Just My Opinion...

Nine

2009-12-29T13:46:00.000-08:00

If you find yourself complaining about the price of movies today, there is one out there where you can plainly see your money on the screen. Rob Marshall (Chicago, Memoirs of a Geisha) and his Oscar-winning army present to you Nine; an explosion of light, sound, blindingly beautiful costumes... and not one bit of soul.

The story centers around "genius" Italian director, Guido Contini and his struggle to recapture his former artistic glory in his latest picture, boldly titled Italia. To help tap into his lost mojo, he revisits his muses, past and present, who have made him the man he is today. And you can bet that each muse comes with her own razzle dazzle song in tow.

The problem with casting top-notch actresses in a musical is that no matter how many awards they've accumulated, they're still not singers. I will be the first to admit that I'd take an actor-singer over a singer-actor any day of the week. But Nicole Kidman barely got away with it the first time around with Moulin Rouge and clearly, no improvements have been made since. This isn't to say that these multi-faceted and multi-talented actresses weren't passable as singers and that they didn't nail what little dialogue the script mercifully bestowed upon us. However, it says something when the musical numbers, meant to propel the story forward, are ultimately what drag it down. Even the best number (sung by the one true singer of the bunch) seems like a recycled take from "The Cellblock Tango" in Chicago. Clearly, Marshall has taken the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" approach in regards to his formula for musicals. The imagination performance in place of singing to one another in reality ultimately worked for Chicago because it was a new and modern way to present "the musical" to movie audiences. It would have worked for Nine had it not seemed like it was merely copied and pasted.

But songs, vocals, and pacing aside, the truly disappointing part of this film is how shallow and poorly written most of these characters are. As each woman introduces herself to the audience, with glitz and glam and forgettable melodies, you appreciate the fantasy of it all... at first. However, you eventually start to thirst for some anchor into the realm of authentic emotional substance which IS possible in a musical. Marion Cotillard adds the one piece of heart in her subtle and poignant portrayal of the loyal and charismatic wife of the "genius" who makes movies. But even her own journey's end seems hollow and somewhat undignified.

Unfortunately, the most unsatisfying character arc belongs to Guido. Daniel Day Lewis, in a role far more believable than his Daniel Plainview-I-drink-your-milkshake-scenery-chewing nonsense (and yes, I "got it"... thank you) plays the man that is WRITTEN for him, perfectly. This is a man that just about every woman has met, or will meet at least once. A man whose charm and talent breed allowances for a life of lies and transgressions and grey areas in the name of art and talent and passion. The story is nothing if not timely and -unfortunately- acts as a painful reminder of our current pop cultural and societal trends. In fact, it's downright depressing.

The director and screenwriter take a stab at creating a sense of empathy for this man once the inevitable happens and his worlds collide. They play with the notion that feelings and mistakes are human, which they are; "to err is human, to forgive... yadda, yadda, yadda." But how can you believe in a character’s search for redemption without ever seeing him truly pay the consequences? Well, as unsatisfying as it is, you don’t. The shallow depiction of redemption has him growing a beard and walking around town "learning from his mistakes" while everyone around him is actually paying for them.

Maybe that IS the truth that we're supposed to take with us. The truth that sneaks up on us while we were blinded by Dame Judi Dench's decolletage. "Genius" needs to reign free, to be allowed to tear things apart sans accountability and we need to be OK with cleaning up the mess. They'll live with their tortured "genius" minds and we, the lucky ones, well... we get to experience their art.

“Razzle Dazzled”? Temporarily. Fooled? Hardly.

Angels and Demons

2009-05-17T17:41:00.001-07:00

If I had to say which of the two literary Robert Langdon adventures is better- The Da Vinci Code or Angels and Demons- I'd say that Angels and Demons has a slight edge. Between the two movies? Well...I'm going to call it a draw.

I don't know if being the first movie drastically affected by the writer's strike had anything to do with the outcome of the screenplay, but if I were to come up with an excuse for the film, I'd fall back on that defense.

Granted, I will say that there is a challenge in compiling all of the essential information needed to keep the plot going from the novel to the screen. However, what we end up with is a screenplay full of answers and exposition as if the screenwriter was "just getting it done." Kind of like your half-ass attempt on that essay question at the end of an exam. You know, the one where you know your professor is expecting to hear a specific name, date, definition etc. to at least grant you a passing grade. And that's precisely what you give your Professor. Nothing more... Because hey, maybe you were out a little too late the night before or, in this case, maybe you're dealing with a writer's strike.

Although it was mildly entertaining, the bigger problems surrounding filming made it clear that the production as a whole was a headache that needed pass as quickly as possible.

The Watchmen

2009-03-13T22:17:00.000-07:00

I knew what the early reviews were saying so I thought that at the very least, my expectations would be low enough to be pleasantly surprised by any spark of interest.

The only thing I was interested in was whether it was possible to put a sleeper hold on myself. This movie was excruciatingly long and somehow the action sequences, which tend to speed up any movie, were almost as boring as each individual character's 45 minute back story.

One of the reasons why this failed is the same reason why a lot of horror movies fail; they forget to follow the golden rule. The golden rule is to wait until the last possible moment to show "the monster". The monster can quite literally be the monster in the horror genre or, in action, it's the big climactic scene where the esacpe/explosion/rescues etc. take place. This movie did not follow that rule. They prematurely showed the monster. Now before the geek boys come at me with "It's the Watchmen... they follow no rules... ooooooh.... it's a graphic novel..."

Just stop it.

With skulls getting cut in half, arms sawed off, pregnant women shot, "almost" rapes, bodies exploding... enough already; we get it. The so-called "line" was crossed so many times that you were completely desensitized fifteen minutes into it and nothing held any weight anymore. I was literally wondering if they were just running out of things to do. There was no momentum and no build towards the climax and what little investment you had to begin with was more than spent by the time these characters had their big final suit-up moment.

The music choices were jarringly weak: How many times can "The Sound of Silence" be used in films these days and still be taken seriously? The use of "All Along the Watchtower" was so heavy-handed that it was just lame... Oh, I get it! "All Along the WATCHtower" and we're watching "The WATCHmen" so clever. Attempts at humor in the music selection were pretty feeble and quite dated. During a scene where big businessmen are arguing over energy resources, elevator music covering Tears for Fears' "Everybody Wants to Rule the World" plays in the background... Ha... Ha....haaaaa.

The only commendable part of the movie was Jackie Earle Haley's Rorschach. Haley is probably most recognizable in his fantastic and subsequently Oscar-nominated performance as a sex-offender in Little Children where he played opposite Patrick Wilson and Kate Winslet.

I'm sorry to say that the girls in this flick get no credit in the writing department. Shocker. They are hollow creatures with uncomplicated minds that allow them to bounce easily between a radiating, blue nudist and a geek. I know in action movies girls are there to be rescued or to look good in leather and latex but at least Trinity in The Matrix did it with dignity and a brain.

This movie was awful and the only people who stand by it are the fans who have waited dutifully for its release... much like those who stand by the embarrassment that is Rent: the Movie. The best part of my experience was watching the newly revamped previews for Star Trek, Terminator Salvation, Angels and Demons and Wolverine.

It's too late for me but please, save yourselves.

60 Second Wrap-Up

2009-02-09T21:07:00.000-08:00

So it's been about a month since I wrote a full review. I spent the three weeks leading up to the Oscars doing nothing but seeing movies with some sort of nomination and then some for just dumb fun because, let's face it, sometimes you just want a cheeseburger. All this meaning I got a little side-tracked. So instead of taking weeks to do full reviews for every movie that I had seen in the past 30+ days, I'll give you the short version. My 60 Second Wrap-Up.

Frost/Nixon

I liked it. There's nothing bad you can really say about the quality of Frost/Nixon or most movies that Ron Howard takes on for that matter.

The two leads are great even though the big character actors with over-the-top performances get all the attention. He received the Oscar nomination, but I actually preferred Michael Sheen's Frost by quite a large margin. Nixon was almost at caricature status... the phrase "chocking on gargle" came to mind as I listened to his arguing. I know Frost's character is supposed to be the charismatic underdog so naturally you'd like him better as the David to Nixon's Goliath, but with Sheen I felt as if I were actually watching a man as opposed to a portrayal. The most important thing is that you walk out of the theatre really feeling wholly satisfied.

He's Just Not That Into You

It's good for a laugh even though it has some pretty contradictory morals and some painfully pathetic female characters. It's basically a movie where an audience full of women laugh, look knowingly at one another and mouth "I've sooo been there" while the unlucky handful of men who were brought against their will mime blowing their heads off with their finger in the shape of a gun.

I enjoy romantic comedies but I wish that a film that centers around women would give them a little more credit or at least common sense. Can they be smart but a little clueless as opposed to pathetic and clueless? Jennifer Aniston's character and storyline with Ben Affleck are the major redeeming qualities of the film. The only problem I had was that after the two characters make a pretty substantial argument against the notion that marriage is the equivalent a successful relationship, they go back on that logic and end up getting married. Oops. Sorry. When it comes to a romantic comedy with interwoven storylines see: Love Actually.

Paul Blart (for Sean)

There were a couple scenes where I laughed hard, as in the scene where Paul drinks for the first time and busts through a window. However, my enjoyment of this film was heavily influenced by my fondness of Kevin James, especially as Albert Brennaman in Hitch. The movie isn't great, the villains are pretty weak and it feels as if the movie runs a little long. This is a renter that unexpectedly hit number one because let's face it, everybody likes to see an everyman to come out on top.

And movies/TV shows that feature Segways always hold a place in my heart.

Confessions of a Shopaholic

It's kind of the poor man's Sex and the City movie... take that for what it's worth. Isla Fisher, who plays heroine Rebecca Bloomwood, is a fantastic comedic actress and is the type who is more than willing to throw vanity out the door in order to get a laugh. My anglophilia also allowed me to love Hugh Dancy's character Luke Brandon, Rebecca's boss and love interest.

At the end of the day, this movie will remain as nothing more than a jumping off point for better scripts for both leads... hopefully...

Doubt

2009-02-03T23:19:00.000-08:00

If you go to a screening of John Patrick Shanley's Doubt, you will also be attending a Master Class in acting. When I was sitting in the theatre I was giddy. Having read the play in college, I knew I was about to watch a film about a priest who may or may not have committed inappropriate acts with an altar boy. Not the cheeriest of subjects, but I was giddy nonetheless. This is like the ideal Superbowl; the two best teams facing off under the best conditions, in the best arena. Here we have two Academy Award winners going head to head in a story that not only won the Tony for Best Play, but also the Pulitzer Prize for Drama.

Doubt tells the story of a charismatic priest played by Philip Seymour Hoffman, who reaches out to the first black student to be enrolled in a Catholic Parrish in 1964. This special attention is noticed by the young and idealistic Sister James played by Amy Adams, who dutifully reports her findings to the Parrish's iron-clad principal, Sister Aloysius. Needing nothing more than second-hand conjectures and her own moral certainty, Aloysius is determined to go to the ends of the Earth to prove her suspicions as truth regardless of the cost.

What both the film and play do so well is the same thing that I liked about 2006's Little Children. As soon as you find yourself feeling sympathy for one character, a change of perspective, a peculiar word choice, or even an eye flinch will turn your opinion upside down and back again.

What I loved about the play when I first read it was the attempt to challenge the audience in regards to our uncontrollable, involuntary snap judgements. Instead of making the priest a creepy deviant who spends his days lurking around corners, Shanley writes Father Flynn as a man from the working class Northeast who plays basketball, has a great sense of humor and wit, and an undeniable charisma. His adversary, the woman who is trying to convict a man of child molestation, isn't a young and beautiful, bright-eyed underdog but an aging, miserly tyrant. Cherry Jones, who originated the role on Broadway and won the Tony, went out for every performance with her eyebrows combed downward and without an ounce of make-up.

"When you take a step against wrongdoing, you are taking a step away from God, but in His service." That is the most revealing clue the audience will have into the character of Sister Aloysius. Her relentless and unforgiving determination drives her to do things that she admits takes her away from God's will in order to carry out his justice... But at what cost?

All four of the lead actors were nominated for Oscars including Tony Award winner, Viola Davis and previously nominated Amy Adams. Although I adore Amy Adams, her weakness definitely showed in the shadow of these powerhouses. She made the right choices but almost to a fault. There's only so many doe-eyed expressions an actress can give before you stop seeing the character and start seeing a one-note look.

And in regards to the Winslet vs. The Streeper Oscar race for Best Actress, I would be happy if either woman won. However, Streep's role was as my friend Derek calls it, "The Meat." I don't think there is a better actress in the world and if the Academy's decisions were completely objective, Steep would and should win every time. If somebody is going to beat her it will be because the writing in the other film is superior, not the performance.

Fun Doubt Facts:

John Patrick Shanley told Philip Seymour Hoffman in secret if Father Flynn really committed inappropriate acts. He also did this with the Broadway production.

Any scenes involving the children were added for the movie. Only Father Flynn, Sister Aloysius, Sister James, and Mrs. Muller appeared in the play.

Cherry Jones is in the current season of 24 playing Madam President Allison Taylor.

Although imdb.com claims Natalie Portman "turned down" the role of Sister James, it is rumored that she was already in talks to play the role until Amy Adams sought out John Patrick Shanley and convinced him she was the right woman for the role.

Milk

2009-02-03T20:07:00.000-08:00

Slumdog Millionaire, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, The Reader, Frost/Nixon and Milk have all been told in some sort of flashback... that's got to be some sort of Best Picture record.

There's really nothing bad I can say about this film. Milk is a beautifully crafted biopic about Harvey Milk, the first openly gay man to be elected into public office, who's efforts were monumental in the Gay Right's movement. What this film does so beautifully is tell the story of a man's desire to open a nation's eyes to their own ignorance, but in a way that manages to stay far away from being preachy or obnoxious. Even as Harvey wields a bullhorn and shouts angrily to enraged masses, the message of the film is told with class and control while still maintaining a sense of urgency and passion.

It was Harvey's belief that the only way to begin the process of tearing down the stigma surrounding the misunderstood and distorted views of homosexuality was to find a way onto a public platform to be a face and the voice for the gay community. Definitely not by accident, the film carefully shows parallels between the misnomers that people had about homosexuality back then and the situation with Prop 8 today. Bumper stickers from the 70s saying "Protect Our Children", which were handed out to support an actual movement to remove all gay teachers and any supporters from schools systems, looked eerily like the ones saying "Protect Our Family" that are so prominent today.

Harvey's antagonist and an antagonist against Gay Rights as a whole, is represented mainly by Anita Bryant, a former singer and orange juice spokeswoman turned political activist. "If we give gays rights, next we'll have to give rights to prostitutes and to people who sleep with St. Bernards..." Only in the hands of a seasoned director can a film about this subject matter be catapulted from a story merely about gay rights into a story that challenges the idea of human rights.

It's not what you believe, but what is right.

The rest of the ensemble does a great job of creating an intelligent, fiery community of rich characters that surround Milk in his political quest. James Franco, who plays Milk's partner Scott, continues to prove that he's an actor to be reckoned in an understated and delicate performance with heart and depth. The only problem I had was with Emilie Hirsch. I loved him in Into the Wild and to be honest, he was fine in this. I just have a problem in general when actors playing gay characters act the "gay" first and then the person second.

However, this is a tiny criticism against the backdrop of a fantastic and inspirational film and it's my feeling that if there were any movie to beat Slumdog Milllionaire for the Oscar, it could be this.

But it shouldn't...

P.S. Josh Brolin gave a quality performance as Dan White and is coming off of a blazing 2007 but was this role really Oscar-worthy?

Taken

2009-01-30T21:07:00.001-08:00

Taken had the potential to be a really great action movie. The premise really intrigued me as I love movies about revenge and retaliation, people recalling on forgotten skills (Thank you, Sayid Jarrah) and movies starring tall, British men. What I liked was that Liam Neeson, despite his gangly running, was believable as a man capable of all the drastic measures we were witnessing. I also liked that there were some truly unexpected instances of brutality. An unwieldable tunnel vision is the only thing that is believable and acceptable when somebody is fighting for the life of their child.

But man, did I have some problems. The first was in regards to the female characters. Now, before certain male compadres try to tell me that I'm being a whiny feminist they should know that I'm relatively traditional myself and actually enjoy certain traditional male-female roles and customs. I will always appreciate a door opened, an arm given or a jacket offered. However, the first thing that I did when I got home was to check and see if the writers of this were male.

They were.

It would be wrong of you to assume that I think that every male writer doesn't understand women and are all stuck in a medieval outlook on our gender as a whole. But the three women in the film were exactly as follows:

1. THE BITCH ex-wife
2. THE WHORE friend (blond of course) who causes all the trouble
3. THE MADONNA daughter whose virginity is at stake as each minute passes by

I know it happens and it's part of the DNA of many, many action movies but I'm sorry... one of these days we'll have to get past this. If James Bond is capable of evolving from one-dimensional females, anybody is.

The dialogue itself was pretty weak. For example, the daughter finally asks her father specifically what his job was. "I'm a preventer" he says. "What do you prevent?" she asks wide-eyed. "Bad things from happening." There was also a BBQ with some old "black-op" buddies that was good for nothing else but disposing of expository information. The best part of the film is a pretty decent speech delivered by a good actor which was done ten times better by Mel Gibson in Ransom that everybody has already seen in the preview.

Things go his way through 99.9% of the film; pipes break at an opportune time, mud splashes in an opportune place, a reflection appears at an opportune angle... I was starting to believe that Neeson's character was just incredibly lucky rather than exceptionally skilled, especially since out of the ninety Albanians he took out none of them, even with machine guns, could hit water if they fell out of a boat.

There's always an unspoken request for a suspension of belief when dealing with an action hero's unbelievable luck. If a movie is done well it's something I will do gladly. I just couldn't do it this time. Not with Jason Bourne still on the loose.

P.S. Over the years, I have learned that there are certain times where I can tell that nobody wants to hear my honest opinion unless I'm about to agree with them. Tonight, I sensed that this would be one of those times so when my male companions asked if I liked it I safely respond with my default answer: "I was entertained."

The Reader

2009-01-27T17:07:00.000-08:00

This is one of those times where I'm kind of at a loss for words (or as much as I can be). I don't know what it was specifically, but I can't seem to put a finger on why this movie had no effect on me. It has all the right elements for stirring things up emotionally: a forbidden love affair, dark secrets, the Holocaust...and yet for the most of the film, I remained relatively detached.

The Reader tells the story of a summer love affair between Michael Berg, a high school student and Hanna Schmitz, a woman twice his age who works as a tram conductor in Neustadt, Germany. Throughout the affair, Hanna requests that Michael to read aloud to her and mesmerized by his current circumstance, he willingly obliges. Then one day he arrives at her apartment to find it empty and Hanna gone without a word.

Eight years later, Michael is attending the Nazi War Crimes Trials as a law student and is floored as Hanna has re-entered his life as a defendant in the case (the theatrical previews show this so I'm not giving anything away).

There are some great conversations between the students and their professor in regards to the difference between guilt according to the law and guilt according to morality and David Kross does an exceptional job conveying the mangled and conflicted heartache seeing her in this revealing light, but I'm beginning to realize that my problem was ultimately with Hanna's character. Maybe I wasn't invested enough in their relationship or maybe it was the way Hanna was written, but I just could not wrap my head around it. She comes off like a genuinely clueless simpleton during the trial but in earlier scenes she is fierce, manipulative and strong.

A couple of the taglines for the film are "Unlock the mystery" and "How far would you go to keep a secret?" I didn't feel that the mystery was too...well...mysterious and I didn't believe, as a plot device, it really held the weight that brought these two worlds crashing down.

This role earned Kate Winslet her sixth Academy Award nomination. A friend of mine was confused as to why she was nominated for The Reader instead of Revolutionary Road, but I have a feeling that in order to prevent a split in the votes and potentially missing a nomination in the Best Actress category altogether, she submitted herself for only one role.

I love her and think she should already have an Oscar in the bag from previous roles, but it would be hypocritical of me to say that anybody should win based on a body of work. I know people feel differently and I don't think they're wrong. It's just my belief that each year should be a clean slate and you should be awarded that year for the specific role you are nominated for. I think the Oscars should be like any sporting event: One team against the other and the outcome is based on the performance during that specific match-up despite a winning or losing record.

However, the Oscars are determined by a group of people and not by goals, touchdowns, runs, or three-pointers. If Kate Winslet does win, even though this wasn't my favorite role of hers by far, my human side will be thrilled... even if my critical side will still be at a bit of a loss.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

2009-01-26T22:37:00.000-08:00

I think my viewing of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button was benefited by my initial lack of enthusiasm. To quote an acquaintance, "Brad ages backwards. The end." There were many reasons why I should have seen the film in the first place regardless of my knee-jerk reaction to the previews, but to be honest I went because I needed to know what film, if any, could beat Slumdog Millionaire for Best Picture at the Academy Awards.

To my delight, I was surprised with how entranced and invested I was not just in Benjamin's personal journey, but specifically in his relationship with Cate Blanchett's character Daisy, whom he meets when they are both children. Although his intellect matches that of anybody his biological age, his outward appearance makes his friendship with Daisy initially offensive and unacceptable by those who don't understand him and thus provides the blue-print for an extraordinary love story.

As each chapter of Benjamin's story passes, we begin to see him understand how to make his unique life work for him in the time that is given to him. Year by year, the physical imprints of life are erased from his face and body but life's repercussions remain ingrained on his soul.

I don't want to detract from Brad's performance, because it was good, but as the hours passed I felt myself becoming more interested in the special effects than with his performance. For the last two-thirds of the movie Benjamin was quiet, handsome and reserved and to be honest, a little dull. That doesn't mean I believe that all subtle performances lack substance and all character performances should automatically be exalted, but with the stiff competition ahead, I don't think this is the year Brad will win an Oscar.

This was an even greater year for female roles so I can understand that certain performances will remain formally unacknowledged, but I was definitely more affected by Cate Blanchett. I found Daisy's journey and growth more captivating than Benjamin's. I think the bigger challenge was on her shoulders playing a character that everybody in the audience would judge and attempt to relate to as opposed to somebody with freedom to portray a character in a situation that nobody could really imagine.

But regardless of who had the bigger challenge, I believed in their chemistry and more importantly their extraordinary love that survived through the most unusual of circumstances. To top it all off, the film ends beautifully and with a bittersweet poignancy that reminds us that life isn't measured in minutes but in single moments that are immeasurable.

Gran Torino (released 1/9/2009)

2009-01-22T14:20:00.000-08:00

When I was watching Gran Torino, the latest Clint Eastwood project, I found myself at a familiar crossroads. One part of me knew that I was watching a great quality film with bold dialogue, decent story, smart directing, and a charismatic lead actor. But the other half wasn't really connecting as much as I had hoped, especially after how strongly Mystic River and Million Dollar Baby affected me. Granted, some arguments may be made that the film has a more masculine tone and therefore doesn't resonate as well with us sensitive women-folk, but I don't think that's it.

The story introduces us to Walt Kowalski, a retired Korean war vet who bleeds red, white and blue and will offer a grizzled grunt to anybody who looks, feels or thinks any differently. Cue a family of Hmong immigrants who move in next door and you have your neighbor vs. neighbor conflict. Through a series of events, Walt finds himself falling into an accidental mentorship with the youngest member of the neighboring family, Thao, in an attempt to keep him out of trouble and out of the hands of a local gang. In a very Good Will Hunting manner, the student learns from the mentor and the mentor learns even more from the student and since the writing and the directing are so sharp, it saves the movie from being too sappy and overly sentimental.

With the release of the Oscar nominations this morning, the consensus is that Gran Torino and Revolutionary Road were the biggest snubs. I haven't seen the latter of the two but I can understand why Gran Torino didn't make the cut. Other than Eastwood, the acting by a few members of the supporting cast was on the weak side and although the story does tug at the heartstrings, I think it heads in a relatively predictable direction. Eastwood's direction and his perceptive and unapologetic delivery of some of the script's more abrasive lines carry the film, but not past it's competitors.

81st Oscar Nominees

2009-01-22T10:10:00.000-08:00

BEST MOTION PICTURE OF THE YEAR

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

Frost/Nixon

Milk

The Reader

Slumdog Millionaire

BEST DIRECTOR

David Fincher for "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button"

Ron Howard for "Frost/Nixon"

Gus Van Sant for "Milk"

Stephen Daldry for "The Reader"

Danny Boyle for "Slumdog Millionaire"

BEST ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE

Anne Hathaway in "Rachel Getting Married"

Angelina Jolie in "Changeling"

Melissa Leo in "Frozen River"

Meryl Streep in "Doubt"

Kate Winslet in "The Reader"

BEST ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE

Amy Adams in "Doubt"

Penelope Cruz in "Vicky Cristina Barcelona"

Viola Davis in "Doubt"

Taraji P. Henson in "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button"

Marisa Tomei in "The Wrestler"

BEST ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE

Richard Jenkins in "The Visitor"

Frank Langella in "Frost/Nixon"

Sean Penn in "Milk"

Brad Pitt in "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button"

Mickey Rourke in "The Wrestler"

BEST ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE

Josh Brolin in "Milk"

Robert Downey Jr. in "Tropic Thunder"

Philip Seymour Hoffman in "Doubt"

Heath Ledger in "The Dark Knight"

Michael Shannon in "Revolutionary Road"

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE

Bolt

Kung Fu Panda

WALL-E

ART DIRECTION

Changeling

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

The Dark Knight

The Duchess

Revolutionary Road

CINEMATOGRAPHY

Changeling

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

The Dark Knight

The Reader

Slumdog Millionaire

BEST DOCUMENTARY

The Betrayal

Encounters at the End of the World

The Garden

Man on Wire

Trouble the Water

FILM EDITING

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

The Dark Knight

Frost/Nixon

Slumdog Millionaire

BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM

The Baader Meinhof Complex- Germany

The Class- France

Departures- Japan

Revanche- Austria

Waltz with Bashir- Israel

COSTUME DESIGN

Australia

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

The Duchess

Milk

Revolutionary Road

MAKE-UP

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

The Dark Knight

Hellboy II: The Golden Army

BEST SCORE

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

Defiance

Milk

Slumdog Millionaire

WALL-E

BEST ORIGINAL SONG

"Down to Earth" By Peter Gabriel and Thomas Newman from "WALL-E"

"Jai Ho" by A.R. Rahman and Gulzar from "Slumdog Millionaire"

"O Saya" by A.R. Rahman and Maya Arulpragaam from "Slumdog Millionaire"

BEST SOUND EDITING

The Dark Knight

Iron Man

Slumdog Millionaire

WALL-E

Wanted

BEST SOUND MIXING

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

The Dark Knight

Slumdog Millionaire

WALL-E

Wanted

BEST VISUAL EFFECTS

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

The Dark Knight

Iron Man

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

Doubt

Frost/Nixon

The Reader

Slumdog Millionaire

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY

Frozen River

Happy-Go-Lucky

In Bruges

Milk

WALL-E

MOST NOMINATIONS

13 "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button"

10 "Slumdog Millionaire"

8 "The Dark Knight"

8 "Milk"

6 "WALL-E"

5 "Doubt"

5 "Frost/Nixon"

5 "The Reader"

Myspace Phase-Out

2009-01-21T12:00:00.000-08:00

So, in a zen-like moment I decided to declutter my life by deleting one Internet forum...and then subsequently replacing it with another. Why? I'm currently unemployed and had some free time. Also, the only reason I was keeping Myspace was because I did all of my movie reviews there.

I have since moved all of my reviews from Myspace to an actual blog so my non-Myspace friends can bask in my movie knowledge and wisdom instead of having to request emails. I will be sad to lose all the witty comments posted by my loyal 4 readers (only kidding...it was 6) but as they say, you need to crack a few eggs to make an omelet.

Slumdog Millionaire (released 11/12/2008)

2009-01-20T23:26:00.000-08:00

I think this is the best movie that I saw in 2008. I had one of those wonderful moments where I knew I was seeing something truly great after about a minute and thirty seconds.

The movie begins as 18-year-old Jamal Malik finds himself one question away from winning the Hindi version of "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire." On suspicion of cheating, he is arrested after the show retires for the night and is forced to tell the police how it can be possible that a dog from the slums of Mumbai could make it so far in a competition that has yet to be beaten by scholars, doctors professors etc.

He then spends the night going question by question recalling the details of his remarkable and sometimes horrific past. Like a puzzle on acid we see through Danny Boyle's perfect direction, how fate can be magical, frustrating, justifying, cruel and brilliant.

When certain chapters of his life start to edge on the side of too-horrible-to-take, the wonderful earnestness of the characters and the hopefulness of the story are able scoop you right back up. When the emotion seems like it could head towards sappiness, Boyle (Trainspotting; 28 Days Later) brings his razor-sharp and contemporary eye, to the pace and overall style of the film.

The story is one of the most original, the actors and their respective characters are honest and endearing, the soundtrack is pulsing and I hope nothing for the best for this movie come awards season.

Twilight (released 11/21/2008)

2009-01-20T23:23:00.000-08:00

Go with me for a moment: Gushers are my favorite candy...fruit…snack...item. They are sweet, sour, have no nutritional value whatsoever and they'll never make the Thanksgiving dinner spread next to the turkey and perfectly baked pumpkin pie. However, if you put a box of those bad boys in front of me, I'll eat every last packet without shame and I'll be the happier for it.

I was excited to see this film but that feeling was championed only by my overwhelming dread. It was seeing the teaser trailer before The Dark Knight that prompted me to further investigate this teen vampire hullabaloo. After checking out the shrine-like kiosk at my local Barnes and Noble, I decided to just buy the first book. I went home, read for two hours, and found myself at B&N buying the next two hook, line, and sinker. I shamefully admit that I am not a big reader. I didn't even read Harry Potter, but somehow I managed to devour 1700 pages under a week and another 770 pages in a day and a half when Breaking Dawn was released. Now the reasoning behind my dread was not just that I had liked the series, but because I had previously been scarred by another film adaptation of something I held dear to my heart. I am, of course, speaking of the massacre of The Phantom of the Opera where Gerard Butler was singing like he was about to blow a gasket...Angel of Music my ass. I was trying to will Phantom to be good because I loved it and it just didn't happen. I don't know why this experience was different. They are both high on the cheese-factor, but for some reason Twilight...in its own way... kinda worked.

Now, I had to get past the fact that I was going to be putting up with a groundling-like atmosphere with screams and shouted comments yelled at the screen. I also had to push the hilarious image of my dad and the other men that would be joining our group amongst the riff-raff of tweens with Team Edward T-shirts and face paint out of my mind. Once I made those adjustments, I happily drifted off into Stephenie Meyer World and came out, dare I say it, giddy?

Clearly, there were big problems. Whether it was Meyer, the fans, or a combination of pressure from both, there was definitely a feeling that certain lines from the book were forced into the script. When you're merely reading these über romantic lines, there's a certain amount of allowance you grant when your imagination is in control. Your brain forces it to make sense because, frankly, you want it to. When it's performed by a flesh and blood actor, there is a 100% chance that you will find it undeniably cheesy. The personal brand of heroin and the lion/lamb lines got not just cheers, but screams; screams as if Justin Timberlake himself had descended from the rafters to provide a live soundtrack for the movie. Hopefully in the next film New Moon (the news of the sequel was confirmed this morning by Summit), the screenwriter will be allowed the freedom to be more judicious as opposed to merely pacifying.

The biggest problem was that quite obviously, nobody had any idea how big this film would be. Summit Entertainment, essentially an independent film studio, snatched up the rights after MTV Paramount found themselves in limbo, only had the resources to put up $37 million for the film. To put that into perspective, the current James Bond flick Quantum of Solace had a budget of nearly $230 million. Although Twilight didn't visit five continents or have boat or plane chases, there was still a surprising amount of action required that at times, got a little cornball if you know what to look for. There are some unnecessarily random camera angles and shots (e.g. the 360 shot during the "are you afraid" scene that just looked sloppy) and some jarring, near kabuki-style make-up for the vampire effect but I'm not really worried. The budget will double for the sequels so we can definitely look forward to some sharpened special effects and some restraint on the face paint.

Ultimately, it's the concept that wins us over. There's some magical drug-like mixture of forbidden, young love that keeps us romantic, masochistic females craving more. Catherine Hardwick isn't condescending with her depiction of teenage love and the actors make choices that steer clear of soap opera and aim towards authentic. Kristen Stewart thankfully removes the excessive insecurities that the book's Bella was wreaking of and Robert Pattinson's sometimes bizarre idiosyncrasies turn this supposedly perfect being into something soulful and multifaceted. An accomplishment that I don't think would have happen had somebody like Chace Crawford been cast. The film is jumpy, jarring, at times ridiculous but I'll be there next year on opening night, gushers in hand, to see New Moon.

No Country for Old Men vs. Atonement

2009-01-20T23:21:00.000-08:00

As the Academy Awards draw nearer, so does my panic to see all of the nominated movies. Even though I had only seen one other future nominee at the time that I saw No Country for Old Men, I thought that that movie was a lock for Best Picture. It probably still is. It's shocking, unnerving and brilliantly executed on all fronts. However, after seeing Atonement about an hour ago I would say that although it might not necessarily give No Country a run for its money, it's sure to have it checking over its shoulder until February 24th.

Going into the movie I knew that it was adapted from a critically acclaimed novel, is nominated for a bunch of awards and has since won the Golden Globe for Best Picture (Drama) and has two of the best young actors—Keira Knightly and James McAvoy—out there. What I was expecting was a weepy period drama with too many shots of Knightly looking pretty in pretty period clothes. What I wasn't expecting was how much bite it has and how wrong I was.

It's a period war/romance film but told in an extremely cutting and edgy way. Joe Wright, whose 2005 version of Pride and Prejudice I love, has such a sharp eye and has turned me into a loyal follower. I can honestly say –as an extremely critical member of the film-going public—that I was genuinely surprised and almost ecstatic with how unexpected and affective his storytelling techniques were; the sounds within the story (typewriter, light switches, cigarette lighter) used as a baseline for the score; the back and forth two-sided perspective; the extremely real chemistry between the two leads (the library scene alone is worth the $10.50) and to top it all off I still can't stop thinking about how the ending unfolds and what an inconspicuous punch it packs with its simple warning about the unbelievable power of a lie.

The Other Boleyn Girl (released 2/29/2008)

2009-01-20T23:18:00.000-08:00

Why, oh why do people feel the need to improve on a best-seller? I know it's usually the case for a movie to fall short of expectations when the book was so successful, but successful novel-based films aren't impossible to find: Lord of the Rings, The Shawshank Redemption, Sense and Sensibility, The Shining, Schindler's List, Jaws, Jurassic Park, even Bridget Jones's Diary!

It's perfectly forgivable to forgo a few plot points to save on time, but when you forgo key elements of the story which made it a page-turner in the first place, you sacrifice crucial character development and you're audience is in for a world of disappointment. Because, to be honest, who cares about a movie full of plot when you don't give a toss about the people experiencing it? Now I'm not saying that The Other Boleyn Girl was a tragic, horrible, hot mess, but I truly am sorry that it missed so many opportunities to be great, especially when it already had a successful and juicy blue-print to work off of.

Missed opportunity 1: We lost the chance to see one of the most wonderfully colorful villainesses to come along in years. Yes, Natalie Portman's Anne Boleyn was a brat with ambition and most of the time you wanted to smack her, but the film version turned the dial way down and left out wonderfully horrific details and for what? She got her head chopped off for a reason.

Missed opportunity 2: Where's the romance? A book that's full of "love, sex, ambition, and intrigue" was not in the movie that I saw. The whole third act of the book revolves around a romance of Mary's that ends up saving her life and it's given a good thirty seconds on screen.

Missed opportunity 3: The novel is told vividly from Mary's point of view and for good reason. The title should have been a hint.

Verdict: Read the book. Forget the movie.

Quantum of Solace (released 11/14/2008)

2009-01-20T23:15:00.001-08:00

Quantum of Solace acts as a sequel (a first in the franchise) to Casino Royale and picks up within hours of where we left off with Bond having just acquired the dangerous yet vague Mr. White. In the last film, we learned that Bond's doomed ladylove, Vesper Lynd was actually being blackmailed by a mysterious group that neither MI6 nor the CIA has even heard of. And the audience? Well, we won't get an exact idea of what that group is either. Nor will we really get a firm grasp on anything else.

The MacGuffin in this particular Bond flick is the control of water as a natural resource. Now whether it was power over the stock markets à la Casino Royale or the world's gold supply in Goldfinger, the design of a Bond film is as such: there is a problem and with wit, a nice suit, fancy gadgets, and the help of his friends at MI:6 he'll save the day. That's what a Bond film does. What Casino Royale did so perfectly was to trim all of the horrific camp and tackiness that the Pierce Brosnan franchise sank to and made it smart, slick, gritty and pragmatic. As a result, you found yourself unknowingly more invested in Daniel Craig's version of the character, not just satisfied with some projection of a tired cliché Bond who you just wait for forty-five minutes to say "shaken not stirred" and smirk in your seat. In short, the franchise grew up, up and away from its Peter Pan Syndrome.
For the most part, the film did what it was supposed to do:

Boat chase? Check. Rooftop chase? Check. Plane chase? Check. Car chase? Check. Check. Check.

The problem that I had with Quantum was that although the film kept that slick, gritty framework, something else got lost. At the beginning of the film we may have hit the ground running, but we never really knew what we were running towards. We dove headfirst into an action-filled flick with only brief gasps of air for any hint at the story. The proper care really wasn't spent on developing either the mysterious group of men with colors for last names or the master plan to control different countries' water supply. I suppose you could argue that the vagueness surrounding the group was intentional for future purposes blah, blah, bah… but I'm going to go out on a limb to say that it wasn't. Why? Because I wasn't interested enough to really care about them. I was just bothered. I was bothered because I didn't care.

Please don't misunderstand and think that I didn't like the movie. It was good. I'd give it a B- and it was definitely one of the better-made films as of late and I definitely want to give mad props to the opera scene. That was hands down the most memorable cinematic moment for me. I'm just saying that we've seen what it could be...

Pineapple Express (released 8/6/2008)

2009-01-20T23:11:00.000-08:00

When I was watching Pineapple Express, the latest flick from the writing/exec producing team of Seth Rogan, Evan Goldberg, and Judd Apatow, I found myself feeling like I was watching a group stand-up act rather than a movie. I can just picture the whole crew hanging out at somebody's house smoking and drinking firing off jokes then saying "how can we fit this into a movie?"

Did I laugh? Absolutely.

Was I entertained? Definitely.

These are guys that now have a recognizable brand of comedy as well as box office power. Knocked Up had a total domestic gross of over $140 million and Superbad (one of my favorite films of 2007) $120 million. But this movie had problems and unfortunately wasn't nearly as good as its predecessors.

One of the things that was missing was stronger direction; somebody to step in and trim the fat and reign in some of the loose cannons. It was an almost palpable feeling of desperation as each one of the lesser known actors made their appearances…like each guy knew that he had only a scene or two to make an impression so most of their shining moments felt like sloppy on-the-spot improvisations that lasted a little too long.

Seth Rogan, who always manages to be charming, has the most discipline in this cast, often trying to steer the scenes back on course. I loved James Franco's drug-dealer with a heart of gold but the other side characters like Red were on the verge of being boring in their over-the-topness. Even wearing a neck brace, covered in blood and shot multiple times (Hello? Will Ferrell in Austin Powers?) his lines still weren't that funny.

I will continue to see all the Rogan/Goldberg/Apatow flicks that I can get my hands on, but I hope they use a little restraint and focus on writing better stories so their hilarity gets the platform that it deserves.

The Dark Knight (released 7/18/2008

2009-01-20T23:08:00.000-08:00

The Dark Knight has not only set the bar for a popcorn summer movie, but for a dramatic action movie as well. It is unfortunate that it's probably seen first as a comic book movie because it's far beyond that sub-category. I automatically think of CGI shots of Tobey Maguire and a Goblin on a hover board, bat suits with nipples or Eric Bana's Hulk running around in purple cut-offs. Don't get me wrong, those films do serious damage at the box office, and I've seen practically all of them, but they still remain inside the box when it comes to the potential scope and range that a good story can achieve.

What I loved about this movie was the level of respect that I felt as a viewer. Unlike the new Star Wars and Indiana Jones films, there wasn't a sense of making the script/story/character development secondary, and thinking that over-the-top explosions and CGI would be enough to distract you from quality. In other words, it didn't feel the need to dumb itself down because it's essentially a comic book movie. Before I saw it, I learned that Christopher Nolan isn't a fan on relying on CGI to do all the work—which I'm so thankful for. He ends up doing a fantastic job of blending in the use of necessary computer graphics with the live-action sequences (by the way, the 18-wheeler 180 degree flip was real). The production design, which I'll get into later, and the cinematography are amazing as well. From the magnificent opening sequences to a stunning shot of Batman on top of the Sears Tower, you get the sense that a movie is finally reaching for something more.

As for the acting, there's really not a whole lot I can say about Heath Ledger's take on the Joker other than, "go see for yourself." Christian Bale has been one of my favorite actors since Newsies, so needless to say I was doing jumping jacks when I heard that he had landed the role for the first flick back in 2003. Other than his occasional Batman/smoker's voice, he can do no wrong with me. Morgan Freeman, Gary Oldman and Michael Caine are perfect as always, but Maggie Gyllenhaal, although a step up from Katie Holmes, is just as awkward which is disappointing because I loved her in The Secretary. Aaron Eckhart was a surprising casting choice for Harvey Dent but I really felt myself believing in his passion and earnest charm.

I also like that this new revamp has taken the cheese and campiness out much like Martin Campbell's new take on James Bond with Casino Royale. The slick sports car style Batmobile is replaced with the Tumbler and the Batpod, vehicles that combine impressive style with believable practicality. The suit is remodeled from a pleather nightmare to a convincing, functional suit of armor. Caricatures, archetypes and stereotypes are made human with conflict and flaws, all proof that in the right hands, a movie that could easily hide in fantasy can be even more breathtaking when enough care is taken to make it a conceivable reality. The Dark Knight is raw, powerful and a welcome knight-in-shining-armor here to rescue us from a sea of mediocrity.

Two snaps and a twist

Hancock (released 7/2/2008)

2009-01-20T23:05:00.000-08:00

With any other actor Hancock probably would have only done half as well, if that. Will Smith's presence is the sole purpose that this film has been a financial success because it certainly wasn't the direction or the choppy story. If you're the type who goes to movies to be entertained for an hour and a half—and for the record there is NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT—then it's a good fit: It's entertaining. But if you consider yourself a bit of a comic, action hero, or just a general film buff Hancock probably won't do much for you, especially with the summer we have coming up (ahem The Dark Knight).

I'll keep it short:

A. The camera angles, handheld camera shots and extreme zooms act as if they're filming some Oscar-worthy character piece. If I can count the pores on someones face, you're too close.
B. There are two different movies going on here. The first half acts like a comedy with potential and the second half takes a serious left turn that tries to evoke emotion and drama of epic proportions and misses.
C. Charlize Theron made me borderline uncomfortable with how over-the-top serious she made her role.
D. Jason Bateman is awesome.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (released 5/22/2008)

2009-01-20T22:56:00.000-08:00

If you liked the National Treasure, The Mummy, and Tomb Raider films you will like Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. If you liked the original Indiana Jones films, you will be frustrated, disappointed and annoyed. The phrase that kept running through my mind over and over was:

"Are they serious?"

In my opinion, what we have here is a case of Star Wars trilogy-itis. It's where you take a legendary film, remake it and give it excessive CGI injections and bleed it dry of story and smart dialogue. For the amount of good that CGI has done for the film industry (especially for the action and fantasy genres) it's done just as much damage because now there seems to be a "what else can we jam in there?" mentality. Forget the story, let's just blow more stuff up. When the originals were made, the story was the primary objective and the special effects were secondary. I'm not saying that special effects aren't imperative to an action film's success because they are, but those big moments always have more of an impact if you have a vested interest in the story. After one too many "Here we go again" and "I'm getting too old for this" lines I realized that my Indy was gone and this was a movie that just had no plans on being taken seriously.

Raiders of the Lost Ark dealt with the search for the Ark of the Covenant, The Last Crusade was the search for the Holy Grail. In this case it was tracking a Spanish explorer who was looking for a crystal skull that looks like it was filled with tin foil that has telekinetic powers? Or was it mind reading powers? Or wait…thought... transportation powers? It doesn't matter, because by that point I was still laughing at Shia LaBeouf swinging on jungle vines alongside hundreds of CGI monkeys and please don't get me started on reappearing, laughing gophers. I could go on about the ending but I don't want to give too much away… I'll just say that Indy is no longer dealing with Nazis.

Damn you George Lucas and your influence over Spielberg.

The Descent (released 8/4/2006)

2009-01-20T22:18:00.000-08:00

I always get fired up when I find a good scary movie. It's such a specific genre and it's becoming more and more difficult to find originality. Instead of inventiveness and imagination we're getting Teenagers Having Sex and Getting Killed, remakes, and a never-ending supply of Saw films that just keep coming off the assembly line.

The Descent really surprised me because I remember completely dismissing the previews. An attractive, all-female group of friends get together to go spelunking in the Appalachians and find themselves getting picked off one by one by cave dwellers. Snore.

What surprised me though was how the director and the writer paid attention to the story and the relationships, which ultimately makes any film scarier.

On the trip, the leader of the group takes it upon herself to bring the girls to a cave system that has yet to be charted. After a collapse in the cave leaves them stranded for a way out, they find themselves descending deeper into the caves looking for a second route. The deeper they search, the more information is revealed about the bonds between the women. Some are strong, others cripplingly weak but these ties provide the characters with dimension and a believable resilience.

The best part of the film was taking the story out of the standard setting and into a place that felt truly claustrophobic, consequently making the viewer just as panicked and anxious as secrets are exposed and the odds are dwindling. The ending is pretty good too...

Baby Mama (released 4/25/08)

2009-01-20T22:08:00.000-08:00

When you have a movie as successful as Mean Girls, one has high hopes when a follow-up project tied with Tina Fey's name comes up. Only, this film wasn't written by Tina Fey and instead of sticking with a supporting character, the film rests on hers and Amy Poehler's shoulders.

I just have a problem when incredibly talented improvisational/sketch comedy performers are given the task of not holding an audience for a 5 minute skit, but an entire feature-length film. Acting for film and doing SNL are two different things. Before you kill me, I'm not saying that it isn't possible for SNL alumni to carry films as leading characters, but I don't think these two proved it here. Tina Fey half-smiles her way through the movie and Amy Poheler stretches out a comedy sketch character instead of developing a real one**. Then throw in Greg Kinnear who stands out as the only real actor and a dash of Dax Shepard (really?) you have a film with nowhere to go. The plot is enjoyable at times but it's not sharp and the jokes aren't particularly... well... funny. All in all it was an "eh" movie.

**I know I might be alone in this, but I think Will Ferrell is slipping into that category.

Old School? Great supporting character.
Wedding Crashers? Great supporting character.
Zoolander? Great supporting character
Anchorman? An SNL skit that lasted for 2 hours, with nothing but one-liners. Still funny though with a huge hand from the supporting cast

Semi-Pro, Blades of Glory, Kicking and Screaming, Bewitched, Talladega Nights? Leading actor, not great films. A pattern maybe?