Sunday, November 8, 2015
The Peanuts Movie (2015)
Blue Sky did the best job to date in getting Dr. Seuss right with Horton Hears a Who. Likewise, they have constructed an absolute valentine to the work of Charles Shulz in The Peanuts Movie. The film breaks no new ground. It doesn't have to. It captures what makes Peanuts great. Grade: B+
Sunday 11/8/15
Hey Jose Cuervo, you keep running an ad bragging that The Rolling Stones brought you on tour in 1972. Do you realize that "Miss You" which plays on the ad, did not get released until 1978?
*********
Actual promo on ABC yesterday. "at 3:30 Florida State at Clemson, brought to you by Kay Jewelers, followed at 8:00 with Minnesota at Ohio State, brought to you by Wal-Mart." Trying to tell us something with the sponsors?
*********
I am enjoying this season of Amazing Race more than any I can remember. I am sure part of it is not dealing with that stupid Blind Date premise of the previous season. The primary reason is the casting of Justin and Diana. Justin is loud and obnoxious. He also is a huge fan of the show, smart and very, very good at this game. Watching other teams reactions to him and getting flustered at Justin's confidence. It's truly entertaining and I can't wait to see how it comes out.
*********
Actual promo on ABC yesterday. "at 3:30 Florida State at Clemson, brought to you by Kay Jewelers, followed at 8:00 with Minnesota at Ohio State, brought to you by Wal-Mart." Trying to tell us something with the sponsors?
*********
I am enjoying this season of Amazing Race more than any I can remember. I am sure part of it is not dealing with that stupid Blind Date premise of the previous season. The primary reason is the casting of Justin and Diana. Justin is loud and obnoxious. He also is a huge fan of the show, smart and very, very good at this game. Watching other teams reactions to him and getting flustered at Justin's confidence. It's truly entertaining and I can't wait to see how it comes out.
Valerie and Her Week of Wonders (1970)
How does one describe the indescribable? This is not a logical film. I believe it to be a fever dream from the mind of a 13-year-old girl who is just discovering sexual urges. But that makes it sound much dirtier than it is.
What makes this such a unique achievement for director Jaromir Jires is that its main character is undoubtedly sexual in her thoughts, yet it never feels dirty. Instead, with its striking imagery and odd logic, it portrays fascination with erotic interest in a way I have never seen portrayed. Thanks to TCM for airing it. It is apparently hard to find, but hard to forget. Grade: A-
What makes this such a unique achievement for director Jaromir Jires is that its main character is undoubtedly sexual in her thoughts, yet it never feels dirty. Instead, with its striking imagery and odd logic, it portrays fascination with erotic interest in a way I have never seen portrayed. Thanks to TCM for airing it. It is apparently hard to find, but hard to forget. Grade: A-
Truth (2015)
This might seem a bit off topic, but I want to start by talking about my father. Here in Springfield OH, he has been a city commissioner since 1987 and was re-elected this week to his fourth four-year term as mayor. He was unopposed the last two times, and this year won re-election with 63% of the vote. He's been a pretty popular mayor. Yet the article about his election on the Springfield News-Sun website had comments such as these:
"Copeland, AGAIN? Please, someone put me out of my misery."
"What a shame. Springfield deserves better."
"CAN WE SAY TERM LIMITS?"
And this is for a popular politician.
There is a scene in Truth where the main character, Mary Mapes (Cate Blanchett) goes online and reads an ugly comments sections. The music swells, Mary gets emotional, and the words from the comments fill the screen. This is supposed to be one of the emotional moments of the film. My response was an eye-roll.
Seriously. This is a figure in news. There's a reason Honest Trailers in its Inside Out coverage referred to Anger, Fear and Disgust as "your average YouTube comments section". We are supposed to buy that a veteran news producer, who has been doing news work for years, who has just done what she knows is a story with political repercussions, is surprised by negative comments on the internet. Really?
I should be the target audience for Truth. I have an interest in journalism, and my political positions are liberal. Truth is about the CBS report in 2004 that George W. Bush went AWOL from his National Guard duties. Do I believe the story is basically true? You bet. Do I think the CBS team made journalistic errors in its report? That can also be true.
The film doesn't seem to get this. It is based on Mapes' book, and is completely on her side. The film seems to argue that sense the basic truth of the story is accurate that any errors can be forgiven.
This is a story that needs a subtle approach. Somehow I should have known that writer-director James Vanderbilt could not handle this. A writer with such quality scripts as Basic, Darkness Falls, and The Amazing Spider-Man was going to struggle with getting the story correct.
It's a darn shame. It's a fascinating story. The telling of it is always intriguing. The cast is incredible, not just Blanchett. Dan Rather, legend, is portrayed by Robert Redford, legend. Redford is able to carry himself with that amazing confidence that Rather has. I never minded that Redford doesn't quite look like Rather, because he got the attitude.
Two of the researchers, played by Topher Grace and Dennis Quaid, may the best thing in the film. Grace plays Mike Smith, the kind of guy who seems to see conspiracy everywhere. Quaid plays Roger Charles, a retired Lt. Colonel with a deep respect in the military. These two opposites earning each other's respect through hard work is the best part of the movie. Curiously, the third researcher, played by Elizabeth Moss, seems to disappear from the movie.
Ultimately, the film seems to exist as an indictment of how CBS News has become too beholden to its corporate interests to truly do its job. One problem with that conclusion: I already got that from The Insider, a great film.
This review comes out as a bit more negative as I meant. It is always watchable. But this is a topic which could have made a great film. It should have been a great film. Instead, it is merely watchable. It is a missed opportunity. Grade: C+
"Copeland, AGAIN? Please, someone put me out of my misery."
"What a shame. Springfield deserves better."
"CAN WE SAY TERM LIMITS?"
And this is for a popular politician.
There is a scene in Truth where the main character, Mary Mapes (Cate Blanchett) goes online and reads an ugly comments sections. The music swells, Mary gets emotional, and the words from the comments fill the screen. This is supposed to be one of the emotional moments of the film. My response was an eye-roll.
Seriously. This is a figure in news. There's a reason Honest Trailers in its Inside Out coverage referred to Anger, Fear and Disgust as "your average YouTube comments section". We are supposed to buy that a veteran news producer, who has been doing news work for years, who has just done what she knows is a story with political repercussions, is surprised by negative comments on the internet. Really?
I should be the target audience for Truth. I have an interest in journalism, and my political positions are liberal. Truth is about the CBS report in 2004 that George W. Bush went AWOL from his National Guard duties. Do I believe the story is basically true? You bet. Do I think the CBS team made journalistic errors in its report? That can also be true.
The film doesn't seem to get this. It is based on Mapes' book, and is completely on her side. The film seems to argue that sense the basic truth of the story is accurate that any errors can be forgiven.
This is a story that needs a subtle approach. Somehow I should have known that writer-director James Vanderbilt could not handle this. A writer with such quality scripts as Basic, Darkness Falls, and The Amazing Spider-Man was going to struggle with getting the story correct.
It's a darn shame. It's a fascinating story. The telling of it is always intriguing. The cast is incredible, not just Blanchett. Dan Rather, legend, is portrayed by Robert Redford, legend. Redford is able to carry himself with that amazing confidence that Rather has. I never minded that Redford doesn't quite look like Rather, because he got the attitude.
Two of the researchers, played by Topher Grace and Dennis Quaid, may the best thing in the film. Grace plays Mike Smith, the kind of guy who seems to see conspiracy everywhere. Quaid plays Roger Charles, a retired Lt. Colonel with a deep respect in the military. These two opposites earning each other's respect through hard work is the best part of the movie. Curiously, the third researcher, played by Elizabeth Moss, seems to disappear from the movie.
Ultimately, the film seems to exist as an indictment of how CBS News has become too beholden to its corporate interests to truly do its job. One problem with that conclusion: I already got that from The Insider, a great film.
This review comes out as a bit more negative as I meant. It is always watchable. But this is a topic which could have made a great film. It should have been a great film. Instead, it is merely watchable. It is a missed opportunity. Grade: C+
Saturday, October 31, 2015
100. Thirty Two Short Films About Glenn Gould (1993)
We are currently in a time where the traditional biopic is fading. Lincoln (which just missed this list) started a change. You can learn more about some figures by examining one period closely rather than trying to get every event into one film. The recent Mandela biopic shows how the old formula just doesn't seem to work, while Selma (which is on this list) is one of the examples of how this can work.
Thirty Two Short Films About Glenn Gould takes a different approach. While trying to tell the story of reclusive pianist Glenn Gould, director Francois Girard tried, well, every approach.
Does this film get deep into what made Gould tick? No. I don't think that was possible. But what it does is give a sense of Gould as a performer. The multiple approaches and multiple points of view give a rounded sense of what it was like to be effected by him. Ultimately, the film makes this list by giving a sense of the effect music (through this musician) can have on us all.
Thirty Two Short Films About Glenn Gould takes a different approach. While trying to tell the story of reclusive pianist Glenn Gould, director Francois Girard tried, well, every approach.
Does this film get deep into what made Gould tick? No. I don't think that was possible. But what it does is give a sense of Gould as a performer. The multiple approaches and multiple points of view give a rounded sense of what it was like to be effected by him. Ultimately, the film makes this list by giving a sense of the effect music (through this musician) can have on us all.
The End of the Tour (2015)
I remember in 1981 when Siskel and Ebert went bananas for My Dinner With Andre. A movie about a dinner conversation! As a 13 year old, I did not know what to think. When I finally caught up with the film, I was bound to be disappointed. I probably wasn't the right age to connect with the film. I need to rewatch the film now that I am in my 40s. I probably will connect with the film a bit more.
Now here comes a film detailing a conversation over a few days between reporter David Lipsky (Jesse Eisenberg) and author David Foster Wallace (Jason Siegel). I've been reading how fascinating the conversation is between these two, and all I could think during the film was that neither of these guys were remotely as interesting as Andre Gregory. Or his dinner companion in My Dinner With Andre, Wallace Shawn.
The early portion of the film is in nearly recent time which establishes that Wallace committed suicide. Then the film goes back to the few days Lipsky spent with him in 1996 on a book tour. We hear repeatedly how amazing the book is. There is no evidence provided in the film of the author's brilliance. There is no evidence of how he ended up so despondent he took his life.
What we have is a guy who lives in Illinois and goes to Minnesota and is fascinated with what snobs would refer to as low culture. But there is no insight provided. So Wallace comes across as a fundamentally decent normal Midwestern guy. I live in Ohio. I have conversations with fundamentally decent normal Midwestern guys on a daily basis. Those conversations would not make for a movie either.
I cannot describe how bored I was watching this film. Nothing happens. Nothing is talked about. The most interesting thing is that they go to a movie at the Mall of America. (The movie is Broken Arrow.) And that's the film. This is the most overrated film of the year. Grade: D+
Now here comes a film detailing a conversation over a few days between reporter David Lipsky (Jesse Eisenberg) and author David Foster Wallace (Jason Siegel). I've been reading how fascinating the conversation is between these two, and all I could think during the film was that neither of these guys were remotely as interesting as Andre Gregory. Or his dinner companion in My Dinner With Andre, Wallace Shawn.
The early portion of the film is in nearly recent time which establishes that Wallace committed suicide. Then the film goes back to the few days Lipsky spent with him in 1996 on a book tour. We hear repeatedly how amazing the book is. There is no evidence provided in the film of the author's brilliance. There is no evidence of how he ended up so despondent he took his life.
What we have is a guy who lives in Illinois and goes to Minnesota and is fascinated with what snobs would refer to as low culture. But there is no insight provided. So Wallace comes across as a fundamentally decent normal Midwestern guy. I live in Ohio. I have conversations with fundamentally decent normal Midwestern guys on a daily basis. Those conversations would not make for a movie either.
I cannot describe how bored I was watching this film. Nothing happens. Nothing is talked about. The most interesting thing is that they go to a movie at the Mall of America. (The movie is Broken Arrow.) And that's the film. This is the most overrated film of the year. Grade: D+
Sunday, October 18, 2015
100 movies, 1990-2014
So why do this list? Limitations.
I have read other lists of best films of all time. But the reality is that I graduated from high school in 1986. While I am aware of many of the films of the time before my adulthood, I am aware of too many films before then that I have yet to see.
Meanwhile, my favorite book has printed its final edition. I have purchased Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide every year since 1984. The last year it published was 2015, covering films up to May 2014. So this was the time for me to proceed.
I first started with a list from my graduation date. Instead, I decided to use the nice round figure of 25 years. Hence, 1990 to 2014. I started putting this list together a year ago. I only just found out that Entertainment Weekly is celebrating its 25th anniversary. This is just a coincidence.
I plan to do a post for each movie as a countdown. The point is to one by one, cover and discuss 100 great recent movies. Of course, the ranking isn't critical. Even making the list anywhere means it is in my opinion a great film.
I have read other lists of best films of all time. But the reality is that I graduated from high school in 1986. While I am aware of many of the films of the time before my adulthood, I am aware of too many films before then that I have yet to see.
Meanwhile, my favorite book has printed its final edition. I have purchased Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide every year since 1984. The last year it published was 2015, covering films up to May 2014. So this was the time for me to proceed.
I first started with a list from my graduation date. Instead, I decided to use the nice round figure of 25 years. Hence, 1990 to 2014. I started putting this list together a year ago. I only just found out that Entertainment Weekly is celebrating its 25th anniversary. This is just a coincidence.
I plan to do a post for each movie as a countdown. The point is to one by one, cover and discuss 100 great recent movies. Of course, the ranking isn't critical. Even making the list anywhere means it is in my opinion a great film.
Sunday 10/18/15
...and we are back. I've been without my own computer for most of the fall, and been doing some soul searching this year, so I haven't been writing. But I miss writing, and the best way to start writing is to start writing.
I have put together a list of the best movies for the past 25 years. But that is for another post.
I also plan to start writing about my other entertainment passions in TV and music. In music, I have a bit of obsession with the music charts, so that might inspire some columns. But let's talk about my TV interests. Here are the shows that interest me at this time:
I wrote a column earlier this year about the state of ESPN. I'm not sure I want to take that on further. It has gotten worse since that column. If it weren't for Pardon The Interruption, I'm not sure how much I could watch anymore. The air talent at ESPN is the weakest it has been since the 80s.
There are three reality shows I watch regularly: The Voice, Survivor, and The Amazing Race. I'm not sure I will write much on The Voice, as the singers are a matter of taste. I am fascinated by the politics of Survivor. And the more genuine competition of The Amazing Race is actually my favorite.
There are no current dramas that I watch regularly. One older comedy in The Big Bang Theory consistently makes me laugh, and as a longtime fan of The Muppets I have enjoyed the new show.
But for regular laughs, I look to late night. I have been a big fan of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert for years. I figured I would jump to CBS with Colbert, But a funny thing happen in the 6 months between Colbert leaving Comedy Central and him premiering on CBS. Larry Wilmore appeared.
So my loyalties stay with Comedy Central's shows. Trevor Noah is still finding his footing on The Daily Show. But the show kept its writing staff and some of his correspondents. Jessica Williams in particular in still comedy gold. The Nightly Report shows off Larry Wilmore, who has found his footing and is covering Jon Stewart's territory.
So that's TV. Now for the next column, back to the movies ...
I have put together a list of the best movies for the past 25 years. But that is for another post.
I also plan to start writing about my other entertainment passions in TV and music. In music, I have a bit of obsession with the music charts, so that might inspire some columns. But let's talk about my TV interests. Here are the shows that interest me at this time:
I wrote a column earlier this year about the state of ESPN. I'm not sure I want to take that on further. It has gotten worse since that column. If it weren't for Pardon The Interruption, I'm not sure how much I could watch anymore. The air talent at ESPN is the weakest it has been since the 80s.
There are three reality shows I watch regularly: The Voice, Survivor, and The Amazing Race. I'm not sure I will write much on The Voice, as the singers are a matter of taste. I am fascinated by the politics of Survivor. And the more genuine competition of The Amazing Race is actually my favorite.
There are no current dramas that I watch regularly. One older comedy in The Big Bang Theory consistently makes me laugh, and as a longtime fan of The Muppets I have enjoyed the new show.
But for regular laughs, I look to late night. I have been a big fan of Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert for years. I figured I would jump to CBS with Colbert, But a funny thing happen in the 6 months between Colbert leaving Comedy Central and him premiering on CBS. Larry Wilmore appeared.
So my loyalties stay with Comedy Central's shows. Trevor Noah is still finding his footing on The Daily Show. But the show kept its writing staff and some of his correspondents. Jessica Williams in particular in still comedy gold. The Nightly Report shows off Larry Wilmore, who has found his footing and is covering Jon Stewart's territory.
So that's TV. Now for the next column, back to the movies ...
Saturday, February 28, 2015
Oscars post mortem
At 11:15 Sunday night, I was tired. I wanted to get to bed. Only 15 minutes was scheduled until the end of the Oscars. Six categories left, so clearly getting the show done in time was going to be tough. Instead of rushing through the six categories, a lengthy tribute to a 50 year old musical began.
This is a slap in the face to those of us in the Eastern Time Zone who work for a living. I get up around 6 am. So I was in no mood to see Lady Gaga sing when all I wanted at that point is to know who won screenplay, director, actor, actress, and picture Oscars.
This was the third year in a row for the Oscars to be produced Craig Zadan and Neil Meron. It needs to be their last. These guys couldn't put together a good show to save their lives. Let's look at the good decisions they have made in the past year.
They hired Ellen DeGeneres to host last year.
That's about it. Meanwhile, I have sat through bloated overproductions with tributes to Dreamgirls, Wizard of Oz, and Sound of Music. None of which were nominated in those respective years. Two years ago I sat through the worst Oscars host in my lifetime. This year, I sat through a host who apparently had been stranded without a writing staff.
I love the Oscars. I love the guessing at the nominations, guessing at the winners (even though I had a tough year this year). But the show has been an endurance test for too much of the past three years. Enough is enough. Zadan and Meron must go.
This is a slap in the face to those of us in the Eastern Time Zone who work for a living. I get up around 6 am. So I was in no mood to see Lady Gaga sing when all I wanted at that point is to know who won screenplay, director, actor, actress, and picture Oscars.
This was the third year in a row for the Oscars to be produced Craig Zadan and Neil Meron. It needs to be their last. These guys couldn't put together a good show to save their lives. Let's look at the good decisions they have made in the past year.
They hired Ellen DeGeneres to host last year.
That's about it. Meanwhile, I have sat through bloated overproductions with tributes to Dreamgirls, Wizard of Oz, and Sound of Music. None of which were nominated in those respective years. Two years ago I sat through the worst Oscars host in my lifetime. This year, I sat through a host who apparently had been stranded without a writing staff.
I love the Oscars. I love the guessing at the nominations, guessing at the winners (even though I had a tough year this year). But the show has been an endurance test for too much of the past three years. Enough is enough. Zadan and Meron must go.
Sunday, February 22, 2015
Oscar predictions
Can we pause for a second to appreciate what a strange and wonderful award season this year has been? I saw The Imitation Game last night for the first time. This is the type of safe filmmaking that has been rewarded by Oscar in many years. Instead, the conversation is Boyhood vs. Birdman. These are two films which cannot at all be described as safe: a film that took 12 years to film vs. a film made to look like it is a single shot. That's a good thing.
BEST PICTURE
So who wins, Boyhood or Birdman? That's the question. Let's be serious. Any other film winning would be a historic upset. When the best picture race becomes this close historically it tends to get down to one thing: head vs. heart. Last year is an example. Gravity is a technical marvel. It won the most awards. But win it came down to the big award, the film that effected us emotionally, 12 Years a Slave, won best picture.
This year, with the unbroken shot, the technical marvel is Birdman. I think it will have a very good night. But the film that effects most people emotionally is Boyhood. So in what I believe is a very close race, I think heart wins the big one.
WINNER: Boyhood
BEST DIRECTOR
And lately, in the head vs. heart battles, head then wins director.
WINNER: Alejandro G Inarittu, Birdman
BEST ACTOR
I do not believe the attempted narrative that Bradley Cooper is going to pull an upset. One indicator I discount is this years SAG awards, because while Redmayne won actor, part of the reason is that Birdman won cast, so both men won. What I do believe is that this is an extremely close race between Keaton and Redmayne. Everyone predicting is grasping at straws.
The straw I am grasping is that this is a Hollywood award and this is the best chance to award a Hollywood career. Also, Redmayne is only 33. If his talent is real, there will be other chances.
WINNER: Michael Keaton, Birdman
BEST ACTRESS
The award was over once Still Alice screened in Toronto.
WINNER: Julianne Moore, Still Alice
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Good job.
WINNER: J.K. Simmons, Whiplash
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
The third acting lock of the night.
WINNER: Rosanna Arquette, Boyhood
BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
Two of these nominees are singular achievements by writer/directors. Inherent Vice did not amaze the Oscar voters. Whiplash did.
WINNER: Whiplash
BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
In a year with such unique Oscar nominees, there are three that stand out. Birdman and Boyhood, or course. This seems to be a place where a third amazing writer/director can be rewarded.
WINNER: The Grand Budapest Hotel
BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY
It appears to be a single shot. That make it impossible to ignore.
WINNER: Boyhood
BEST COSTUME DESIGN
The most distinct cinematic vision of the past 20 films has been the filmmaking of Wes Anderson. This is a good opportunity to reward that.
WINNER: The Grand Budapest Hotel
BEST FILM EDITING
Whiplash is cut in such a musical way. It could win, but I think the achievement of assembling 12 years of footage is too much to overlook.
WINNER: Boyhood
BEST MAKEUP
This tends to be most makeup. And does anyone recognize Tilda Swinton in my predicted winner?
WINNER: The Grand Budapest Hotel
BEST ORIGINAL SCORE
Alexandre Desplat is overdue, but he is double nominated and no clear choice between the two means a split vote, which allows a beautiful traditional score to slip through.
WINNER: The Theory of Everything
BEST ORIGINAL SONG
This is where the guilt for not nominating Selma in more categories effects a category.
WINNER: "Glory", Selma
BEST PRODUCTION DESIGN
The most distinct cinematic vision of the past 20 films has been the filmmaking of Wes Anderson. This is a good opportunity to reward that.
WINNER: The Grand Budapest Hotel
BEST SOUND EDITING
This does seem to always go the war film. Somehow it seems to be magical to place in all those bullet sounds! At least year it goes to a deserving film.
WINNER: American Sniper
BEST SOUND MIXING
This is the sound award that tends to go to musicals. While there is no singing in Whiplash, it is very musical.
WINNER: Whiplash
BEST VISUAL EFFECTS
The most fanciful visuals tends to do well here.
WINNER: Interstellar
BEST ANIMATED FEATURE
Lego Movie would have one. This win is by default.
WINNER: How To Train Your Dragon 2
BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE
Only one nominee seems to have gotten all the press and is the right feel of newsworthiness. Which seems to be more important then the fact it is also really, really good.
WINNER: CITIZENFOUR
BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM
Simply put, only one film is nominated in any other category
WINNER: Ida
BEST ANIMATED SHORT
"Feast" seems to be the frontrunner. But there seems to be an anti-Disney bias in this category, and there is a clear alternative this year in a beautiful allegory about bullying.
WINNER: The Dam Keeper
BEST DOCUMENTARY SHORT
Just as it seemed like the Holocaust dominated the documentary feature category for about a decade , the documentary short in the best decade has been dominated by Iraq War veterans. I'm going with the film concerning that issue.
WINNER: Crisis Hotline: Veterans Press 1
BEST LIVE ACTION SHORT
I'm taking the crisis hotline short here for a deferent reason. While the casts of the other four are all unknowns, this short stars previous acting nominees Sally Hawkins and Jim Broadbent.
WINNER: The Phone Call
BEST PICTURE
So who wins, Boyhood or Birdman? That's the question. Let's be serious. Any other film winning would be a historic upset. When the best picture race becomes this close historically it tends to get down to one thing: head vs. heart. Last year is an example. Gravity is a technical marvel. It won the most awards. But win it came down to the big award, the film that effected us emotionally, 12 Years a Slave, won best picture.
This year, with the unbroken shot, the technical marvel is Birdman. I think it will have a very good night. But the film that effects most people emotionally is Boyhood. So in what I believe is a very close race, I think heart wins the big one.
WINNER: Boyhood
BEST DIRECTOR
And lately, in the head vs. heart battles, head then wins director.
WINNER: Alejandro G Inarittu, Birdman
BEST ACTOR
I do not believe the attempted narrative that Bradley Cooper is going to pull an upset. One indicator I discount is this years SAG awards, because while Redmayne won actor, part of the reason is that Birdman won cast, so both men won. What I do believe is that this is an extremely close race between Keaton and Redmayne. Everyone predicting is grasping at straws.
The straw I am grasping is that this is a Hollywood award and this is the best chance to award a Hollywood career. Also, Redmayne is only 33. If his talent is real, there will be other chances.
WINNER: Michael Keaton, Birdman
BEST ACTRESS
The award was over once Still Alice screened in Toronto.
WINNER: Julianne Moore, Still Alice
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Good job.
WINNER: J.K. Simmons, Whiplash
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
The third acting lock of the night.
WINNER: Rosanna Arquette, Boyhood
BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
Two of these nominees are singular achievements by writer/directors. Inherent Vice did not amaze the Oscar voters. Whiplash did.
WINNER: Whiplash
BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
In a year with such unique Oscar nominees, there are three that stand out. Birdman and Boyhood, or course. This seems to be a place where a third amazing writer/director can be rewarded.
WINNER: The Grand Budapest Hotel
BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY
It appears to be a single shot. That make it impossible to ignore.
WINNER: Boyhood
BEST COSTUME DESIGN
The most distinct cinematic vision of the past 20 films has been the filmmaking of Wes Anderson. This is a good opportunity to reward that.
WINNER: The Grand Budapest Hotel
BEST FILM EDITING
Whiplash is cut in such a musical way. It could win, but I think the achievement of assembling 12 years of footage is too much to overlook.
WINNER: Boyhood
BEST MAKEUP
This tends to be most makeup. And does anyone recognize Tilda Swinton in my predicted winner?
WINNER: The Grand Budapest Hotel
BEST ORIGINAL SCORE
Alexandre Desplat is overdue, but he is double nominated and no clear choice between the two means a split vote, which allows a beautiful traditional score to slip through.
WINNER: The Theory of Everything
BEST ORIGINAL SONG
This is where the guilt for not nominating Selma in more categories effects a category.
WINNER: "Glory", Selma
BEST PRODUCTION DESIGN
The most distinct cinematic vision of the past 20 films has been the filmmaking of Wes Anderson. This is a good opportunity to reward that.
WINNER: The Grand Budapest Hotel
BEST SOUND EDITING
This does seem to always go the war film. Somehow it seems to be magical to place in all those bullet sounds! At least year it goes to a deserving film.
WINNER: American Sniper
BEST SOUND MIXING
This is the sound award that tends to go to musicals. While there is no singing in Whiplash, it is very musical.
WINNER: Whiplash
BEST VISUAL EFFECTS
The most fanciful visuals tends to do well here.
WINNER: Interstellar
BEST ANIMATED FEATURE
Lego Movie would have one. This win is by default.
WINNER: How To Train Your Dragon 2
BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE
Only one nominee seems to have gotten all the press and is the right feel of newsworthiness. Which seems to be more important then the fact it is also really, really good.
WINNER: CITIZENFOUR
BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM
Simply put, only one film is nominated in any other category
WINNER: Ida
BEST ANIMATED SHORT
"Feast" seems to be the frontrunner. But there seems to be an anti-Disney bias in this category, and there is a clear alternative this year in a beautiful allegory about bullying.
WINNER: The Dam Keeper
BEST DOCUMENTARY SHORT
Just as it seemed like the Holocaust dominated the documentary feature category for about a decade , the documentary short in the best decade has been dominated by Iraq War veterans. I'm going with the film concerning that issue.
WINNER: Crisis Hotline: Veterans Press 1
BEST LIVE ACTION SHORT
I'm taking the crisis hotline short here for a deferent reason. While the casts of the other four are all unknowns, this short stars previous acting nominees Sally Hawkins and Jim Broadbent.
WINNER: The Phone Call
Wednesday, January 14, 2015
Oscar nominations (the rest)
Best Adapted Screenplay
American Sniper
Gone Girl
The Imitation Game
The Theory of Everything
Whiplash
Best Original Screenplay
Birdman
Boyhood
The Grand Budapest Hotel
A Most Violent Year
Nightcrawler
Best Cinematography
Birdman
The Grand Budapest Hotel
Interstellar
Mr. Turner
Unbroken
Best Costume Design
The Grand Budapest Hotel
The Imitation Game
Inherent Vice
Into The Woods
Maleficent
Best Editing
American Sniper
Birdman
Boyhood
The Grand Budapest Hotel
Whiplash
Best Makeup and Hairstyling
The Grand Budapest Hotel
Guardians of the Galaxy
The Theory of Everything
Best Original Score
Gone Girl
The Grand Budapest Hotel
The Imitation Game
Interstellar
The Theory of Everything
Best Original Song
"Lost Stars" (Begin Again)
"Ryan's Song" (Boyhood)
"Yellow Flicker Beat" (The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1)
"Everything is Awesome" (The LEGO Movie)
"Glory" (Selma)
Best Production Design
The Grand Budapest Hotel
The Imitation Game
Interstellar
Into The Woods
Mr. Turner
Best Sound Editing
American Sniper
Birdman
Dawn of the Planet of the Apes
Guardians of the Galaxy
Interstellar
Best Sound Mixing
American Sniper
Birdman
Guardians of the Galaxy
The Imitation Game
Whiplash
Best Visual Effects
Dawn of the Planet of the Apes
Godzilla
Guardians of the Galaxy
Interstellar
X-Men: Days of Future Past
Best Animated Feature
The Book of Life
The Boxtrolls
How to Train Your Dragon 2
The LEGO Movie
The Tale of Princess Kaguya
Best Documentary Feature
CITIZENFOUR
Finding Vivian Maier
Life Itself
The Overnighters
Virunga
Best Foreign Language Film
Force Majeure (Switzerland)
Ida (Poland)
Leviathan (Russia)
Timbuktu (Mauritania)
Wild Tales (Argentina)
American Sniper
Gone Girl
The Imitation Game
The Theory of Everything
Whiplash
Best Original Screenplay
Birdman
Boyhood
The Grand Budapest Hotel
A Most Violent Year
Nightcrawler
Best Cinematography
Birdman
The Grand Budapest Hotel
Interstellar
Mr. Turner
Unbroken
Best Costume Design
The Grand Budapest Hotel
The Imitation Game
Inherent Vice
Into The Woods
Maleficent
Best Editing
American Sniper
Birdman
Boyhood
The Grand Budapest Hotel
Whiplash
Best Makeup and Hairstyling
The Grand Budapest Hotel
Guardians of the Galaxy
The Theory of Everything
Best Original Score
Gone Girl
The Grand Budapest Hotel
The Imitation Game
Interstellar
The Theory of Everything
Best Original Song
"Lost Stars" (Begin Again)
"Ryan's Song" (Boyhood)
"Yellow Flicker Beat" (The Hunger Games: Mockingjay Part 1)
"Everything is Awesome" (The LEGO Movie)
"Glory" (Selma)
Best Production Design
The Grand Budapest Hotel
The Imitation Game
Interstellar
Into The Woods
Mr. Turner
Best Sound Editing
American Sniper
Birdman
Dawn of the Planet of the Apes
Guardians of the Galaxy
Interstellar
Best Sound Mixing
American Sniper
Birdman
Guardians of the Galaxy
The Imitation Game
Whiplash
Best Visual Effects
Dawn of the Planet of the Apes
Godzilla
Guardians of the Galaxy
Interstellar
X-Men: Days of Future Past
Best Animated Feature
The Book of Life
The Boxtrolls
How to Train Your Dragon 2
The LEGO Movie
The Tale of Princess Kaguya
Best Documentary Feature
CITIZENFOUR
Finding Vivian Maier
Life Itself
The Overnighters
Virunga
Best Foreign Language Film
Force Majeure (Switzerland)
Ida (Poland)
Leviathan (Russia)
Timbuktu (Mauritania)
Wild Tales (Argentina)
Monday, January 12, 2015
Oscar nomination predictions (acting)
Best Actor
Cumberbatch, Keaton and Redmayne: all three have been in the conversation for the win since each performance was seen by the public. All three are locks.
Less sure about Oyelowo, but it does seem like a performance to award.
The other person who has been in the predictions list for a long time is Steve Carrell for Foxcatcher. But as love for the film fades, love for the performance has faded. Now there seems to be dispute as to whether his performance is supporting or lead.
Which has left an open slot for a surprise. The performance that has popped up in the precursors is in the film that has gained late, Nightcrawler. I am predicting a surprise nomination to that film.
Predictions
Benedict Cumberbatch (The Imitation Game)
Jake Gyllenhaal (Nightcrawler)
Michael Keaton (Birdman)
David Oyelowo (Selma)
Eddie Redmayne (The Theory of Everything)
Best Actress
The fifth slot is the tough slot here. Conventional wisdom has the race between two little seen films: Jennifer Aniston in Cake and Amy Adams in Big Eyes. Aniston has campaigned hard and I think that will be rewarded.
I will be shocked if any of the other four are not nominated, especially Moore, who is a near lock for the win.
Predictions
Jennifer Aniston (Cake)
Felicity Jones (The Theory of Everything)
Julianne Moore (Still Alice)
Rosamund Pike (Gone Girl)
Reese Witherspoon (Wild)
Best Supporting Actor
I have been telling friends someone would jump up and take the Duvall default pick. I'm still waiting... and I don't see anyone taking the spot.
I cannot come up with a good argument for any nominations but the five below.
Predictions
Robert Duvall (The Judge)
Ethan Hawke (Boyhood)
Edward Norton (Birdman)
Mark Ruffalo (Foxcatcher)
J.K. Simmons (Whiplash)
Best Supporting Actress
Stone and Arquette are in the big two films. The third biggest film is Imitation Game, and that's the third nominee. And Meryl Streep is the most respected actor alive.
Rene Russo has gained with Nightcrawler gaining ground, but...
Jessica Chastain was forced by contract to not mention A Most Violent Year while campaigning for Interstellar. Many know what happened, and I think she gained some sympathy. And I think most voter know which film they prefer.
Predictions
Patricia Arquette (Boyhood)
Jessica Chastain (A Most Violent Year)
Keira Knightly (The Imitation Game)
Emma Stone (Birdman)
Meryl Streep (Into the Woods)
Cumberbatch, Keaton and Redmayne: all three have been in the conversation for the win since each performance was seen by the public. All three are locks.
Less sure about Oyelowo, but it does seem like a performance to award.
The other person who has been in the predictions list for a long time is Steve Carrell for Foxcatcher. But as love for the film fades, love for the performance has faded. Now there seems to be dispute as to whether his performance is supporting or lead.
Which has left an open slot for a surprise. The performance that has popped up in the precursors is in the film that has gained late, Nightcrawler. I am predicting a surprise nomination to that film.
Predictions
Benedict Cumberbatch (The Imitation Game)
Jake Gyllenhaal (Nightcrawler)
Michael Keaton (Birdman)
David Oyelowo (Selma)
Eddie Redmayne (The Theory of Everything)
Best Actress
The fifth slot is the tough slot here. Conventional wisdom has the race between two little seen films: Jennifer Aniston in Cake and Amy Adams in Big Eyes. Aniston has campaigned hard and I think that will be rewarded.
I will be shocked if any of the other four are not nominated, especially Moore, who is a near lock for the win.
Predictions
Jennifer Aniston (Cake)
Felicity Jones (The Theory of Everything)
Julianne Moore (Still Alice)
Rosamund Pike (Gone Girl)
Reese Witherspoon (Wild)
Best Supporting Actor
I have been telling friends someone would jump up and take the Duvall default pick. I'm still waiting... and I don't see anyone taking the spot.
I cannot come up with a good argument for any nominations but the five below.
Predictions
Robert Duvall (The Judge)
Ethan Hawke (Boyhood)
Edward Norton (Birdman)
Mark Ruffalo (Foxcatcher)
J.K. Simmons (Whiplash)
Best Supporting Actress
Stone and Arquette are in the big two films. The third biggest film is Imitation Game, and that's the third nominee. And Meryl Streep is the most respected actor alive.
Rene Russo has gained with Nightcrawler gaining ground, but...
Jessica Chastain was forced by contract to not mention A Most Violent Year while campaigning for Interstellar. Many know what happened, and I think she gained some sympathy. And I think most voter know which film they prefer.
Predictions
Patricia Arquette (Boyhood)
Jessica Chastain (A Most Violent Year)
Keira Knightly (The Imitation Game)
Emma Stone (Birdman)
Meryl Streep (Into the Woods)
Oscar nomination predictions (Picture and Director)
Best Picture
One key to predicting is to look at how the preferential voting effects the choices. The key is that films need to be loved. They need to be the first choices, not the fourth of fifth choices.
The top two contenders in my mind are Boyhood and Birdman. Both are not like anything in the race this year or any other year, for that matter. These two are shoo-ins.
The next tier, in my opinion, are The Imitation Game and Selma. Both are traditional Oscar bait, well done true life stories. Hard to imagine either of them missing.
One other contender during the entire race has been The Theory of Everything. While I sense some fading around this title, the likely only film to gain both Best Actor and Best Actress nominations I think will still have enough to get nominated even though it is similar to The Imitation Game.
One film that seemed to be in the race most of the way is Foxcatcher. But it is a hard film to love. I think of the traditional films, this is the film that has gotten lost in the shuffle. I have moved it out of my list. While we are at it, remember when Unbroken was considered a favorite? There is such a thing as filmmaking being too traditional (and relegating the most interesting part of your story to an end credit crawl).
What has climbed the list and has come up in a lot of precursors is The Grand Budapest Hotel. What at first viewing is a slight entertainment has more weight, and has picked up steam.
The Academy is older, and old pros are valued. Clint Eastwood has about as much respect as any figure, and especially because he has not rested on his laurels. I think it is close on American Sniper. Either it just gets nominated or just misses.
For awhile I was thinking Into the Woods would slip in, especially as there are no musicals in the group above. But Whiplash is about musicians, has a musicality about it, and a you-gotta-see-it performance by J. K. Simmons. I think Whiplash has gained the musical slot.
Finally, I think there is room for one darker film. Most of the above films are uplifting in one form or another. For a long time I thought that film was Gone Girl. But what started as a performance to watch in Jake Gyllenhall has gathered steam for Nightcrawler. I think it has gained the last slot.
Predictions:
American Sniper
Birdman
Boyhood
The Grand Budapest Hotel
The Imitation Game
Nightcrawler
Selma
The Theory of Everything
Whiplash
Best Director
First, we go with the big two: Birdman and Boyhood. Both directors are in.
The next tier are less sure. I think The Imitation Game is the traditional well made film that gets respected. I am even shakier on Selma's Ava DuVernay, but I think she will be helped because of the history, that no black woman has ever been nominated. Plus she delivered, which is the most important reason.
The fifth slot is wide open. The director's branch appears to be big believers in the auteur theory. There is no prediction which I am rock solid on. I'll predict the auteur of a probable best picture nominee that has yet to be nominated.
Predictions:
Wes Anderson (The Grand Budapest Hotel)
Ava DuVernay (Selma)
Richard Linklater (Birdman)
Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu (Birdman)
Morten Tyldum (The Imitation Game)
One key to predicting is to look at how the preferential voting effects the choices. The key is that films need to be loved. They need to be the first choices, not the fourth of fifth choices.
The top two contenders in my mind are Boyhood and Birdman. Both are not like anything in the race this year or any other year, for that matter. These two are shoo-ins.
The next tier, in my opinion, are The Imitation Game and Selma. Both are traditional Oscar bait, well done true life stories. Hard to imagine either of them missing.
One other contender during the entire race has been The Theory of Everything. While I sense some fading around this title, the likely only film to gain both Best Actor and Best Actress nominations I think will still have enough to get nominated even though it is similar to The Imitation Game.
One film that seemed to be in the race most of the way is Foxcatcher. But it is a hard film to love. I think of the traditional films, this is the film that has gotten lost in the shuffle. I have moved it out of my list. While we are at it, remember when Unbroken was considered a favorite? There is such a thing as filmmaking being too traditional (and relegating the most interesting part of your story to an end credit crawl).
What has climbed the list and has come up in a lot of precursors is The Grand Budapest Hotel. What at first viewing is a slight entertainment has more weight, and has picked up steam.
The Academy is older, and old pros are valued. Clint Eastwood has about as much respect as any figure, and especially because he has not rested on his laurels. I think it is close on American Sniper. Either it just gets nominated or just misses.
For awhile I was thinking Into the Woods would slip in, especially as there are no musicals in the group above. But Whiplash is about musicians, has a musicality about it, and a you-gotta-see-it performance by J. K. Simmons. I think Whiplash has gained the musical slot.
Finally, I think there is room for one darker film. Most of the above films are uplifting in one form or another. For a long time I thought that film was Gone Girl. But what started as a performance to watch in Jake Gyllenhall has gathered steam for Nightcrawler. I think it has gained the last slot.
Predictions:
American Sniper
Birdman
Boyhood
The Grand Budapest Hotel
The Imitation Game
Nightcrawler
Selma
The Theory of Everything
Whiplash
Best Director
First, we go with the big two: Birdman and Boyhood. Both directors are in.
The next tier are less sure. I think The Imitation Game is the traditional well made film that gets respected. I am even shakier on Selma's Ava DuVernay, but I think she will be helped because of the history, that no black woman has ever been nominated. Plus she delivered, which is the most important reason.
The fifth slot is wide open. The director's branch appears to be big believers in the auteur theory. There is no prediction which I am rock solid on. I'll predict the auteur of a probable best picture nominee that has yet to be nominated.
Predictions:
Wes Anderson (The Grand Budapest Hotel)
Ava DuVernay (Selma)
Richard Linklater (Birdman)
Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu (Birdman)
Morten Tyldum (The Imitation Game)
Sunday, January 4, 2015
Foxcatcher (2014)
Every year, there seems to be one film from a big film festival that just doesn't match the hype. Usually that film comes from Sundance, but this year it comes from Cannes.
Foxcatcher is that film. The film plays like a funeral. There's no life to it. It drags. And drags. And drags.
I've heard this film is some kind of great dissection of American society. All I really got from it was something that I already knew: the idle rich have too much money and are accorded too much respect because of that money. Thanks for that insight, guys.
I'm not going to say this is a horribly made film. On a technical level, it is well made. Steve Carell plays the one note of John DuPont very well. But it is one note. Channing Tatum impressed me more with a much more complicated person as portrayed in the film.
Ultimately, this film felt like homework. Except I did not feel educated at the end.
Grade: C-
Foxcatcher is that film. The film plays like a funeral. There's no life to it. It drags. And drags. And drags.
I've heard this film is some kind of great dissection of American society. All I really got from it was something that I already knew: the idle rich have too much money and are accorded too much respect because of that money. Thanks for that insight, guys.
I'm not going to say this is a horribly made film. On a technical level, it is well made. Steve Carell plays the one note of John DuPont very well. But it is one note. Channing Tatum impressed me more with a much more complicated person as portrayed in the film.
Ultimately, this film felt like homework. Except I did not feel educated at the end.
Grade: C-
Sunday 1/4/15
I awoke this morning to the news Stuart Scott had died.
For me, Sportscenter's heyday on ESPN was in the 90s. Before the commercialization of ESPN led to stupidity like a 6 pack of questions brought to you by Coors Light, before management led to mixing up the teams and anchors so there was little connection of personalities, before ESPN had celebrities show up who don't have anything to do with sports events, there were two shows and four anchors who I loved following. Dan and Keith were on at 11, and Stuart and Rich were the late show.
The magic was not just the personalities that each of these unique anchors brought to the table, but that they were true teams. Dan Patrick and Keith Olbermann clearly made each other laugh. They entertained us because they entertained each other. Stuart Scott and Rich Eisen clearly worked together even though they were complete opposites.
I heard a lot of references to Stuart's lines like "boo-yaa" and of course "as cool as the other side of the pillow" but I really enjoyed his interactions with Rich, when they would say together "MMMMMillion" whenever that ridiculous number came up. Then they added Raul MMMMondesi" to the lexicon.
They guys felt like my friends, felt like guys I would talk sports with. It shouldn't be taken serious. It should be fun. There were references to Scott today and how he brought a hip hop lexicon to the sports, and that was resisted by many. There were some that attributed that to race, but I think it was more generational. Stuart's three years older than me, but he was the first anchor who felt to me like my generation. And last I checked, I'm not black.
Journalistically, I am supposed to refer to people by their last name. But Stuart Scott -- who I never met -- felt like a friend. I will indeed miss him.
*****
It says something on how ESPN has lost its hold on me that I did not find out about Stuart Scott through ESPN. I found out through my preferred football show in the morning, The Other Pregame Show, on CBS Sports Network. I then searched the internet, saw ESPN's excellent tribute {they obviously prepared for this) narrated by Robin Roberts.
ESPN drummed the personality out of Sportscenter, and it is much the worse for it. Rich Eisen bolted for NFL Network, and Dan Patrick basically was overworked until he had no choice but to quit (although his radio show is entertaining) and Keith Olbermann is back, although it is not on Sportscenter, but his own highlight show.
I would note entertaining personalities get me coming back, not more gimmicks. What shows do I continue to watch on the ESPN channels? PTI is number one, because of Tony Kornheiser and Michael Wilbon. Mike and Mike, because of Mike Greenberg and Mike Golic. And Olbermann. That's about it. All due to personalities.
And because of your obsession with the Yankees and the Red Sox, during the summer I've stopped watching Mike and Mike, because the MLB Network actually covers the entire league.
For me, Sportscenter's heyday on ESPN was in the 90s. Before the commercialization of ESPN led to stupidity like a 6 pack of questions brought to you by Coors Light, before management led to mixing up the teams and anchors so there was little connection of personalities, before ESPN had celebrities show up who don't have anything to do with sports events, there were two shows and four anchors who I loved following. Dan and Keith were on at 11, and Stuart and Rich were the late show.
The magic was not just the personalities that each of these unique anchors brought to the table, but that they were true teams. Dan Patrick and Keith Olbermann clearly made each other laugh. They entertained us because they entertained each other. Stuart Scott and Rich Eisen clearly worked together even though they were complete opposites.
I heard a lot of references to Stuart's lines like "boo-yaa" and of course "as cool as the other side of the pillow" but I really enjoyed his interactions with Rich, when they would say together "MMMMMillion" whenever that ridiculous number came up. Then they added Raul MMMMondesi" to the lexicon.
They guys felt like my friends, felt like guys I would talk sports with. It shouldn't be taken serious. It should be fun. There were references to Scott today and how he brought a hip hop lexicon to the sports, and that was resisted by many. There were some that attributed that to race, but I think it was more generational. Stuart's three years older than me, but he was the first anchor who felt to me like my generation. And last I checked, I'm not black.
Journalistically, I am supposed to refer to people by their last name. But Stuart Scott -- who I never met -- felt like a friend. I will indeed miss him.
*****
It says something on how ESPN has lost its hold on me that I did not find out about Stuart Scott through ESPN. I found out through my preferred football show in the morning, The Other Pregame Show, on CBS Sports Network. I then searched the internet, saw ESPN's excellent tribute {they obviously prepared for this) narrated by Robin Roberts.
ESPN drummed the personality out of Sportscenter, and it is much the worse for it. Rich Eisen bolted for NFL Network, and Dan Patrick basically was overworked until he had no choice but to quit (although his radio show is entertaining) and Keith Olbermann is back, although it is not on Sportscenter, but his own highlight show.
I would note entertaining personalities get me coming back, not more gimmicks. What shows do I continue to watch on the ESPN channels? PTI is number one, because of Tony Kornheiser and Michael Wilbon. Mike and Mike, because of Mike Greenberg and Mike Golic. And Olbermann. That's about it. All due to personalities.
And because of your obsession with the Yankees and the Red Sox, during the summer I've stopped watching Mike and Mike, because the MLB Network actually covers the entire league.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
