. Basically, the film consists of the main character, a great film director, unable to decide what he wants to make. The film cuts from his life problems making his movie, to the fantasy musical world, and often cuts back to the real world in the middle of the numbers. If the frantic editing wasn't making the numbers weak enough, the crosscutting is maddening.
The cast is uniformly good. They are giving their all, and all are in good voice. But with the maddening technique, the mediocre music, and poor editing, I found myself being pushed away from the film. Even when there were moments to admire, I just didn't care what happened by the end of the film.
And I felt the gears moving. Too many times it really felt like this was supposed to be Chicago, part 2. Problem is, since that overrated film, we have seen many musicals better than Chicago, let alone Nine. Let me put it this way: Nine is just good enough to make me curious to see it on the stage, because with all its success, it had to be better than this. Grade: D+
Sadly, that's what at the heart and soul of Nine. It was coldly calculated to win awards, and does not have any apparent reason for being. It would be easy to blame director Rob Marshall (Chicago), but the problems lie deeper than that. It's not directed particularly well, but even if it was, I don't think the film would have worked anyway.
Your musical is in trouble when its score is forgettable. I've not seen Nine on the stage, but I imagine some of spectacle comes across better live, and overcomes the music, which just doesn't connect in the head.
Another big problem is the way the numbers are put together. The camera hurls around constantly and there are quick cuts galore, making it far too much work to follow. It wasn't quite Michael Bay: the musical, but it was way too close to that.
Making matters worse is the structure of the film. Basically, the film consists of the main character, a great film director, unable to decide what he wants to make. The film cuts from his life problems making his movie, to the fantasy musical world, and often cuts back to the real world in the middle of the numbers. If the frantic editing wasn't making the numbers weak enough, the crosscutting is maddening.
The cast is uniformly good. They are giving their all, and all are in good voice. But with the maddening technique, the mediocre music, and poor editing, I found myself being pushed away from the film. Even when there were moments to admire, I just didn't care what happened by the end of the film.
And I felt the gears moving. Too many times it really felt like this was supposed to be Chicago, part 2. Problem is, since that overrated film, we have seen many musicals better than Chicago, let alone Nine. Let me put it this way: Nine is just good enough to make me curious to see it on the stage, because with all its success, it had to be better than this. Grade: D+
Monday, January 18, 2010
Boycott (2001)
Somehow, I've never seen this HBO film. (and oddly, not on my list of films to see) So when I saw it on the TV listings this afternoon, I thought it an excellent way to honor Martin Luther King Day.
It's a portrayal of the Montgomery Bus Boycott, as well as the birth of the Civil Rights Movement. The focus is closest on King and Ralph Abernathy, and how King became seen as the leader of a movement he really didn't start.
I appreciated how the film did not portray them as always confident or sure what would happen, but finding themselves as leaders as the movement continues. And I definitely appreciated the casting especially Jeffrey Wright as King and Terrence Howard as Abernathy.
This is quality filmmaking, and I'm glad I finally caught up with it. Grade: A-
It's a portrayal of the Montgomery Bus Boycott, as well as the birth of the Civil Rights Movement. The focus is closest on King and Ralph Abernathy, and how King became seen as the leader of a movement he really didn't start.
I appreciated how the film did not portray them as always confident or sure what would happen, but finding themselves as leaders as the movement continues. And I definitely appreciated the casting especially Jeffrey Wright as King and Terrence Howard as Abernathy.
This is quality filmmaking, and I'm glad I finally caught up with it. Grade: A-
The Lovely Bones (2009)
"It's stuffed full of Peter Jackson's typically dazzling imagery, but The Lovely Bones suffers from abrupt shifts between horrific violence and cloying sentimentality," -- Rotten Tomatoes
Huh?
"The Lovely Bones is a deporable film with thie message: if you're a 14-year-old girl who has been brutally raped and murdered by a serial killer, you have a lot to look forward to." -- Roger Ebert
What???
A day after seeing the film, I'm still trying to sort through my thoughts about the film, so I did something a reviewer is not supposed to do, which is read through several reviews. Yet no one seems to have seen the movie I did. Or at least none of the reviews I did.
Most of the reviews do not like the protrayal of the afterlife. Too many effects, so many visuals that are distracting. I disagree. Yes, its visual. But for me, the visuals were not distracting, they work. That's because always front and center is Saoirse Ronan. Screen acting is often in the eyes, and Ronan's eyes at such a young ages are amazingly expressive.
The other part of the afterlife that is different from what I saw is the tone. I've read reviews, like Ebert's, which take apart the view of afterlife that is too happy. Yet I did not see this vision as happy. Ronan's character is not jumping for joy. She is so wrapped up in grief she is unable to move on. This is not seen as a celebration.
Yeah, there are shifts, but horrific violence? Where? The main character is murdered, but it isn't shown. And cloying sentimentality? Don't see that either. There are problems in the film, but cloying is not what I was seeing.
These are not the biggest problems with the film. There is some odd shifts in tone, but in different ways than described by Rotten Tomatoes. Most of the film is about learning to cope with loss, and moving on. Ronan's character is struggling with it in the afterlife, and her family is too. With one basic exception.
That would be Susan Sarandon's character. She blows in from some bad sitcom somewhere, and its jarring. Nothing about her character felt real to me. She's slapstick and completely at odds with the mournful tone of the rest of the film. A real bad distraction.
The other problem took me a little more time to realize. There are several scenes that are too quick, too abrupt. I suspect the problems of trying to adapt a book that did not read in two hours are at fault here. In trying to get all the moments from a book, the filmmakers just tried to cram too much in, blunting the effect of some of the scenes.
That said, this film will stay with me longer than better made, less daring films will. There is much to recommend and celebrate about this film. The scenes of a family trying to cope and move on from an unimaginable tragedy are effective. The scenes of an afterlife that are tryuly stunning. And I haven't mentioned the work of Stanley Tucci, in a subtle performance as a tortured soul. Miles apart from his work in Julie & Julia. He has had a great year.
Flawed? Yes. Worthy? Yes. But I'm still trying to figure out what movie the other reviewers saw. Grade: B
Huh?
"The Lovely Bones is a deporable film with thie message: if you're a 14-year-old girl who has been brutally raped and murdered by a serial killer, you have a lot to look forward to." -- Roger Ebert
What???
A day after seeing the film, I'm still trying to sort through my thoughts about the film, so I did something a reviewer is not supposed to do, which is read through several reviews. Yet no one seems to have seen the movie I did. Or at least none of the reviews I did.
Most of the reviews do not like the protrayal of the afterlife. Too many effects, so many visuals that are distracting. I disagree. Yes, its visual. But for me, the visuals were not distracting, they work. That's because always front and center is Saoirse Ronan. Screen acting is often in the eyes, and Ronan's eyes at such a young ages are amazingly expressive.
The other part of the afterlife that is different from what I saw is the tone. I've read reviews, like Ebert's, which take apart the view of afterlife that is too happy. Yet I did not see this vision as happy. Ronan's character is not jumping for joy. She is so wrapped up in grief she is unable to move on. This is not seen as a celebration.
Yeah, there are shifts, but horrific violence? Where? The main character is murdered, but it isn't shown. And cloying sentimentality? Don't see that either. There are problems in the film, but cloying is not what I was seeing.
These are not the biggest problems with the film. There is some odd shifts in tone, but in different ways than described by Rotten Tomatoes. Most of the film is about learning to cope with loss, and moving on. Ronan's character is struggling with it in the afterlife, and her family is too. With one basic exception.
That would be Susan Sarandon's character. She blows in from some bad sitcom somewhere, and its jarring. Nothing about her character felt real to me. She's slapstick and completely at odds with the mournful tone of the rest of the film. A real bad distraction.
The other problem took me a little more time to realize. There are several scenes that are too quick, too abrupt. I suspect the problems of trying to adapt a book that did not read in two hours are at fault here. In trying to get all the moments from a book, the filmmakers just tried to cram too much in, blunting the effect of some of the scenes.
That said, this film will stay with me longer than better made, less daring films will. There is much to recommend and celebrate about this film. The scenes of a family trying to cope and move on from an unimaginable tragedy are effective. The scenes of an afterlife that are tryuly stunning. And I haven't mentioned the work of Stanley Tucci, in a subtle performance as a tortured soul. Miles apart from his work in Julie & Julia. He has had a great year.
Flawed? Yes. Worthy? Yes. But I'm still trying to figure out what movie the other reviewers saw. Grade: B
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Sunday 1/17/10
GOLDEN GLOBES
The goofiest, most corrupt award show is upon us tonight. And I wouldn't miss it. The story about the Hollywood Foreign Press and its general worthlessness is one I believe -- these are not real journalists, they are hangers-on to Hollywood -- but they throw a good party, and are usually one of the most fun of the award shows to watch. When trying to predict, there are two things to remember: the HFPA likes to think they are hip and are genuinely starstruck.
Picture (Drama): This is where all the heavy hitters of this season lie. Nothing other than Precious would surprise me here. Nothing other than Inglourious Basterds would disappoint me. I can't quite bring myself to call an upset here, so I'll predict the big hit: Avatar.
Picture (Comedy): No big hitters here. I'm really surprised The Proposal is not nominated. I'll predict the one film I see in the Oscar race, Julie & Julia.
Actor (Drama): Jeff Bridges in a walk.
Actress (Drama): I think that Sandra Bullock's going to win somewhere tonight. And with no other major stars in ths category, this is where it will be.
Actor (Comedy): Not only is Matt Damon a big star, but he was great in The Informant! So he wins here.
Actress (Comedy): As with Damon, Streep wins both because of starpower and ability. I think it is for Julie & Julia.
Supporting Actor: Christoph Waltz. Inglourious Basterds has to win womething.
Supporting Actress: While I don't think campaigning is as critical for Oscars, it is for the Globes, and I think it will cost Mo'Nique this award. Vera Farmiga will benefit.
Animated Feature: Up. Because it's Pixar.
Foreign Language Film: The White Ribbon has the most accolades out of this list.
Director: Here's where the want to be hip factor comes in, because a woman can actually win. In fact, I think Kathryn Bigelow will. Deserves got nothing to do with it (as one of her fellow nominees once said).
Screenplay: The big name here is Quentin Tarantino, and I think he wins.
Score: I think the retro score of Marvin Hamlisch for The Informant! has a lot of fans, and will win here.
Song: The Crazy Heart love works here, for "The Weary Kind".
I'm not going to go category by category in the TV awards, partially because I have never seen most of the shows, but I do think Glee is in for a big night.
THE OBVIOUS
I'm a big St. Louis Cardinals fan, so I have had several people ask my reaction to Mark McGwire's confession this week he used steroids. I made my peace with this fact five years ago, after he refused to discuss the past while testifying to Congress. It was clear to me then what McGwire said this week: he wanted to confess then, but his lawyers told him not to do it.
I also was expecting this story. When McGwire was hired last fall to be the Cardinals' new hitting instructor, I knew this announcement would come before spring training. I knew he decided it was time to face the music so he could come back to the game he loves. Now here it is.
To be angry at McGwire is to be angry at him because he was better than everyone else who was using (except perhaps, Barry Bonds). It is now widely believed steroids were all over the place in the '90s in baseball. How many people have confessed? Five, maybe? And everyone's angry at McGwire when he actually apologized? There are better places for my anger.
FOR EXAMPLE...
Roger Ebert just about nailed my reaction to Rush Limbaugh's deplorable comments this week involving Obama and Haiti. Go to his site and read it. I'll just add, ditto.
WHILE WE'RE TALKING POLITICS
What exactly is Fox News accomplishing hiring Sarah Palin? If you want analysis, this is not the person you hire. You hire someone behind the scenes at the campaigns who actually does analysis. Not her. I'm looking forward to her explanation of the best way to get rid of global warming is to cut corporate taxes.
I do have a question for Sarah Palin, since your answer for everything seems to be to cut taxes. Why did you go into government in the first place, if all you seem to be interested in is getting rid of it?
PERSONAL HEALTH UPDATE
No weight change. Blood suger at the doctor's this week was 163. Normal is 100. Though my daily readings are dropping after this latest medication change. Maybe there's hope for me yet.
The goofiest, most corrupt award show is upon us tonight. And I wouldn't miss it. The story about the Hollywood Foreign Press and its general worthlessness is one I believe -- these are not real journalists, they are hangers-on to Hollywood -- but they throw a good party, and are usually one of the most fun of the award shows to watch. When trying to predict, there are two things to remember: the HFPA likes to think they are hip and are genuinely starstruck.
Picture (Drama): This is where all the heavy hitters of this season lie. Nothing other than Precious would surprise me here. Nothing other than Inglourious Basterds would disappoint me. I can't quite bring myself to call an upset here, so I'll predict the big hit: Avatar.
Picture (Comedy): No big hitters here. I'm really surprised The Proposal is not nominated. I'll predict the one film I see in the Oscar race, Julie & Julia.
Actor (Drama): Jeff Bridges in a walk.
Actress (Drama): I think that Sandra Bullock's going to win somewhere tonight. And with no other major stars in ths category, this is where it will be.
Actor (Comedy): Not only is Matt Damon a big star, but he was great in The Informant! So he wins here.
Actress (Comedy): As with Damon, Streep wins both because of starpower and ability. I think it is for Julie & Julia.
Supporting Actor: Christoph Waltz. Inglourious Basterds has to win womething.
Supporting Actress: While I don't think campaigning is as critical for Oscars, it is for the Globes, and I think it will cost Mo'Nique this award. Vera Farmiga will benefit.
Animated Feature: Up. Because it's Pixar.
Foreign Language Film: The White Ribbon has the most accolades out of this list.
Director: Here's where the want to be hip factor comes in, because a woman can actually win. In fact, I think Kathryn Bigelow will. Deserves got nothing to do with it (as one of her fellow nominees once said).
Screenplay: The big name here is Quentin Tarantino, and I think he wins.
Score: I think the retro score of Marvin Hamlisch for The Informant! has a lot of fans, and will win here.
Song: The Crazy Heart love works here, for "The Weary Kind".
I'm not going to go category by category in the TV awards, partially because I have never seen most of the shows, but I do think Glee is in for a big night.
THE OBVIOUS
I'm a big St. Louis Cardinals fan, so I have had several people ask my reaction to Mark McGwire's confession this week he used steroids. I made my peace with this fact five years ago, after he refused to discuss the past while testifying to Congress. It was clear to me then what McGwire said this week: he wanted to confess then, but his lawyers told him not to do it.
I also was expecting this story. When McGwire was hired last fall to be the Cardinals' new hitting instructor, I knew this announcement would come before spring training. I knew he decided it was time to face the music so he could come back to the game he loves. Now here it is.
To be angry at McGwire is to be angry at him because he was better than everyone else who was using (except perhaps, Barry Bonds). It is now widely believed steroids were all over the place in the '90s in baseball. How many people have confessed? Five, maybe? And everyone's angry at McGwire when he actually apologized? There are better places for my anger.
FOR EXAMPLE...
Roger Ebert just about nailed my reaction to Rush Limbaugh's deplorable comments this week involving Obama and Haiti. Go to his site and read it. I'll just add, ditto.
WHILE WE'RE TALKING POLITICS
What exactly is Fox News accomplishing hiring Sarah Palin? If you want analysis, this is not the person you hire. You hire someone behind the scenes at the campaigns who actually does analysis. Not her. I'm looking forward to her explanation of the best way to get rid of global warming is to cut corporate taxes.
I do have a question for Sarah Palin, since your answer for everything seems to be to cut taxes. Why did you go into government in the first place, if all you seem to be interested in is getting rid of it?
PERSONAL HEALTH UPDATE
No weight change. Blood suger at the doctor's this week was 163. Normal is 100. Though my daily readings are dropping after this latest medication change. Maybe there's hope for me yet.
Saturday, January 16, 2010
The Iron Giant (1999)
My son was supposed to go to my parents for an overnight last night. I stuck this in the machine to watch because someone has just given me the DVD as a gift and I was checking it out.
He got caught up in the film and never made it to my parents'.
This was Brad Bird's first feature, who then went and made The Incredibles and Ratatouille for Pixar. If you enjoyed those two and never saw The Iron Giant, you owe it to yourself to see the proof that the other two films' excellence is more than just Pixar.
Brad Bird just knows how to make a film. Grade: A
He got caught up in the film and never made it to my parents'.
This was Brad Bird's first feature, who then went and made The Incredibles and Ratatouille for Pixar. If you enjoyed those two and never saw The Iron Giant, you owe it to yourself to see the proof that the other two films' excellence is more than just Pixar.
Brad Bird just knows how to make a film. Grade: A
Kronk's New Groove (2005)
And speaking of silly...
(and ,e once again failing to work on the Disney list by watching a post-2000 Disney film)
This may be the silliest film to ever be made by Disney. It is straight to video fare, so it has a predictably uneven quality, with mediocre music and mediocre animation. But the voice cast of the orignal is back, and the gags are frequent, while ranging from throwaway, to pun, to downright inspired.
It is not great, and it sure isn't up to Disney Classic level. But with the level of comedy, it is better than most of the Disney animated embarassments. Grade: B-
(and ,e once again failing to work on the Disney list by watching a post-2000 Disney film)
This may be the silliest film to ever be made by Disney. It is straight to video fare, so it has a predictably uneven quality, with mediocre music and mediocre animation. But the voice cast of the orignal is back, and the gags are frequent, while ranging from throwaway, to pun, to downright inspired.
It is not great, and it sure isn't up to Disney Classic level. But with the level of comedy, it is better than most of the Disney animated embarassments. Grade: B-
Gremlins 2 (1990)
I am stunned this film got made. The first Gremlins was a delightful mix of horror and comedy, and is fondly remembered by many. But the second was a box-office disappointment, and doesn't seem to be as well remembered.
I showed the second film to my son last night, and he loved it. He didn't know about box office, and I had set him up with the words, "this one is more of a comedy," so he wasn't too surprised at the content.
It was as if Joe Dante decided that the horror template was just an excuse to go nuts. Adding in a genetic laboratory in the building the movie is primarily in was a further excuse. So here came anarchy. It's a jolt, just how willfully, agressively silly this film gets. It's one of those films that you catch new things on repeat viewings, and admire the work the filmmakers put into throwing out the rulebook and having fun. Grade: A-
I showed the second film to my son last night, and he loved it. He didn't know about box office, and I had set him up with the words, "this one is more of a comedy," so he wasn't too surprised at the content.
It was as if Joe Dante decided that the horror template was just an excuse to go nuts. Adding in a genetic laboratory in the building the movie is primarily in was a further excuse. So here came anarchy. It's a jolt, just how willfully, agressively silly this film gets. It's one of those films that you catch new things on repeat viewings, and admire the work the filmmakers put into throwing out the rulebook and having fun. Grade: A-
Watchmen (2009)
There has been a vocal minority which says Watchmen is not a frutrating mess, especially when watching the extended cut, which cleans up some of the storytelling.
I don't buy it.
Sure, an extended cut might clear up some of the storytelling, but the film's biggest flaws will still remain. Many have said the film starts with a great opening sequence. Well, the second bit with The Comedian's murder is pretty well done, but that was the second scene. First is a bit with President Nixon, which throws the film off track right off the bat. The impression -- I will not dignify this by calling it a performance -- of Nixon is terrible. If he wasn't called Nixon I wouldn't even know it was him.
The film repeats this mistake throughout the film, with terrible impressions of real people which only took me out of the action. Some of the impressions were so bad I just gave up trying to figure out who they were. But the impressions are so bad that they call attention to themself, because they sure aren't performances.
The musical choices are too on the nose. "The Times They Are A Changin'" is inspired for showing the alternate reality of these superheroes. But "The Sounds of Silence" does not work for a funeral, recycled Philip Glass for many of Dr. Manhattan's scenes, "Hallelujah" for a sex scene or all distracting decisions. And the decision for reusing the most famous music used in Apocalyse Now for a scene in Vietnam is flat out laughable.
And no amount of additional scenes will repair the uneven acting in this film. I'm looking at you, Malin Akerman. Never bought her as a hero. Plastic, plastic expressions at the wrong time. And even more frustrating, Carla Gugino would have nailed this role -- and she's playing Akerman's mother.
Matthew Goode plays the one emotion of smugness throughout the movie. Therefore, Ozymandias remains a type, and never a person worth following. And I've seen Bily Crudup be good before, so his whiff at Dr. Manhattan is even more frustrating.
There is a lot to like about this film, It looks great. Jackie Earle Haley is fantastic (the Rorsach scenes are the best by far), and I like Patrick Wilson's more subtle acting here too. Ultimately, I have to conclude this was too much for director Zach Snyder. This was a tough project to nail, and he made many poor decisions detailed above to make this a frustrating experience. Greatness just isn't achieved. Grade: C
I don't buy it.
Sure, an extended cut might clear up some of the storytelling, but the film's biggest flaws will still remain. Many have said the film starts with a great opening sequence. Well, the second bit with The Comedian's murder is pretty well done, but that was the second scene. First is a bit with President Nixon, which throws the film off track right off the bat. The impression -- I will not dignify this by calling it a performance -- of Nixon is terrible. If he wasn't called Nixon I wouldn't even know it was him.
The film repeats this mistake throughout the film, with terrible impressions of real people which only took me out of the action. Some of the impressions were so bad I just gave up trying to figure out who they were. But the impressions are so bad that they call attention to themself, because they sure aren't performances.
The musical choices are too on the nose. "The Times They Are A Changin'" is inspired for showing the alternate reality of these superheroes. But "The Sounds of Silence" does not work for a funeral, recycled Philip Glass for many of Dr. Manhattan's scenes, "Hallelujah" for a sex scene or all distracting decisions. And the decision for reusing the most famous music used in Apocalyse Now for a scene in Vietnam is flat out laughable.
And no amount of additional scenes will repair the uneven acting in this film. I'm looking at you, Malin Akerman. Never bought her as a hero. Plastic, plastic expressions at the wrong time. And even more frustrating, Carla Gugino would have nailed this role -- and she's playing Akerman's mother.
Matthew Goode plays the one emotion of smugness throughout the movie. Therefore, Ozymandias remains a type, and never a person worth following. And I've seen Bily Crudup be good before, so his whiff at Dr. Manhattan is even more frustrating.
There is a lot to like about this film, It looks great. Jackie Earle Haley is fantastic (the Rorsach scenes are the best by far), and I like Patrick Wilson's more subtle acting here too. Ultimately, I have to conclude this was too much for director Zach Snyder. This was a tough project to nail, and he made many poor decisions detailed above to make this a frustrating experience. Greatness just isn't achieved. Grade: C
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Sunday 1/10/10
WHO I READ
When I got married in 1997, my best man was Eric Robinette. We met when we were the two movie writers for the student newspaper at Wright State University. He is a journalist for Middletown Daily Journal, so he is a bit more refined while I am out of practice. Our opinions are remarkably similar, although he is MUCH higher on Stanley Kubrick than I am. And when we will disagree, you'll usually see so in his comments section. Here's his site: http://www.sircritic.com/
My hero is Roger Ebert. He needs no introduction. His site: http://www.rogerebert.com/
I will always treasure Owen Gleiberman for his lead for a review of Godard's Hail Mary: "While we are on the subject of sacrilege, why is it every time I see a Godard film I want to throw a brick at the screen?" He remains at Entertainment Weekly, and is part of a blog here: http://movie-critics.ew.com/
James Berardinelli is my favorite critic I discovered online. He is probably closest to where I hope I can go as a writer. His reviews can be found here: http://www.reelviews.net/master.html
Ain't It Cool got its reputation as a tips website, but I will check it because of a few writers they had. The best, Moriarty, has left the site and struck out on his own, under his real name Drew McWeeny. I agree with him less than anyone above, but his analysis is interesting. His pan of Old Dogs gets my vote as funniest review of 2009. He can be found here: http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/2008-12-6-motion-captured
Finally, after reading some really bad conservative Christian reviews for entertainment, I wanted to find a Christian prospective with intelligence, respect for art, and without well, the conservative attitude. I might not always agree with Steven Greydanus, but I know he will offer food for thought. His site is here: http://www.decentfilms.com/
These are the guys who I most enjoy for my film reading, although a lot of times just going to Rotten Tomatoes and picking a movie to read many reviews is my preference. What fun is the movies if you don't toss about many of the opinions about it?
NEVER MIND
Last week I wrote that Avatar was not a threat for Titanic's domestic record. I did not read the number correct. It is indeed a threat. If it passes The Dark Knight by the end of February, it is definitely a threat.
NEVER MIND, PART 2
I have decided not to do a best of list for the decade just completed. As I have read many other lists, I have realized there are just too many films I missed this decade for me to do a list that was anything but incomplete. So I won't. As for the end of the year list, there are two films left for me to watch, and I should complete that this week.
BEST PICTURE RACE
I stand by the top eight contenders I wrote earlier: Avatar, Up in the Air, Precious, The Hurt Locker, Up, Inglourious Basterds, Crazy Heart, and Julie & Julia. The question is what are the other two?
Nine has crashed and burned. Poor box office and poor showings in critics awards were bad signs. For me the final nail in the coffin was the failure to be nominated by the Art Directors Guild. This film looked to be a designer's dream, so this shows me too many Hollywood people are looking elsewhere.
I still think the Sci-Fi contenders, District 9 and Star Trek are hurt by Avatar, which will get more votes than either.and that they have to contend with each other. I still don't think either will be nominated for picture. So I fall back to An Education, a film I had previously stated was not as much a contender as others thought. I still think it is an uphill battle, but I am now predicting An Education to get a best picture nomintation.
Then there is Invictus. Box office? Mediocre. Critics? OK reviews, but not great. But it is directed by Clint Eastwood, and he is Hollywood royalty. He once got a small Japanese language film a best picture nomination. So I think he can pull this off.
One other note: Oscar voters are people too, and can respond to emotion as much as anyone else. The Blind Side has now made 200 million dollars by responding to people's emotions. While I stop short of predicting a best picture nomination, I would not surprised to see one.
MY FAVORITE SHOW IS BACK
Chuck kicks off its third season on NBC tonight. The second season was released on DVD Tuesday, so several episodes have been played in my house this week. Tonight's premiere is a major event for us.
Chuck is hard to classify. Is it a comedy? Yes. A drama? Yes. Action? Yes. The comedy, of a nerd thrown into the spy game, is what drew me in. But what probably has held me is the genuine affection for its characters, especially in the relationship between Chuck and his older sister Ellie. Its the best sibling relationship I've seen portrayed. There's a lot of silliness in the show, but the relationshios are real. It's a wonderful dynamic.
HEALTH UPDATE
Weight: 245. Ugh. Blood sugar still too high. Double ugh. Doctor's appointment Wednesday to see if the blood suger is better. Triple ugh.
When I got married in 1997, my best man was Eric Robinette. We met when we were the two movie writers for the student newspaper at Wright State University. He is a journalist for Middletown Daily Journal, so he is a bit more refined while I am out of practice. Our opinions are remarkably similar, although he is MUCH higher on Stanley Kubrick than I am. And when we will disagree, you'll usually see so in his comments section. Here's his site: http://www.sircritic.com/
My hero is Roger Ebert. He needs no introduction. His site: http://www.rogerebert.com/
I will always treasure Owen Gleiberman for his lead for a review of Godard's Hail Mary: "While we are on the subject of sacrilege, why is it every time I see a Godard film I want to throw a brick at the screen?" He remains at Entertainment Weekly, and is part of a blog here: http://movie-critics.ew.com/
James Berardinelli is my favorite critic I discovered online. He is probably closest to where I hope I can go as a writer. His reviews can be found here: http://www.reelviews.net/master.html
Ain't It Cool got its reputation as a tips website, but I will check it because of a few writers they had. The best, Moriarty, has left the site and struck out on his own, under his real name Drew McWeeny. I agree with him less than anyone above, but his analysis is interesting. His pan of Old Dogs gets my vote as funniest review of 2009. He can be found here: http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/2008-12-6-motion-captured
Finally, after reading some really bad conservative Christian reviews for entertainment, I wanted to find a Christian prospective with intelligence, respect for art, and without well, the conservative attitude. I might not always agree with Steven Greydanus, but I know he will offer food for thought. His site is here: http://www.decentfilms.com/
These are the guys who I most enjoy for my film reading, although a lot of times just going to Rotten Tomatoes and picking a movie to read many reviews is my preference. What fun is the movies if you don't toss about many of the opinions about it?
NEVER MIND
Last week I wrote that Avatar was not a threat for Titanic's domestic record. I did not read the number correct. It is indeed a threat. If it passes The Dark Knight by the end of February, it is definitely a threat.
NEVER MIND, PART 2
I have decided not to do a best of list for the decade just completed. As I have read many other lists, I have realized there are just too many films I missed this decade for me to do a list that was anything but incomplete. So I won't. As for the end of the year list, there are two films left for me to watch, and I should complete that this week.
BEST PICTURE RACE
I stand by the top eight contenders I wrote earlier: Avatar, Up in the Air, Precious, The Hurt Locker, Up, Inglourious Basterds, Crazy Heart, and Julie & Julia. The question is what are the other two?
Nine has crashed and burned. Poor box office and poor showings in critics awards were bad signs. For me the final nail in the coffin was the failure to be nominated by the Art Directors Guild. This film looked to be a designer's dream, so this shows me too many Hollywood people are looking elsewhere.
I still think the Sci-Fi contenders, District 9 and Star Trek are hurt by Avatar, which will get more votes than either.and that they have to contend with each other. I still don't think either will be nominated for picture. So I fall back to An Education, a film I had previously stated was not as much a contender as others thought. I still think it is an uphill battle, but I am now predicting An Education to get a best picture nomintation.
Then there is Invictus. Box office? Mediocre. Critics? OK reviews, but not great. But it is directed by Clint Eastwood, and he is Hollywood royalty. He once got a small Japanese language film a best picture nomination. So I think he can pull this off.
One other note: Oscar voters are people too, and can respond to emotion as much as anyone else. The Blind Side has now made 200 million dollars by responding to people's emotions. While I stop short of predicting a best picture nomination, I would not surprised to see one.
MY FAVORITE SHOW IS BACK
Chuck kicks off its third season on NBC tonight. The second season was released on DVD Tuesday, so several episodes have been played in my house this week. Tonight's premiere is a major event for us.
Chuck is hard to classify. Is it a comedy? Yes. A drama? Yes. Action? Yes. The comedy, of a nerd thrown into the spy game, is what drew me in. But what probably has held me is the genuine affection for its characters, especially in the relationship between Chuck and his older sister Ellie. Its the best sibling relationship I've seen portrayed. There's a lot of silliness in the show, but the relationshios are real. It's a wonderful dynamic.
HEALTH UPDATE
Weight: 245. Ugh. Blood sugar still too high. Double ugh. Doctor's appointment Wednesday to see if the blood suger is better. Triple ugh.
The Imaginarium of Dr. Panassus (2009)
How exactly does one review a Terry Gilliam film? His visual sense is one of the best around; his story sense barely exists. This is his baby, and he has brought into the world a strange film which seems to exist to be strange. The conflict involves an alternate world through a mirror that features the battle for people's souls.
The visions of the alternate world are pure Gilliam. Dr. Parnassus stays in a trance to battle the devil by trying to appeal to people's better natures while of course the devil offers the easy way out. These sequences are what is good about the film. Full of surprises and visually striking and entertaining.
But more time is spent out of the mirror in London, and those sequences are not as well done. The film takes too much time to get going, and the characters seem to be designed to be hard to know. So the film doesn't engage the emotions as much as I would like, or I believe as much as was intended.
The visuals, especially in the alternative world, are enough to recommend the film. But with reservations. Grade: B-
The visions of the alternate world are pure Gilliam. Dr. Parnassus stays in a trance to battle the devil by trying to appeal to people's better natures while of course the devil offers the easy way out. These sequences are what is good about the film. Full of surprises and visually striking and entertaining.
But more time is spent out of the mirror in London, and those sequences are not as well done. The film takes too much time to get going, and the characters seem to be designed to be hard to know. So the film doesn't engage the emotions as much as I would like, or I believe as much as was intended.
The visuals, especially in the alternative world, are enough to recommend the film. But with reservations. Grade: B-
Monday, January 4, 2010
Julie and Julia (2009)
I am on the record of predicting this will be a best picture nominee. And on a second viewing, I am of the opinion it should not be a best picture nominee.
There is a lot to love about this film. Meryl Streep doesn't just offer up an impression of Julia Child. She nails that forsce of personality. Yet a lot of the pleasure of this film is watching her relationship with her husband Paul, played by Stanley Tucci. Seeing the pleasure these two find in each other, and the support as each has their struggles, is the best part of the movie. Yes, Streep deserves awards. Tucci does too. And the chemistry between them is magical.
Julia Child was a larger than life figure. Julie Powell, as portrayed in this film, is not. I thought the contrast was a virtue when I first saw the film. Now I think differently. I found most of the Powell sequences ordinary. It is not that they are bad, but that contrasted to the rest of the film, they just aren't as fun. And I wanted to get back to the Childs.
And the Childs are well worth the price of admission. Grade: B
There is a lot to love about this film. Meryl Streep doesn't just offer up an impression of Julia Child. She nails that forsce of personality. Yet a lot of the pleasure of this film is watching her relationship with her husband Paul, played by Stanley Tucci. Seeing the pleasure these two find in each other, and the support as each has their struggles, is the best part of the movie. Yes, Streep deserves awards. Tucci does too. And the chemistry between them is magical.
Julia Child was a larger than life figure. Julie Powell, as portrayed in this film, is not. I thought the contrast was a virtue when I first saw the film. Now I think differently. I found most of the Powell sequences ordinary. It is not that they are bad, but that contrasted to the rest of the film, they just aren't as fun. And I wanted to get back to the Childs.
And the Childs are well worth the price of admission. Grade: B
Whatever Works (2009)
On a completely different note, this was the other movie I watched yesterday. (When your team is doomed, as the Steelers were, it's hard to get interested in football.)
If you don't find Woody Allen funny, this might not be the film for you. Although actually, it might be a good first film if you are not sure. It takes a little while to get going, but I was laughing out loud frequently in the last third once all the gears are placed in motion.
The timing of the entire cast was top notch, but I especially liked the work of Evan Racel Wood, who delivers repeatedly as a not too bright runaway who inserts herself into the life of the main character. And the humor is probably better appreciated if your politics are liberal, as Woody is enjoying bonking conservatives in the nose with a few of these characters. Like I wrote, I laughed a lot. Grade: A-
If you don't find Woody Allen funny, this might not be the film for you. Although actually, it might be a good first film if you are not sure. It takes a little while to get going, but I was laughing out loud frequently in the last third once all the gears are placed in motion.
The timing of the entire cast was top notch, but I especially liked the work of Evan Racel Wood, who delivers repeatedly as a not too bright runaway who inserts herself into the life of the main character. And the humor is probably better appreciated if your politics are liberal, as Woody is enjoying bonking conservatives in the nose with a few of these characters. Like I wrote, I laughed a lot. Grade: A-
Avatar (2009)
The people who have been criticizing the syory have missed the point. Yes, the story has amazing parallels to other films, most notably Dances With Wolves. But the story is not what makes it so amazing.
Avatar is an experience. And it is an experience unlike any other I've had in a movie theater. The depth of image in 3D and the lifelike wildlife convinced me while watching the film that Cameron's big budget wasn't spent on computer imagery, but on the cost of shooting on location on another planet.
This is a beautiful film, simply jaw-droppingly awe inspiring. Just the introduction of this world, with its native language and details of various creatures is well worth the price of admission. But Cameron established his reputation not just on visuals, but on his ability to tell a story. Every movie he has made is well-paced and exciting rides. He may not be the greatest dialogue writer, but his storytelling is really strong.
Does this raize the bar for everyone else in Hollywood? Yep. This decade has been filled with empty Hollywood spectacles, lots of big 'splosions without any sense of wonder. Ironically, one of the worst examples was the empty-headed sequel this summer to one of Cameron's films, The Terminator. Cameron has crafted a film with a sense of wonder and heart, and sends the empty heads back to the drawing board.
Or as one of my co-workers said to me today, "I saw Sherlock Holmes last night, and maybe it was just because I saw Avatar, but it seemed so ordinary." You are officially on notice, blockbuster filmmakers. Grade: A+
Avatar is an experience. And it is an experience unlike any other I've had in a movie theater. The depth of image in 3D and the lifelike wildlife convinced me while watching the film that Cameron's big budget wasn't spent on computer imagery, but on the cost of shooting on location on another planet.
This is a beautiful film, simply jaw-droppingly awe inspiring. Just the introduction of this world, with its native language and details of various creatures is well worth the price of admission. But Cameron established his reputation not just on visuals, but on his ability to tell a story. Every movie he has made is well-paced and exciting rides. He may not be the greatest dialogue writer, but his storytelling is really strong.
Does this raize the bar for everyone else in Hollywood? Yep. This decade has been filled with empty Hollywood spectacles, lots of big 'splosions without any sense of wonder. Ironically, one of the worst examples was the empty-headed sequel this summer to one of Cameron's films, The Terminator. Cameron has crafted a film with a sense of wonder and heart, and sends the empty heads back to the drawing board.
Or as one of my co-workers said to me today, "I saw Sherlock Holmes last night, and maybe it was just because I saw Avatar, but it seemed so ordinary." You are officially on notice, blockbuster filmmakers. Grade: A+
Proud son
http://www.readthespirit.com/explore/2010/01/592-10-new-years-resolutions-great-books-for-2010.html
Why am I including this link? Because one of these books was written by my father, Warren Copeland. I am so thrilled to see him get credit for what I believe is a great book.
Why am I including this link? Because one of these books was written by my father, Warren Copeland. I am so thrilled to see him get credit for what I believe is a great book.
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Sherlock Holmes (2009)
Yes, there is the level of routine with this film. Yes, the characters remain types and never become three demensional. Yes, there is nothing new.
But Robert Downey Jr and Jude Law are fun to watch together. And while director Guy Ritchie apparently knows squat about character development, he does know how to keep action fun. So in the balance, I was engaged at the climax of the film, so I give the film a narrow recommendation. But you can leave your brain at the door. Grade: B-
But Robert Downey Jr and Jude Law are fun to watch together. And while director Guy Ritchie apparently knows squat about character development, he does know how to keep action fun. So in the balance, I was engaged at the climax of the film, so I give the film a narrow recommendation. But you can leave your brain at the door. Grade: B-
The Emperor's New Groove (2000)
For the second film for my Disney list I ... wait, this isn't on my list. It came out this decade, in December 2000. So why did I watch it?
My 6-year-old hadn't seen it. I hadn't seen it for awhile. And I found a copy of the video sequel in a bargain buy, so I wanted to watch this before seeing the sequel.
The film may have had the most chaotic history of any Disney animated film, and it shows. But it has a goofy sense of humor that is hard to deny. Some of the ideas don't quite work, and the main character is a bit annoying. But then it hits, it can be very funny. The climax, undoubtedly the most ridiculous final battle of a Disney cartoon, and maybe the funniest, was rewound and rewatched four times by my son. Grade: B
My 6-year-old hadn't seen it. I hadn't seen it for awhile. And I found a copy of the video sequel in a bargain buy, so I wanted to watch this before seeing the sequel.
The film may have had the most chaotic history of any Disney animated film, and it shows. But it has a goofy sense of humor that is hard to deny. Some of the ideas don't quite work, and the main character is a bit annoying. But then it hits, it can be very funny. The climax, undoubtedly the most ridiculous final battle of a Disney cartoon, and maybe the funniest, was rewound and rewatched four times by my son. Grade: B
Gremlins (1984)
"They're watching Snow White. And they love it."
One of my favorite gags of that decade. This was the first time my 10-year-old saw this film, and he loved it. It is still the same great goofy film as always. Grade: A
One of my favorite gags of that decade. This was the first time my 10-year-old saw this film, and he loved it. It is still the same great goofy film as always. Grade: A
Sunday 1/3/10
My plan is to write Sunday mornings on topics which may not rate their own post, or something that interests me, and I will call it Sunday Scribblings.
BOX OFFICE
The story of the last month without a doubt has been the monster start by Avatar. The opening was very good, but the story is ridiculous holds since the opening, something not seen on this scale since Titanic. It has already grossed $300 million, and should easily pass Transformers 2 to become the biggest grossing movie of the year.
The next question is how well the film will do in the all-time rankings. I currently think that Titanic is safe, but The Dark Knight might be within reach. Both Titanic and Dark Knight beneifted from high repeat business. Will Avatar get repeaters. With word of mouth this high, I think so.
But it has less time to achieve the numbers. Titanic remained the number one film until March, and still earned $100 million after that. In Avatar's case, I think the bottom drops out on March 5, when Alice in Wonderland opens and takes most of Avatar's 3D screens. I can see the film over $500 million by then, but $600 million will be tough. This should be fun to watch, though.
Anyone who doubted James Cameron would deliver now officially looks foolish. Speaking of which...
BOX OFFICE NOT-SO-PROPHETIC
I love Box Office Prophets. It is one of my favorite sites to read. However, this is embarrassing. The site's preview of December is one they would probably like to forget. This was the predicted ten biggest releases and the predicted final grosses.
1. Avatar $177 million
2. The Squeakquel $176 million
3. The Lovely Bones $144 million
4. It's Complicated $133 million
5. Did You Hear About The Morgan's $110 million
6. Nine $100 million
7. The Princess and the Frog $89 million
8. Sherlock Holmes $73 million
9. The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus $65 million
10. Up In the Air $60 million
Let's take these one by one, shall we?
1. Avatar will be at about $346 million at the end of this weekend with no signs of slowing down. Whoops.
2. The Chipmunks will clear $150 million today. The predicted final finish of second looks to be correct, but the prediction will be low be a sizable amount. The first Chipmunks movie made about $210 million, and the second should end up near that figure.
3. The Lovely Bones' initial reviews are so mediocre the original widening of its release was scrapped. While it is too soon to say what the final figure will be, I don't see $144 million as a realistic goal. On the other hand, the buzz is reportedly that teen girls are now the target audience, and I can vouch for that: my 17-year-old daughter wants to see it badly.
4. It's Complicated's current gross stands at $57 million. While it has good word of mouth, this prediction now looks a little high, but reasonably in the ballpark.
5. Whoops. The Morgans should be at about $25 million after this weekend, and with three wide releases next week, should shed around half its screens.
6. Whoops. Nine has bombed. It has $13.5 million banked, and is not drawing in small markets and probably never will. Thirty million would be a pleasant surprise at this point.
7. Not bad. Tiana and friends will be around $85 million at the end of this weekend. They should end up around $100 million, so this prediction is reasonably close.
8. With a $65 million opening weekend, obviously this prediction for Sherlock Holmes is well low.
9. The prediction was based on the cast. The writer did not look at the wierdness of the film. When it opens in Dayton's arthouse next weekend, I am so there, but I don't expect this film ever to gain a wide release and make near this amount.
10. Too soon to tell, but I think this might be close. Up In the Air has about $25 million in the bank, but as a major Oscar contender should continue to do well over the next few months. Will it be a modest hit or a Slumdog Millionaire performer?
OSCAR ANALYSIS
Two pieces of analysis of note that I read this week. One good, one no so good.
Owen Gleiberman has an excellent piece of analysis on his EW blog in which he states this is the most symbolic race since 1994. That year, it was Pulp Fiction vs. Forrest Gump, which was a brash independent film against traditional Hollywood filmmaking. This year, he writes it is Avatar vs. Up in the Air, which is new style visual filmmaking vs old style dialogue driven filmmaking. It's worth a read.
Tom O'Neil, on the other hand, is going to look foolish with his insisting that Inglourious Basterds is going to win. My main complaint with this piece is that he misses the most important point: the film is not good enough. The title characters are indistinct, and there is no weight to the film.
Also, the number of nominations a film receives has little to do with weather or not it wins the big prize. We are just a couple of years away from when Dreamgirls led the nominations and did not even get a picture nomination. I think Gleiberman has it right, it is Avatar vs Up in the Air.
THE LAST WEEK AND THE NEXT MONTH
I've had the week between Christmas and New Year's off for the first time since 1994. If you reread my very first post, you know my employer is short on funding. So the agency has been closed since Christmas, and reopens tomorrow. Since no one was there to do last week's work, it should be a bit chaotic tomorrow.
I've seen a lot of movies this week, and still have several to write about. Many have been family oriented, as most films watched have been with some combination of my kids. I can't remember watching this many movies in a week since I worked at the video store.
My plan is to post a top ten list for 2009, and for the decade just completed as well. I still have about five films to watch before posting the 2009 list, most importantly Avatar, which I should see today. Then I have about 5 more films from the decade I want to watch before completing that list. My current goal is to post the 2009 list by the 15th and the decade list by the end of January. We shall see...
FITNESS REPORT
I am setting no goals for weight loss this year, but simply to stay focused on losing some. My weigh-in this morning was 245 pounds. My Wii Fit is complaining I need to do more. And there is some dust on my exercise bike. My goal is simply to do something on this front, which in 2009? Not so much,
BOX OFFICE
The story of the last month without a doubt has been the monster start by Avatar. The opening was very good, but the story is ridiculous holds since the opening, something not seen on this scale since Titanic. It has already grossed $300 million, and should easily pass Transformers 2 to become the biggest grossing movie of the year.
The next question is how well the film will do in the all-time rankings. I currently think that Titanic is safe, but The Dark Knight might be within reach. Both Titanic and Dark Knight beneifted from high repeat business. Will Avatar get repeaters. With word of mouth this high, I think so.
But it has less time to achieve the numbers. Titanic remained the number one film until March, and still earned $100 million after that. In Avatar's case, I think the bottom drops out on March 5, when Alice in Wonderland opens and takes most of Avatar's 3D screens. I can see the film over $500 million by then, but $600 million will be tough. This should be fun to watch, though.
Anyone who doubted James Cameron would deliver now officially looks foolish. Speaking of which...
BOX OFFICE NOT-SO-PROPHETIC
I love Box Office Prophets. It is one of my favorite sites to read. However, this is embarrassing. The site's preview of December is one they would probably like to forget. This was the predicted ten biggest releases and the predicted final grosses.
1. Avatar $177 million
2. The Squeakquel $176 million
3. The Lovely Bones $144 million
4. It's Complicated $133 million
5. Did You Hear About The Morgan's $110 million
6. Nine $100 million
7. The Princess and the Frog $89 million
8. Sherlock Holmes $73 million
9. The Imaginarium of Dr. Parnassus $65 million
10. Up In the Air $60 million
Let's take these one by one, shall we?
1. Avatar will be at about $346 million at the end of this weekend with no signs of slowing down. Whoops.
2. The Chipmunks will clear $150 million today. The predicted final finish of second looks to be correct, but the prediction will be low be a sizable amount. The first Chipmunks movie made about $210 million, and the second should end up near that figure.
3. The Lovely Bones' initial reviews are so mediocre the original widening of its release was scrapped. While it is too soon to say what the final figure will be, I don't see $144 million as a realistic goal. On the other hand, the buzz is reportedly that teen girls are now the target audience, and I can vouch for that: my 17-year-old daughter wants to see it badly.
4. It's Complicated's current gross stands at $57 million. While it has good word of mouth, this prediction now looks a little high, but reasonably in the ballpark.
5. Whoops. The Morgans should be at about $25 million after this weekend, and with three wide releases next week, should shed around half its screens.
6. Whoops. Nine has bombed. It has $13.5 million banked, and is not drawing in small markets and probably never will. Thirty million would be a pleasant surprise at this point.
7. Not bad. Tiana and friends will be around $85 million at the end of this weekend. They should end up around $100 million, so this prediction is reasonably close.
8. With a $65 million opening weekend, obviously this prediction for Sherlock Holmes is well low.
9. The prediction was based on the cast. The writer did not look at the wierdness of the film. When it opens in Dayton's arthouse next weekend, I am so there, but I don't expect this film ever to gain a wide release and make near this amount.
10. Too soon to tell, but I think this might be close. Up In the Air has about $25 million in the bank, but as a major Oscar contender should continue to do well over the next few months. Will it be a modest hit or a Slumdog Millionaire performer?
OSCAR ANALYSIS
Two pieces of analysis of note that I read this week. One good, one no so good.
Owen Gleiberman has an excellent piece of analysis on his EW blog in which he states this is the most symbolic race since 1994. That year, it was Pulp Fiction vs. Forrest Gump, which was a brash independent film against traditional Hollywood filmmaking. This year, he writes it is Avatar vs. Up in the Air, which is new style visual filmmaking vs old style dialogue driven filmmaking. It's worth a read.
Tom O'Neil, on the other hand, is going to look foolish with his insisting that Inglourious Basterds is going to win. My main complaint with this piece is that he misses the most important point: the film is not good enough. The title characters are indistinct, and there is no weight to the film.
Also, the number of nominations a film receives has little to do with weather or not it wins the big prize. We are just a couple of years away from when Dreamgirls led the nominations and did not even get a picture nomination. I think Gleiberman has it right, it is Avatar vs Up in the Air.
THE LAST WEEK AND THE NEXT MONTH
I've had the week between Christmas and New Year's off for the first time since 1994. If you reread my very first post, you know my employer is short on funding. So the agency has been closed since Christmas, and reopens tomorrow. Since no one was there to do last week's work, it should be a bit chaotic tomorrow.
I've seen a lot of movies this week, and still have several to write about. Many have been family oriented, as most films watched have been with some combination of my kids. I can't remember watching this many movies in a week since I worked at the video store.
My plan is to post a top ten list for 2009, and for the decade just completed as well. I still have about five films to watch before posting the 2009 list, most importantly Avatar, which I should see today. Then I have about 5 more films from the decade I want to watch before completing that list. My current goal is to post the 2009 list by the 15th and the decade list by the end of January. We shall see...
FITNESS REPORT
I am setting no goals for weight loss this year, but simply to stay focused on losing some. My weigh-in this morning was 245 pounds. My Wii Fit is complaining I need to do more. And there is some dust on my exercise bike. My goal is simply to do something on this front, which in 2009? Not so much,
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Fantasia 2000 (uh...2000)
Yesterday to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the release of Fantasia 200, I pulled out my VHS copy and rewatched it. It still holds up. Fantasia is to me one of the greatest achievements in cinema history, and this is an excellent follow-up.
The basic idea of Fantasia is to replicate a symphony concert, but to add images. My main complaint about Fantasia 2000 is that is too much refective of our ADD times. The sequences are too short. I love the flamingos and the yo-yo, but only a minute and a half?
But every sequence does work. And when my main compaint is that I want the sequences to be longer, well, that means the movie works. Seeing this film in IMAX (twice) was one of my true movie-going pleasures of 2000. It is still a great pleasure today. Grade: A
The basic idea of Fantasia is to replicate a symphony concert, but to add images. My main complaint about Fantasia 2000 is that is too much refective of our ADD times. The sequences are too short. I love the flamingos and the yo-yo, but only a minute and a half?
But every sequence does work. And when my main compaint is that I want the sequences to be longer, well, that means the movie works. Seeing this film in IMAX (twice) was one of my true movie-going pleasures of 2000. It is still a great pleasure today. Grade: A
Friday, January 1, 2010
The Disney List
One of my reasons for starting this blog was to provide myself more focus when attempting to watch more films on my movie lists. One of those lists is based on Leonard Maltin's book The Disney Films. I've wanted to try and watch as many of those films as possible.
Using the book, I have found 236 feature films by Disney from the beginning (Snow White) until January 1, 2000 (Fantasia: 2000). My other movie lists have left them out so that this list would be seperate. Unlike the other lists, this includes the films I have seen, but my goal is to watch as many as possible, so I can sure them with my children while visiting and revisiting them myself.
Any films watched before this date do not count. I have reset my list and started today -- with the last film on my list.
Using the book, I have found 236 feature films by Disney from the beginning (Snow White) until January 1, 2000 (Fantasia: 2000). My other movie lists have left them out so that this list would be seperate. Unlike the other lists, this includes the films I have seen, but my goal is to watch as many as possible, so I can sure them with my children while visiting and revisiting them myself.
Any films watched before this date do not count. I have reset my list and started today -- with the last film on my list.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
