|
|
|---|
Thursday, 31 December 2009
There is a pivotal scene in An Education. It’s not obviously so, but I think the entire film comes down to that moment. It’s where we find the thesis statement, or whatever it is they call it in films. Jenny confronts the Head Teacher of her school and in an impassioned speech she questions the value of education for the girls at the school. Jenny focuses on women, but it can be a question for any confused scholar. What’s the point of an Education. Why not agree with Alfred Camus and agree that’s it’s all for nothing. It only makes you bourgeoisie and the end we all will die anyway. The Head Teacher doesn’t have an answer; in fact Lone Scherfig doesn’t seem to either. Instead the question is, if not an education, then what?
That moment in the film is Mulligan's. Up until that point she has delighted us. She’s made us laugh, sometimes even a little wistful. She’s done what she must, and done it excellently. But in this moment, the moment most unlike the Jenny we’ve come to know is also the moment where we see more of Jenny than we’ve seen before. It’s a beautiful moment for Mulligan, it’s a great moment for Emma Thompson, for Lone Scherfig and for the audience. Haven’t we all been there? Perhaps, not as students; but we do eventually start to question the things we’ve come to appreciate. Religion, family, life...? Maybe I’m projecting, but in being completely unselfconscious about it; without trying to make it more than one person it seems to be so much more. Every time Carey puts on that enigmatic face of hers, I’m never quite sure what she’s thinking. It’s the reality that we never completely know anyone, especially movie characters. I don’t see Jenny as a saint, although others have, she’s not that likeable anyhow. But she is appealing. It’s Carey Mulligan and those layers.
And yet, I’m not remembering Carey alone. I switch sides by the second when I think who’s the best in show. Mulligan? Perhaps, but isn’t that too obvious a choice; as is Alfred Molina. He’s perfect as Jack, Jenny's father. I’ve heard some calling him a hambone. ‘Tis a pity. I know a few quite like him. It’s sad really. It’s more than living vicariously through his daughter. That yearning, for something more while quite pedestrian is surprisingly poignant. It’s one of the strongest male performances I’ve seen this year, and it’s a pity no one’s taking any notice. Cara Seymour is sadly wonderful as his wife. She’s not a mouse of a woman, but it’s sad to watch her try to combat her husband. One can only imagine how much she hopes to accomplish with her one child.
And what of the three Musketeers? Dominic Cooper, Rosamund Pike and Peter Sarsgaard. I’m so grateful that the SAG have recognised this film. Rosamund lights up the screen every time she’s there, her line readings are among my favourite of the film and that constant vacuous look on her face is some exceptional acting. In my opinion of course. Sarsgaard is more than a slimy grease ball here. He just may be the most pathetic of the film’s characters. His desire to remain young is obvious, from his relationship with Jenny, to his car, his friends – it’s all very sad. And as much chemistry he and Mulligan have, the most romantic moment of the film is almost a throwaway as Cooper and Mulligan take to the dance-floor together. I was probably reading too much into it, but it was almost as if something was going on there. Cooper too, is a revelation here in an almost nondescript role.
And the teachers? I feel as if I know them. Olivia Willaims' Mrs. Stubbs is as real as any of my professors. I thoroughly understand her desire for Jenny to succeed as much as I can understand Thompsn’s Head Mistress’ dilemma. The reverence, fear and glamour of that dreaded principal’s office. That I can understand.
But An Education is a bit of anomaly as far as I’m concerned. I’m not conceited enough to think that my thoughts are golden, but usually when I decide upon a film I whole-heartedly adore I can’t understand why others don’t. But with An Education I can easily understand why others wouldn’t find it that appealing, or honest even. Certainly the ending may just be a little too pat. But life is never that tragic as movies would have us to believe. I still want to go and out make everyone watch it though, even though I’m sure many may not be half as enthralled as I was.
But I’ve had An Education, and it’s been rich.
It only points to my verbosity and general dementedness that I can’t tie down my thoughts in one review. So now, it’s on to Second Part.
This year, my first on the blogosphere a number of reviews spoke about the intimacy they felt looking at a particular film, or the personal feeling it gave them. There were the usual suspects – Precious, The Hurt Locker the less likely – Broken Embraces, Brothers. Some films depend on hitting the audience on that emotional level. I’m not sure if An Education depends on this as much as, say Precious. But up until now, it’s I think this is the most personal films I’ve seen of the year.
An Education tells the story of a young girl [Carey Mulligan] in sixties England, Jenny – our heroine. She hopes to read English at Oxford University and seems on her way there, complete with a slightly overbearing father [Alfred Molina]. She happens upon a debonair older man and with his friends she’s introduced to a world of music, art and most of all fun. I suppose ostensibly there would seem to be no large similarities between 1960 London and 2000 Guyana. But there is. Up until a few decades ago this country was filled with the English, so we’ve retained some of their traditions. We have those uniforms in the public school system, the stratified staffing at schools and the Sixth Form education system. So as different as it was it was also strangely similar. There’s always that inadvertent divide when I watch American films about school, a divide that was luckily absent in An Education.
Looking at An Education I was surprised at how formidable some technical aspects of the film were. The cinematography is so beauteous. It’s a word that I don’t use often, and then only for period pieces. But it was all shot so wonderfully in such an understated way that I suppose I can understand why more hasn’t been said of it. The set design too is striking. I have no idea what it should look like, but it does look good to me. I’ve never been a gadget person, but I’m damned if I didn’t want David’s car in my yard. The austere of the school, even the quietness of Jenny’s home, all seem so...exquisite? And the costumes? Not just the women, everyone. So lush, so right and so...British.
It’s now been a full day since I saw An Education, and for some reason it’s still on my mind. I realise I just may be gushing like one of Jenny’s schoolgirl friends. Ugh. I’m still thinking about a grade. I could give it a B and it wouldn’t be too little. Or I could give it an A+ and it wouldn’t feel too much. It’s the last day of the year. I’m having a block. Obviously. I’ll be back in an hour with the final conclusions.
Other Reviews To Mull Over
The Mad Hatter loves it...
Univarn likes it...
Joe doesn't...
Nathaniel does
Joes does too, I think
Link your review below if you did one, and I missed it...
Other Reviews To Mull Over
The Mad Hatter loves it...
Univarn likes it...
Joe doesn't...
Nathaniel does
Joes does too, I think
Link your review below if you did one, and I missed it...
I'll be honest. An Education was not my most anticipated film of 2009. I'm usually spot on when it comes to what I'm going to like but my favourite of the year is always a surprise - Atonement, Corpse Bride even The Departed were not my most anticipated of their respective years. Perhaps, that's why I love them so much. Sneaking up on you always helps. The thing is though that's I've wanted to see An Education for some time. Univarn remarked that he was sure I'd love An Education. I suppose I do have my "type" of films...but I didn't think it was that obvious. And I really hadn't thought about An Education fitting into that type.
What was it exactly that had me wanting to see this so badly? It couldn't be the reviews. Other than the odd effusive one, reviews were fairly good but unexceptional. However, they all cited Mulligan as a showstopper. And as much as I adored Pride & Prejudice Carey Mulligan was not my main reason, or even the resplendent Rosamund Pike for that matter. Molina I like, but I haven't seen him much. Same goes for Sarsgaard. I have my own relationship with Ms. Thompson. But we all knew that was a cameo. So what was it about me wanting to be "educated"?
Well I have been. And I feel oddly, calm...for want of a better word even serene. The British can do that to you sometimes. I always wonder if my anxiety about a film bouys the grade. Maybe I will myself to like it, or vice versa. I don't know. Is the round-a-bout way of this post annoying you. Sure I've had An Education but as Jenny says "I feel old, but not very wise." I'll return. Don't be mad, I'll expound soon. But I'll leave you with this shot. Isn't it lovely?
Wednesday, 30 December 2009
Someone I read, I can't recall whom, recently remarked of a film It didn't need to be made. And that got me thinking. What films don't need to be adapted to bet put on screen. I think I may have found the answer with Invictus. It's a story about Nelson Mandela [Morgan Freeman]. He's the new president of South Africa, a nation divided. Through his ingenuity he hopes to reconcile the country with sports and the help of the rugby team captain played by Matt Damon.
Now would be the ideal time to reveal by hatred apathy towards Clint Eastwood. I'm just not a fan. That being said, I can't say that Invictus is like anything he's done before. But still, I'm essentially unmoved. It's not that biographical films shouldn't be made. But when we make a biography, something like The Aviator, or Schindler's List or Raging Bull or The Hours [and it's inexhaustive] something fresh is added. Sometimes, history is rewritten like in The Aviator, but there is that ecelctic feeling that this story must be told. As heartwarming as Invictus may try to be, I don't get that feeling from it.
The rugby that is so important to the film is never explained to the audience. What of those who don't play rugby? There isn't even a smidgen of explanation as to what's going on, and the cuts away from the actual game don't help.The first third of the film seems unsure of where it's heading, the second third seems unsure of why it's there and the last third is so predictable that you just aren't that invested anymore. I like Morgan Freeman a whole lot actually, but he does nothing for me here. It's the perfect example of an actor phoning it in, and the accent which comes and goes does not help. Actually, Matt Damon is the one who emerges as impressive here, in a stock role albeit. Where everyone is obviously acting I truly believe his performance.
Invictus main problem is its writing, but the direction and the action don't particularly help it's cause. I'm no fan of Clint, but this is a particularly underwhelming piece.
C
So two new reviews, or something like that. In what’s been a big year for animation I saw what many are predicting as one of the future five nominees at the Oscars in the animated category – Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs, then I saw that Twilight flick. New Moon. For free. Obviously.
Cloudy With A Chance of Meatballs
C-
New Moon
So yeah, the Twilight flick. What can I say? I’m no fan. I’m not the demographic they’re aiming at, either. I actually think it’s worse than the other one. Robert Pattinson is not a very good actor, but I feel he has potential so to be honest, I missed him here. The entire thing is just so friggin’ convoluted but yeah, we already knew that. Sadly, it’s just as terrible as the books, so you can’t really blame it all on the film makers. I suppose it’s not a complete failure though. Pretty close, of course, but not completely.
D-
So it’s late in the year and this has been released for months. But I finally saw it yesterday. Judd Apatow’s Funny People. I’m not too big on Apatow, so didn’t anticipate much. And the reviews were not exceptional. It tells the story of George. A professional comedian played by Sandler who finds out he may have a fatal disease. Buoyed by the reality of his looming death he hires an assistant [Seth Rogen] and schemes to win back his old girlfriend [Leslie Mann] who is now married with children.
Funny People is the perfect example of a good idea gone bad. The premise is fine, but the execution is not. The film never knows what it wants to be. Is it Sandler’s film, is it Rogen’s? Sometimes it even wants to be Mann’s. The pacing is horrible and the script though fine in spots, is ultimately spotty. I could imagine Apatow writing this hoping for mainstream and critical success, and that’s just the problem. It’s trying too hard. It wants to be witty, romantic, dramatic, and gross-out funny. In the end, it can’t decide which and it fails on all accounts.
D+
Tuesday, 29 December 2009
The year is coming to an end and already people are throwing out their lists of favourites, left and right. It's turning into a busy last few days of the year [or decade]. Anyhow, I'm not ready to get down to a list of favourites as yet. StinkyLulu is something of a patron saint to Supporting Actresses. Over at his blog he’s continuously devoting time to them, and on 17th January he’s hosting a blog-a-thon inviting you to blog about some performance[s] of the last year. A supporting female one. Obviously. I’ve already got a few contributions at the ready. One, two, maybe three of the following.
Maria Bello in The Private Lives of Pippa LeeKristin Chenoweth in Into Temptation
Patricia Clarkson in Whatever Works
Marion Cotillard in Public Enemies
Diane Kruger in Inglourious Basterds
Winona Ryder in The Private Lives of Pippa Lee
I’d do more, but there is such a thing as overkill. I need to show some discretion. I could easily talk about some more buzzed performance, but where’s the fun in that? Who knows, maybe I’ll add more to the set. Which of these should I write on?
Natalie Portman in BrothersSigourney Weaver in Avatar
Paula Patton in Precious
Miranda Richardson in The Young Victoria
Kathy Bates in Cheri
Susan Sarandon in The Lovely Bones
Catherine Keener in Where the Wild Things Are
Samantha Morton in The Messenger
Rosamund Pike in An Education
Or, maybe you’d like to write on one of them? Or another. Still, you should participate regardless. StinkyLulu is waiting. Get your Supporting Actress Posts ready. All of you! And that includes you: Univarn, The Mad Hatter, Twister, Joe, Sage and Alex! That's an order! Well, not really. But you get the point. Right?
Sunday, 27 December 2009
Here are my final thoughts on 2002, taking a look at the top categories. I can't say that I really saw that much. I'm yet to see Talk To Her, which seems like a criminal act. I also need to see Igby Goes Down, Secretary and Punch Drunk Love. Still, take a look at what I did see.
Original Screenplay
Far Fom Heaven
Frida
Gangs of New York
My Big Fat Greek Wedding
An embarrassingly weak year in this category. Far From Heaven is the easy winner here, and not having seen Talk to Her I can't say whether The Academy made the right decision was made.
Adapted Screenplay
Chicago
The Hours
Minority Report
Road to Perdition
The Two Towers
There were quite a number of good contenders here. The Hours and Chicago both did great things with difficult things to adapt. Minority Report particularly should have seen some love here.
Directing
Tier Two
Todd Field for Far From Heaven
Paul Greengrass for The Bourne Identity
Sam Mendes for Road to Perdition
Roman Polanski for The Pianist
Steven Spielberg for Catch Me If You Can
The Nominees
Stephen Daldry for The Hours
Peter Jackson for The Two Towers
Rob Marshall for Chicago
Martin Scorsese for Gangs of New York
Steven Spielberg for Minority Report
So Rob Marshall takes it for his film debut followed by Stephen Daldry with his sophomoric effort.
The Pictures
Here's a look at the 67 films I saw that year in ascending order...
Fs [#67-#58]
Men In Black 2, Stuart Little 2, Scooby Doo, Big Fat Liar, The Ring, XXX, High Crimes, John Q, Antwone Fisher, Like Mike
I have a feeling that I’m a bit too harsh on a couple of these [The Ring, perhaps] but the grades don’t lie. And really I have no desire to see any of these ever again.
D-s [#57-#55]
Maid In Manhattan, Master of Disguise, Murder By Numbers
Each is horrible. They have a slight something preventing them from being complete failures. There’s still horrible, though.
D [#54]
Undercover Brother
What’s there to say?
D+s [#53-#44]
Showtime, Queen of Dammed, Enough, The Tuxedo, Brown Sugar, The Santa Clause 2, All About The Benjamins, Mr Deeds, New Guy, Goldmember
All are not quite good. But some I’m partial to, for easy watching.
C-s [#43-#38]
Swim Fan, Van Wilder, Scorpion King, Signs, One Hour Photo, Lilo & Stitch]
I know Signs is hated. It’s not very good, but I don’t think it’s terrible. Same goes for the others.
C+s [#37-#22]
Drumline, Die Another Day, Chamber of Secrets, Barber Shop, 8 Mile, The Rookie, Panic Room, A Walk to Remember, The Hot Chick, The Banger Sisters, Sweet Home Alabama, Two Weeks Notice, The Good Girl, The Ice Age, Unfaithful, Adaptation
Whew. That’s a lot. As it I didn’t get in to Adaptation at all. I’m thinking that C+ is too much. Eh. The Good Girl juxtaposed goodness with terribleness. Sweet Home Alabama and yes, Two Weeks Notice are surprisingly entertaining but ineffective baubles and Chamber of Secrets remains as my least favourite of the Harry Potter Films.
B-s [#21-#18]
Confessions of a Dangerous Mind, The Birthday Girl, The Sweetest Thing, My Big Fat Greek Wedding
The Birthday Girl is a bit of an unorthodox, and sick ride. But I like it for the most part, as I like The Sweetest Thing. It's a pleasure, and not one that I feel guilty about.
Bs [#17-#11]
Analyze That, White Oleander, The Time Machine, About A Boy, Frida, About Schmidt, The Pianist
I don't think I'm being hard on The Pianist. Perhaps you were fans? I don't know. It didn't strike a resounding chord with me. And White Oleander was criminally ignored that year. Pity.
The Top Ten
#10 - Far From Heaven [B+]
An exceptionally smart film. I do want to like it more than I do, but I like it enough, so it's okay. Julianne Moore is luminous here as in The Hours and offers up a beautiful performance. The atmosphere is so strong here, which is uncommon in most period pieces. It's beautiful to look at, and thought provoking.
#9 - Spiderman [B+]
There’s always something good about the first one. I’ve never been an overt fan of the genre, but Spiderman was a well made and enjoyable genre picture. MaGuire, Dunst, Franco and Dafoe. Sure it's a popcorn flick, but it's done with so much integrity. How can I resist?
#8 - The Bourne Identity [B+]
I can’t deny that the sequels were good too, but the first in this trilogy has always been my undivided favourite.I remember seeing this time and time again, and Matt Damon really seemed cool here. That was a first for me.
#7 - Road to Perdition [B+]
#6 - Catch Me If You Can [B+]
This is a light almost comedy film and yet it's able to examine some deeper issues. DiCaprio is able to sell his character in more ways than one and Hanks and Walken are strong supporting players. Spielberg's direction is just so much fun, you can't help but be entertained.
#5 - Gangs of New York [B+]
This was somewhat maligned. I'm partial to Scorsese, but who knows. It's period piece with a different. It's gorey like any other gangster film and it all looks so majestic, you're enthralled, astonished and interested at the same time. And, damn, Daniel Day Lewis is something.
#4 - Minority Report [A-]
It’s arguably my favourite Spielberg film. Tom Cruise, who I am usually not fond of, impresses me loads here and anchors the film with his solid performance. Spielberg
The Top 3
The Hours [A]
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers [A]
I’m not really going to rank these three. Although if I were to base it on my top 100 it would be just as it is –Chicago, The Hours, The Two Towers. However, I don’t really care to rank them. Each of these films have their merits and together they make up the trimester of the goodness of 2002. There’s the musical, the drama and the fantasy. Each skilfully directed, with smart screenplays and top notch actors.
What are your thoughts? What do I need to see?
As much as I am enamoured with the Oscars and the whole idea of prestige pictures, etc & etc the ‘season’ as it is really pisses me off sometimes. The biggest annoyance seems to be how precursors play a major role in who or what are deemed as worthy of nominations and the thing about precursors is that they only seem to see a stratified set of films. Or even if they do see a film, they only see one part of it. For example, they recognise Michael Shannon in Revolutionary Road and for some reason ignore the screenplay and Kate and Leo’s admirable performances. They see Closer but can’t discern Jude Law and Julia Roberts and it goes on and on. Excuse the preamble, but there’s a reason to it. Woody Harrelson has been showing up consistently at precursors for his supporting role in The Messenger, it’s the only prospective nomination for the film. In passing one would assume that it’s the only good thing about the film – and they wouldn’t be more wrong.
A year ago the average moviegoer would have bemoaned the state of modern war dramas in American cinemas. This year we’ve had The Hurt Locker and Brothers, two superior modern day war films and The Messenger is a third making it a holy Trinity. The goodness of The Messenger is almost ironic. By covering even less ground than the two it is even more affecting than them. It tells the story of a solider recently returned from Iraq [Ben Foster] who is hired by the army to deliver messages to the relatives of deceased soldiers along with Woody Harrelson. Both men have severe issues, although the film focuses more on Foster and two women in his life. Jena Malone plays his ex-girlfriend and Samantha Morton plays a potential love interest.
It’s been said before: movies are movies, they’re not real. It doesn’t take a genius to derive the truth in this, but The Messenger comes as close to reality [as I can imagine]. The humanness and the realism of the entire thing is so profound. Even stranger is the absence of any score in the film. Foster, Malone, Harrelson and Morton give mature and intense performances. The only one who can be charged with having a showy moment [a mere few minutes towards the end] is Harrelson and it’s ironic that he’s the only one getting any traction. Not to knock Harrelson, he’s phenomenal, but his performance is possibly the weakest of the four. That’s how good this film is.
The Messenger doesn’t force the audience to make a choice about the war in Iraq or war in general. It’s a film about broken people, hurting people; it’s a telling character study and an incredibly mature film. It’s one not to be missed.
A-
Saturday, 26 December 2009
These reviews are somewhat overdue, I don’t know why I didn’t put up the grades earlier. Anyhow, here they are.
I Can Do Bad All Myself
It’s generally agreed that Tyler Perry’s brand of madness is more suited for the stage from where he originated. His outlandish plots and dialogue are legitimately funny there, not so much onscreen. I’ve never been overly fond of his stage to screen adaptations. I Can Do Bad All By Myself centres on Taraji P. Henson’s character, April. She is a nightclub singer who is having an affair with a married man. When her niece and two nephews become homeless she starts to tentatively forge a relationship with them and a Colombian boarder. I Can Do Bad All By Myself is a here and there film wrapped around an eclectic performance by Ms. Henson. Nick said it, James said it and I’ll say it too – the woman’s quite good here. It’s a pity the film is tripping all over its heels. That’s not to say that the film has nothing more to offer than Taraji. There are a number of musical scenes speckled throughout and I must say that Tyler Perry’s direction in these scenes were effective and inspired. In fact, I don’t really have anything overtly negative to say about his direction on the whole. The film’s crutch is its script, through and through. It gets more and more convoluted and at the end almost sinks Taraji’s good performance. Still, it’s a spottily enjoyable if predictable thing.
C
The Proposal
It’s actually just as predictable as The Proposal. What can I say about this? Sandra Bullock has always excelled at playing the good girl; I suppose this is why persons have stressed on that ridiculous comparison to Julia Roberts. It is this good girl character of her that fits like a glove that makes her excursions in The Proposal underwhelming. Say what you want about Julia, but she can play mean when she must. Sandra is not so convincing. The Proposal is fine of course. Nathaniel accurately points out the gender duplicity, and it’s obvious. Of course, it’s become rote in romantic comedies. It’s sad that The Proposal [and The Blind Side] have made me dislike Sandra. I never wanted to be that guy who begins to hate something because everyone loves it. I previously liked Sandra when she stayed in her niche, I even forgave her for Crash. Kind of. It wasn’t until I was bemoaning the injustice of her nominations that I realised I used to like her. Actually I still do. I can’t speak for The Blind Side which I’m yet to see, but this isn’t a performance worthy of a Globe nod. In a tale of two Cs Taraji wipes the floor with Sandra – and that’s just getting started in a year of Michelle Pfeiffer, Zoey Daschnell, Evan Rachel Wood, Maya Rudolph and on and on and on. But that’s awards for you.
C
Somewhere, about ninety minutes into Avatar I was certain that this was one of the best – perhaps the best – movies of the year. The feeling didn't pass. Not really. I told The Mad Hatter a few days ago that Avatar was dangerously close to perfection, perhaps the word should have been maddeningly close. The hint of perfection was so close, so near that the failure to attain that perfection was maddening. Yet, despite not being perfect Avatar is still one of the better films I’ve seen this year.
Avatar occurs in the future in a place called Pandora. I’ll refrain from any plot excursions even though I suppose spoilers wouldn’t affect the effect of the film. In a way Avatar reminds me of incongruous musicals like Chicago or even Moulin Rouge The greatness of these films is not in their plot, but in their filmmaking and Avatar is no different. It’s a visual spectacle that’s incredibly phenomenal and enthralling. I found it to be one of the most visually satisfying film since the underrated James & the Giant Peach – probably better than that.
The thing with Avatar though is that with the visuals as characters themselves the actors are not given a feasible chance to harvest their talents. This does not stop Sigourney Weaver though. It’s folly for me to expect this to pick up any awards traction, but Sigourney does everything one can do in such a film. She emerges as the strongest of the lot [voice and body actors] giving a full performance. In fact her final moments on screen are the most poignant for me. Which is actually a contributing reason that the film didn’t get that A.
Avatar is not perfect. It would have been higher if it was. My issue with Avatar – which is essentially nitpicking – is that the climax for me occurs with fifty minutes to spare. Sigourney’s demise and the burning of the forest are all so enthralling and I’ve become so invested that there was nowhere to go but downhill. Thus the effective ending can’t but feel like a letdown. Of course, being less than a stellar is not offensive. And I couldn’t help but chuckle at the refrain "I See You" through the film. A line the more astute of you will remember from Titanic.
You have a gift, Jack. You see peopleJames Cameron puts everything into this film – Terminator, Aliens, Titanic and more and he makes a great film. Not my favourite of his. But one of the best of the year.
I see you.
A-
Friday, 25 December 2009
The two acting categories were quite uneven. The Supporting Actress race was overstuffed with big and small [but good] performances from women, but the leading race was devoid of any exceptional work other than from a few constant few women. Here’s a rundown of my favourites that year.
Supporting Actress
Runners Up: Lisa Meryl Streep in Adaptation, Claire Danes in The Hours, Miranda Otto in The Two Towers
Tier TwoPatricia Clarkson in Far From Heaven
Toni Collette in The Hours
Cameron Diaz in Gangs of New York
Alison Janey in The Hours
Michelle Pfeiffer in White Oleander
Obviously, I was no fan of Meryl in Adaptation, but that wasn’t really her fault. I was not a fan of the film. Cameron Diaz earned a Golden Globe and SAG nod and still turned up empty handed at the Oscars. Sucks to be her. Patricia Clarkson and Michelle Pfeiffer gave strong performances that went unnoticed by most that year. Collette and Janey couldn’t make it with all the good work done in The Hours; but I was a fan.
The Nominees
Queen Latifah in ChicagoJulianne Moore in The Hours
Samantha Morton in Minority Report
Miranda Richardson in The Hours
Catherine Zeta-Jones in Chicago
It was only this year that Julianne equated with Catherine’s Velma. I won’t choose between the two women. I am a big fan of both great performances, no matter what many seem to think of the latter. Miranda Richardson gave the best performance [minus the trinity] in The Hours and I was really impressed by her Vanessa Bell. Samantha Morton was outstanding in Minority Report in an understated performance. Spielberg directed her to greatness. And Queen Latifah was just right as the Matron in Chicago. Altogether, each of these women impressed me much.
Leading Actress
Tier Two
Jennifer Aniston in The Good Girl
Jodie Foster in Panic Room
Goldie Hawn in The Banger Sisters
Salma Hayek in Frida
Alison Lohman in White Oleander
I’m sorry that Hayek had to miss my top five. She’s head and shoulders above her peers in Tier Two, not that Alison Lohman’s turn in White Oleander didn’t impress me much.
The Nominees
Nicole Kidman in The HoursDiane Lane in Unfaithful
Julianne Moore in The Hours
Meryl Streep in The Hours
Renee Zellweger in Chicago
It’s an exceptional bunch of women, it’s almost difficult to choose. Almost. Lane is fifth, but her good performance is not to be underrated. I’m all the more happy that such an atypical performance saw Oscar love. The remaining four are real head-scratchers and I’m tempted to make it all a tie. But no. Julianne comes in at fourth, it’s not my favourite of hers. But it’s still outstanding. As is Zellweger’s Roxie Hart – which is my favourite of hers. It’s a good performance, regardless of what you think of her singing. That leaves Streep and Kidman who are almost equal in their goodness. It’s my favourite Streep performance of the decade [and maybe the last one, too]. I wouldn’t have minded if they went all fraudulent and put her in Supporting for this, but it’s just my luck that the performance I like is the one they ignore. Eventually Kidman wins it, just for the chemistry she has with Richardson AND that pivotal train station scene. Still, I’ll say it, Meryl is golden here.
The men were pretty matched. There were a few outstanding ones, a couple of fair ones and then the rest.
Supporting Actor
Runners Up: Jeff Bridges in The Hours, Tom Hanks in Catch Me If You CanTier Two
Chris Cooper in Adaptation
Ian Mckellen in The Two Towers
Paul Newman in Road to Perdition
Dennis Quaid in Far From Heaven
John C. Reilly in Chicago
Cooper should have been nominated for American Beauty, maybe. But I wasn’t too hot on him in Adaptation. Still, I wasn’t that mad at him for getting his Oscar and stuff. It was cool seeing Newman and Reilly nominated, though absent from my five both did good jobs.
The NomineesStephen Dillane in The Hours
Ed Harris in The Hours
Jude Law in Road to Perdition
Viggo Mortenson in The Two Towers
Christopher Walken in Catch Me If You Can
It was surprising that Jude didn’t pick up traction for his Road to Perdition performance. It was a haunting performance in a good film. It was no surprise that Dillane was ignored, but he was the perfect ally to Kidman and gave a solid performance. One reason the train scene works is because of the reaction shots of him. Viggo does his best work of the trilogy in The Two Towers and it’s a pity that no acting nods came his way. Christopher and Ed had the top two spots for me. I know many felt Ed was a major hambone, but he was my favourite. Figures.
Lead Actor
Tier TwoAdrien Brodey in The Pianist
Leonardo DiCaprio in Gangs of New York
Hugh Grant in About A Boy
Tom Hanks in Road to Perdition
Guy Pearce in The Time Machine
Brodey is the best of this bottom five, but I still didn’t see what exactly the hubbub was about. And I’ll always be miffed that he has the title of youngest winner in this category. I don’t know how Leo picked up no traction for either of the performances he gave that year.
The NomineesTom Cruise in Minority Report
Matt Damon in The Bourne Identity
Daniel Day Lewis in Gangs of New York
Leonardo DiCaprio in Catch Me If You Can
Jack Nicholson in About Schmidt
Leo wasn’t my favourite of the bunch, but it was an excellent performance that went completely ignored. There is no other actor that could have creditably sold the teenage and adult life of his character, and it goes to show that he’s been better than people give him credit for. No one could top Daniel Day Lewis’ monstrous turn in Gangs of New York, and when it looked like the SAG were on to something it’s a pity that Oscar couldn’t follow suit. Tom Cruise gave what is arguably my favourite performance of his in Minority Report where he brought all his assets to the table. Damon and Schmidt didn’t exactly take stretches, but both performances were effective and the single most important performance in both pieces.
Thursday, 24 December 2009
I figure that it's morning wherever you all are. Nevertheless, Merry Christmas to you all. I've not done any Christmas blogging because I've just not been in that festive of a mood. I'm not a Scrooge or anything, but others do it better so I won't. I can't even be sure what's my favourite Christmas movie. I just know that a little lady named Frances would like to give you some Christmas wishes. So, I'll just shut up and let the music play. Ciao.
Wednesday, 23 December 2009
It’s almost becoming second nature doing these year in review posts, so I’ll just oblige myself and move on to 2002. After that it’s on to 2000 and 2001, and then 2009. All three are years where I’ve seen few of the good films, so I’m not exactly looking forward to them. 2002 is battling it out with 2007 and 2001 as my favourite years of the decade. So today we’re going to be looking at the technical achievements of the year and continuing as usual with the acting, writing, directing and of course the top categories.
Original Song
"Lose Yourself" from 8 Mile
"I Move On" from Chicago
"The Hands That Built America" from Gangs of New York
These are three good songs, and I remember that at the time I was a moderate fan of Eminem. However, as much as I find Bono to be a moron I can’t deny that I was a big fan of their number from Gangs of New York.
Original Score
Frida
The Hours
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
Minority Report
Road to Perdition
It was almost offensive that the immaculate score from Phillip Glass earned no love from the Academy. Sure, Road to Perdition was impressive but The Hours’ score was just flawless. Oh well. At least he won an Encore Award.
Visual Effects
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
Minority Report
The Time Machine
As far as technical achievements these three films were golden. The Time Machine in particular was a bit underrated in truth. Of course, with the wonderfulness of Tree Beard The Two Towers took this easily.
Sound
Gangs of New York
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
Minority Report
The Pianist
The Time Machine
So The Time Machine took this. Of course the happenings of Middle Earth demanded epic sound control, but for such a spotty film the sound was spot on in The Time Machine.
Cinematography
The Bourne Identity
Chicago
Gangs of New York
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
Minority Report
Each of these had formidable cinematography, but the edge went to Chicago. Obviously it had the edge with all the imaginative scope of the script and whatnot. It’s an easy winner here actually.
Art Direction
Catch Me If You Can
Chicago
Far From Heaven
Gangs of New York
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
As much as I appreciated Chicago [obviously that was much] I had no idea how it picked up this award. It was almost ridiculous given the great work done by set designers that year. But when you love a film, you really love a film apparently.
Costume DesignChicago
Far From Heaven
Gangs of New York
The Hours
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
The Lord of the Rings and Gangs of New York were my two frontrunners for this and eventually it went to the latter.
Editing
Chicago
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
Gangs of New York
The Hours
Minority Report
Minority Report wins this for me. It was easily the best edited film of the year done with extreme prudence.
So what are your thoughts?
Tuesday, 22 December 2009
2009 ends in a few days. We all know that, of course we all won't be able to see the movie we want to by the end of this year. I'm up to 37 at the moment, which is actually not too shabby. I'm taking a look at the 34 and looking forward to all that I hope to see my the end of February next year. That's my cut-off point.
PS. You'll notice a few grades have gone up or down a notch. Hindisght. Or lack thereof? Click on the links for reviews.
A-____________
B+
____________
B
____________
B-
Star Trek
____________
C+
Julie & Julia
____________
C
Into Temptation
____________
C-
____________
D+
Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs
Madea Goes to Jail
____________
D
Obsessed
Watchmen
____________
D-
____________
F
I Love You, Beth Cooper
____________
Tennessee Williams has a penchant for tragedy, but sometimes he’s so stylish that we lose sight of the tragedy in the presence of all the hilarity in his work. I like to think that Sweet Bird of Youth is the polar opposite of Cat On a Hot Tin Roof. Whereas Sweet Bird of Youth is an elegant comedy poising as a tragedy, Cat On a Hot Tin Roof is a tragedy posing a comedy. As Maggie flits around the room in her alacrity, as Big Daddy embarrasses his wife and his son and as Mae provides enough slapstick we forget that there’s nothing really positive in this house. Big Daddy is a bastard, and every character is disappointed in life – not a far stretch for a Tennessee play.
Like all of Williams’ play Cat On a Hot Tin Roof depends on the casting of the two leads, and Elizabeth Taylor and Paul Newman are effectively cast as Brick and Maggie. I’m a sentimental sort of guy, so I’ll admit that the modified ending although not as sharp as the original does leave me with a little bit of hope. Certainly, Newman’s portrayal of Brick as something of a fallen hero is probably more glorified than Tennesse but I really can’t fault him either. And oh, Elizabeth Taylor is absolutely stunning as Maggie. If Martha is her Blanche Dubois then Maggie the Cat is her Scarlet O’Hara. It’s not as manic as Albee’s but it’s a perfect fit for her – vociferous, passionate and sensual.
Tennessee and Kazan surely were a good match, and regardless of how this holds up to actual play this film is undoubtedly one of the pillars of classic cinema. At #93 it sits comfortably as a pleasurable but formidable example of classic cinema.
Monday, 21 December 2009
There’s a joke, I’m not sure to whom it’s accredited, that says if Gone With the Wind was released today, it would be two films. The sheer length of Gone With the Wind is a bit daunting, and certainly today it’s not as revered as some of the films it triumphed over for the Oscar, but Gone With the Wind is still something special.
It’s based on the novel of the same name which tells the story of Scarlet O’Hara a brash and sometimes reprehensible heroine who experiences a great deal during the American Civil War. Gone With the Wind is a film firmly rooted in that of its heroine Scarlet, and Vivien Leigh tasked with anchoring this monstrosity of a film has quite a task on her hand. There are so many things that Leigh overcomes that her Oscar win is more than deserved. Not only is she in the majority of scenes, she’s not even American, it’s one of her earliest roles and the character isn’t exactly a burst of fresh air. But it’s the sort of role that when done well is excellent, and Viven sure is excellent.
I’ve never really gotten why this has become notorious as a love story, and I still don’t really see Clark Gable as the lead actor. Granted, I’m no big fan of his. But Gone With the Wind is neither a love story, not a civil war story. It’s a story about coping when you find your life is in shambles. It is completely Scarlet’s story and everyone else is just a supporting character. And for the most part they’re good. Of course Olivia De’Havilland and Hattie McDaniel are worthy of praise, and Clark Gable is good. But I can’t love him completely because I always 1prefer the first half of Gone with the Wind to the second. It’s almost like two different films. The bright and loud first section with all those group scenes and the second bleaker section with the war etc. of course, it’s all good anyway you look at it. It's #63.
Sunday, 20 December 2009
I’ll possible write more on both of these sometime next year, but just a quick way of letting you know what I’ve seen recently and what I’ve thought of it all. If all goes well, I should be seeing A Single Man, Away We Go [way overdue] and The Lovely Bones by Christmas. I have a feeling all won’t be going well though…
The Princess & the Frog
Down with Pixar. That’s all I’m asking. Calling this a princess story belies the true nature. It might even be more enjoyable to boys than girls, and it’s an experience indeed. It’s a magical experience [cliché, I know]. It’s a perfect Disney remembrance piece. The voice work is excellent, and the story for all it’s simplicity is quite original. For a musical, it has a small amount of songs but we don’t miss them. We’re all too caught up in the acting. Anika Noni Rose is a tremendous actress [voice alone]. Tis a pity she doesn’t get more work.
A-/B+
It’s not very good. I’ll admit that. But I’m damned if I didn’t have a whole lot of fun watching it. It’s a rock & roll fairy tale of sorts, complete with a fantastical ending. But it’s done in so much earnest, I can’t be mad at it. Tom Sturridge and Seymour Hoffman are the standout, but really it’s as ensemble a film as an ensemble can be. It may not be perfect, or exceptionally smart, but it’s a whole lot of fun – and you’ll find better acting than in crap like Twilight., of course, that’s not saying much.
C
Where the Wild Things Are is a fantasy film. Thoroughly. It occurs in the protagonist’s imagination after a dreadful fight with his mother. Quite a number of reviews that I’ve read for this have revolved around childhood nostalgia that encompassed reading the book on which it’s based. I’ve never read the book, and to an extent I feel that knowledge of the subject lends itself to a more emotional involvement in the piece.
There’s one issue I have with the film – Max. I suppose, the point of the whole experience is to show Max’s maturity, but for the first half of the film I really couldn’t muster up any empathy for this spoilt brat. Perhaps, that’s the whole point. But it’s still a little disconcerting. And that final scene where the luminous Catherine Keener embraces him was almost vomit inducing. I just wanted to slap him. But truthfully, it’s the only significant issue I had with the film. Sure, it’s a pretty big one. But it’s still only one.
By the end of it all you can’t help but be charmed by the wild things, even if you do want to slap Max. Like with an animated film, the voice work is essentially the driving force and here it’s well done. Particularly by Catherine O’Hara and James Gandolfini. Still, I’m not sure why it’s made so many cry. It didn’t strike me as particularly distressing. But that could just be my heartlessness. I don’t know.
B
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
