Best Motion Picture (Drama) -- Black Swan/The Social Network
I've seen all these movies, and I really take issue with The Social Network's structure. Moreover, it's ultimately a lawsuit movie. I love Sorkin, but I think the film's overrated.
Best Actress (Drama) - Natalie Portman/Natalie Portman
I've only seen two of these, so this is probably unfair, but Natalie (who I formerly loathed and will probably loathe again) killed it.
Best Actor (Drama) - Ryan Gosling/Colin Firth
Again, I saw all these movies, and it's a tight race, but Ryan singing "You Always Hurt the Ones You Love" trumps everything else.
Best Motion Picture (Comedy) - The Kids are All Right/The Kids are All Right
Please.
Best Actress (Comedy) - Annette Bening/Annette Bening
Again. Please. Emma was great, but she was in a mildly-better-than-average high school movie. And Julianne Moore should be in supporting.
Best Actor (Comedy) - ?/?
I saw none of these, so...
Best Supporting Actress - Helena Bonham Carter/Melissa Leo
This is tough. I saw everything but Animal Kingdom. I think Melissa Leo has it locked, but I loved HBC in a surprising but inspired casting choice.
Best Supporting Actor - Christian Bale/Christian Bale
In any other year, Rush would have it in the bag, but Christian Bale tore himself apart for this role, so it's no contest.
Best Animated Film - Toy Story 3/Toy Story 3
I only saw Toy Story 3 of these five, but I would bet my firstborn on this one.
I'm gonna skip Best Foreign Language Film because I didn't see any of them.
Best Director - Christopher Nolan/David Fincher
I thought there were a lot of flaws with Inception, but you've got to be impressed with how Nolan mastered all the technical madness.
Best Screenplay - 127 Hours/The Social Network
Do you know how hard it is to make a movie about a guy trapped in a cave and have it be utterly captivating? No, because Beaufoy and Boyle made it look easy with their insanely great script.
I'm gonna skip the music stuff too as I'm not really qualified. I'll post my TV predictions and feelings later.
Showing posts with label movies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label movies. Show all posts
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Sunday, October 31, 2010
something to look forward to
It's that time of year again. Oscar-bait time! Whoo!
I'm really excited about a few films. I already have plans to see Due Date next week and Black Swan at AFI Fest. I'm most interested in:
Blue Valentine
The King's Speech
Somewhere (despite my dislike of Coppola)
The Illusionist (animated, by same people who did The Triplets of Belleville)
More commercial fare:
Unstoppable
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1
The Tourist
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader
I'm also semi-interested in 127 Hours, Morning Glory, and, if they did a better trailer, Tangled.
What are you looking forward to? I know I should be including True Grit, but, honestly, it doesn't excite me that much.
I'm really excited about a few films. I already have plans to see Due Date next week and Black Swan at AFI Fest. I'm most interested in:
Blue Valentine
The King's Speech
Somewhere (despite my dislike of Coppola)
The Illusionist (animated, by same people who did The Triplets of Belleville)
More commercial fare:
Unstoppable
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1
The Tourist
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader
I'm also semi-interested in 127 Hours, Morning Glory, and, if they did a better trailer, Tangled.
What are you looking forward to? I know I should be including True Grit, but, honestly, it doesn't excite me that much.
Saturday, June 14, 2008
mulling
One of the coolest things (for me) about Yale was that the med school had a film society. Movies were $3, or free with a $10 membership, and were screened in one of two theaters, one of which had a balcony. I saw many movies there: Road to Perdition, Adaptation, Open Water, among others. But the one that really sticks out is the movie I brought my little sister to see.
Mulholland Drive. David Lynch's movie is not a movie for people who like movies. It's a movie for people who don't give a shit about storytelling. It's an experiment, and it's as much of a waste of time as the latest IJ installment for those of us who care about logic and depth of character.
Anyhow, actual Mulholland Drive is a gorgeous, windy, nutty stretch of highway that you have to take very slow in stretches. I've only been on it a few times, and all but one of those times was because I got lost. But today I went to Fryman Canyon to hike, so I took Laurel Canyon (another weird movie) to Mulholland and parked at the truly nice Pohl overlook.
Then I tried hiking the damn thing. If you like your trails narrow, overgrown, and bee-infested, this is your canyon. Yes, there are few people there and it's quite pretty, but it's a scramble and a pain in the ass. Maybe it's better in the fall.
This, of course, makes me wonder if perhaps I misjudged the movie. Maybe it's just a movie for anyone who's driven Mulholland and found it both frustrating and gorgeous, as has been by and large my experience. If that's the case, then his film may be the greatest movie made in the last 25 years, having captured the essence of a place and recreated it in the heart of his bewildered audience. Weird little skittering gnome creatures would not be out of place on Mulholland, though the only weird little skittering creatures I've seen have been lizards.
Reading Slouching Towards Bethlehem. Much better written and wildly more interesting that Magical Thinking. No disrespect to the subject matter, but the latter book was crap.
Mulholland Drive. David Lynch's movie is not a movie for people who like movies. It's a movie for people who don't give a shit about storytelling. It's an experiment, and it's as much of a waste of time as the latest IJ installment for those of us who care about logic and depth of character.
Anyhow, actual Mulholland Drive is a gorgeous, windy, nutty stretch of highway that you have to take very slow in stretches. I've only been on it a few times, and all but one of those times was because I got lost. But today I went to Fryman Canyon to hike, so I took Laurel Canyon (another weird movie) to Mulholland and parked at the truly nice Pohl overlook.
Then I tried hiking the damn thing. If you like your trails narrow, overgrown, and bee-infested, this is your canyon. Yes, there are few people there and it's quite pretty, but it's a scramble and a pain in the ass. Maybe it's better in the fall.
This, of course, makes me wonder if perhaps I misjudged the movie. Maybe it's just a movie for anyone who's driven Mulholland and found it both frustrating and gorgeous, as has been by and large my experience. If that's the case, then his film may be the greatest movie made in the last 25 years, having captured the essence of a place and recreated it in the heart of his bewildered audience. Weird little skittering gnome creatures would not be out of place on Mulholland, though the only weird little skittering creatures I've seen have been lizards.
Reading Slouching Towards Bethlehem. Much better written and wildly more interesting that Magical Thinking. No disrespect to the subject matter, but the latter book was crap.
Monday, July 30, 2007
Sunshine, and not getting struck by lightning in Central Park
Went to NYC this weekend to say goodbye to some people. Am feeling cheap, so only took the subway once (going to the LES from Lincoln Center and back) and crossed Central Park about five times as well as walking to Lincoln Center from Grand Central and back.
At one point, coming back from a delicious, too-filling brunch of pancakes and sweet potato fries (ok, I didn't have the fries, my friend did), just as I was walking past the part of the park with the statue of the Angel of Bethesda, thunder clapped overhead. I had a good 15 minutes left of my walk and I had an old white T-shirt on, so I was getting a bit nervous and just kept on. Despite continuing ominous thunder crashes, the rain held off til the literal moment I put my hand on the revolving door to the lobby of Tower 67.
Went to see a matinee of Sunshine this morning. Warning: mild spoilers ahead.
I know it got pretty well shredded, but the film is truly stunning. I think the problem is that, up until a certain point, the audience thinks it's a certain kind of movie. It's science-fiction, but for the great extent of the movie, it's not Star Trek. And then, suddenly, with the arrival of a, let's say, new cast member, the film takes a sharp turn left. The cinematography of every scene in which this new cast member is a part becomes blurry, as if the DP was trying to shoot energy, which may indeed be the case. I think this is where most critics toss up their hands and call it a disaster, but I'm not entirely sure. The plot does become a bit slasher-flick, count-down-the-way-these-people-can-die, but what kind of movie would it be if these astronauts/scientists succeeded in their mission, then turned around and came home? This isn't Apollo 13.
So while the movie does seem deeply flawed, I'm not entirely sure that the flaws are the kind you want to iron out. And even if they are, and you can think of a better way Danny Boyle and his writer could have dealt with the last third of the movie, you can't deny that Sunshine is stunning. Startlingly so, really. Lightyears better than Solaris at least. So yeah, I recommend going to see it, for the delicate moments, the understated acting, and the almost too-predicatble chaos that plagues the mission -- you may love it despite yourself.
Also, I really dig the gold astronaut suits.
At one point, coming back from a delicious, too-filling brunch of pancakes and sweet potato fries (ok, I didn't have the fries, my friend did), just as I was walking past the part of the park with the statue of the Angel of Bethesda, thunder clapped overhead. I had a good 15 minutes left of my walk and I had an old white T-shirt on, so I was getting a bit nervous and just kept on. Despite continuing ominous thunder crashes, the rain held off til the literal moment I put my hand on the revolving door to the lobby of Tower 67.
Went to see a matinee of Sunshine this morning. Warning: mild spoilers ahead.
I know it got pretty well shredded, but the film is truly stunning. I think the problem is that, up until a certain point, the audience thinks it's a certain kind of movie. It's science-fiction, but for the great extent of the movie, it's not Star Trek. And then, suddenly, with the arrival of a, let's say, new cast member, the film takes a sharp turn left. The cinematography of every scene in which this new cast member is a part becomes blurry, as if the DP was trying to shoot energy, which may indeed be the case. I think this is where most critics toss up their hands and call it a disaster, but I'm not entirely sure. The plot does become a bit slasher-flick, count-down-the-way-these-people-can-die, but what kind of movie would it be if these astronauts/scientists succeeded in their mission, then turned around and came home? This isn't Apollo 13.
So while the movie does seem deeply flawed, I'm not entirely sure that the flaws are the kind you want to iron out. And even if they are, and you can think of a better way Danny Boyle and his writer could have dealt with the last third of the movie, you can't deny that Sunshine is stunning. Startlingly so, really. Lightyears better than Solaris at least. So yeah, I recommend going to see it, for the delicate moments, the understated acting, and the almost too-predicatble chaos that plagues the mission -- you may love it despite yourself.
Also, I really dig the gold astronaut suits.
Friday, June 15, 2007
you like seatbelts, don't you?
Hybrid cars make me feel good. They seem like a step forward in a country that has, until recently, seemed like it hated the environment and considered it a natural foe to all things comfortable and fun. Hybrid cars, like the Toyota Prius and Honda Civic seemed to be changing all that.
And then I watched Who Killed the Electric Car? and it reminded me that, in many ways, the hybrids are a consolation prize given to those of us mourning the electric car, which was murdere by the oil companies, the federal government, the California Air Resources Board, the car companies (GM comes off looking particularly bad in this movie, which means I will never buy a car from them), and, I think, bad advertising. Do you remember how the electric car was marketed? As "the car of the future," and an awfully creepy future at that. Reasonable prices weren't offered, and the ads never showed how fast the electric car went. They showed it being stalked by kitchen appliances, or in the distance, as if the car hadn't arrived yet. As if the car was a dream. The electric car never seemed like a tangible reality to most people, especially since the car manufacturers chose to put in a less efficient battery in the car, limiting its range, when it had access to one that would have provided enough miles to calm most consumers' fears. Why the car companies built the electric car, except as a show of good faith to the zero emissions mandates that were starting to show up, only to sabotage it is beyond me...
Until you realize what the auto manufacturers have to lose. The doc depicts this really well, and it never occurred to me. If you have an electric car, your angle is how clean and energy-efficient it is. Which means... all your other cars... are evil. It's schizophrenic. By marketing this one experimental car as good, you'd be making all your other products look bad. This could be a potential profit problem, not to mention an image problem, and the manufacturers weren't ready and/or willing to convert them all.
So how did we get the Toyota and Honda hybrids? The Japanese auto manufacturers got scared because all the American manufacturers were making test models of these machines they had no intention of pushing on consumers. And as American manufacturers pulled back hybrids and electrics in exchange for Hummers and SUVs (grrr, we can run over your hybrid, grr), the Japanese produced the new, hot, lucrative car we've all come to know and love. Mmm, hybrids.
Republicans and libertarians say you can't force the government to force auto manufacturers to do the right thing. Free enterprise and all that crap. But without federal legislation, we wouldn't have seatbelts, airbags, or half the other implements that keep cars from killing us en masse. The White House suing California to drop their zero emissions mandate is, hence, the sickest thing I've ever heard.
No, I take that back. The push of coal, which is like telling someone you'll replace their malignant brain tumor with liver disease, the decision to drill in the Arctic Wildlife Preserve (a year of oil equals destroying nature? sure!), and all this hydrogen cell crap to appease the happily ignorant consumers who only know that oil seems to not be the best energy solution right now -- those are disturbing, too.
So, go watch Who Killed the Electric Car? -- your kids will someday have to watch it in school for history class...
I also watched Ocean's 13 last night as well. Mildly charming, but considering tonight's viewing, an egregious waste of time.
And then I watched Who Killed the Electric Car? and it reminded me that, in many ways, the hybrids are a consolation prize given to those of us mourning the electric car, which was murdere by the oil companies, the federal government, the California Air Resources Board, the car companies (GM comes off looking particularly bad in this movie, which means I will never buy a car from them), and, I think, bad advertising. Do you remember how the electric car was marketed? As "the car of the future," and an awfully creepy future at that. Reasonable prices weren't offered, and the ads never showed how fast the electric car went. They showed it being stalked by kitchen appliances, or in the distance, as if the car hadn't arrived yet. As if the car was a dream. The electric car never seemed like a tangible reality to most people, especially since the car manufacturers chose to put in a less efficient battery in the car, limiting its range, when it had access to one that would have provided enough miles to calm most consumers' fears. Why the car companies built the electric car, except as a show of good faith to the zero emissions mandates that were starting to show up, only to sabotage it is beyond me...
Until you realize what the auto manufacturers have to lose. The doc depicts this really well, and it never occurred to me. If you have an electric car, your angle is how clean and energy-efficient it is. Which means... all your other cars... are evil. It's schizophrenic. By marketing this one experimental car as good, you'd be making all your other products look bad. This could be a potential profit problem, not to mention an image problem, and the manufacturers weren't ready and/or willing to convert them all.
So how did we get the Toyota and Honda hybrids? The Japanese auto manufacturers got scared because all the American manufacturers were making test models of these machines they had no intention of pushing on consumers. And as American manufacturers pulled back hybrids and electrics in exchange for Hummers and SUVs (grrr, we can run over your hybrid, grr), the Japanese produced the new, hot, lucrative car we've all come to know and love. Mmm, hybrids.
Republicans and libertarians say you can't force the government to force auto manufacturers to do the right thing. Free enterprise and all that crap. But without federal legislation, we wouldn't have seatbelts, airbags, or half the other implements that keep cars from killing us en masse. The White House suing California to drop their zero emissions mandate is, hence, the sickest thing I've ever heard.
No, I take that back. The push of coal, which is like telling someone you'll replace their malignant brain tumor with liver disease, the decision to drill in the Arctic Wildlife Preserve (a year of oil equals destroying nature? sure!), and all this hydrogen cell crap to appease the happily ignorant consumers who only know that oil seems to not be the best energy solution right now -- those are disturbing, too.
So, go watch Who Killed the Electric Car? -- your kids will someday have to watch it in school for history class...
I also watched Ocean's 13 last night as well. Mildly charming, but considering tonight's viewing, an egregious waste of time.
Sunday, March 25, 2007
bad behavior
Went out and bought John Dos Passos' The 42nd Parallel (first book in the U.S.A. trilogy) and read a bit of it, already entranced. Also Craig Ferguson's Between the Bridge and the River. I'm surprised more comedians aren't novelists because good comedy and good literature (and good music for that matter) is all about beat, timing, pacing, knowing when to spring something on the audience and when to hold back. Actually, I think comedians should be allowed in the Writer's Guild, even if they don't publish their work. Theirs may be a largely spoken word medium, but they write everything beforehand -- they operate on a script of their own devising, so let'em in, I say! Comedians need health insurance, too!
I also saw Reign Over Me yesterday, largely because the last scene was filmed across from the apartment building on the Upper West Side where I babysat last year. I knew it was an Adam Sandler film, but had I known it was a serious Adam Sandler film co-starring Don Cheadle, I would have chucked my kids over and gone to stalk Don Cheadle because he's a really fine actor. Anyhow, the film was better than I expected from the subdued reviews it received. Yeah, it's two hours long, yeah, the subplot with crazy Saffron Burrows is bizarre and forced, but at the end of the movie, I asked myself, "Am I happy I spent six dollars to come see the matinee of this movie?" and the answer was, "Yes." Cheadle and Sandler have a good thing going together, and for all its faults, its worth the intense little trip.
Page 155. I must reach 160 by Thursday morning. This is my goal. I ain't leaving Sarasota without 160 pages, whether they suck or not. I'm trying to put in a bit of fun stuff, a bit of the ridiculous, because let's face it, life is ridiculous, and personally, I'm exasperated to the point of banging my head against cymbals at least every other day, despite my solitary sort of life, and I imagine if your family were falling apart, and you were criminals, or the child of criminals, or the hostage of criminals, you might be a bit exasperated too. And nothing really reflects that quite so well as the media, so there you are.
I bought two postcards from the Ringling Museum last Monday of paintings I found particularly striking. Since I am sure there are copyright problems with inserting pictures of them, I will simply direct you to Google or otherwise check out Moonlight Landscape, by Joseph Wright of Derby, and Roman Courtship, by Sir William E. Reynolds-Stephens, for a bit of art appreciation.
I also saw Reign Over Me yesterday, largely because the last scene was filmed across from the apartment building on the Upper West Side where I babysat last year. I knew it was an Adam Sandler film, but had I known it was a serious Adam Sandler film co-starring Don Cheadle, I would have chucked my kids over and gone to stalk Don Cheadle because he's a really fine actor. Anyhow, the film was better than I expected from the subdued reviews it received. Yeah, it's two hours long, yeah, the subplot with crazy Saffron Burrows is bizarre and forced, but at the end of the movie, I asked myself, "Am I happy I spent six dollars to come see the matinee of this movie?" and the answer was, "Yes." Cheadle and Sandler have a good thing going together, and for all its faults, its worth the intense little trip.
Page 155. I must reach 160 by Thursday morning. This is my goal. I ain't leaving Sarasota without 160 pages, whether they suck or not. I'm trying to put in a bit of fun stuff, a bit of the ridiculous, because let's face it, life is ridiculous, and personally, I'm exasperated to the point of banging my head against cymbals at least every other day, despite my solitary sort of life, and I imagine if your family were falling apart, and you were criminals, or the child of criminals, or the hostage of criminals, you might be a bit exasperated too. And nothing really reflects that quite so well as the media, so there you are.
I bought two postcards from the Ringling Museum last Monday of paintings I found particularly striking. Since I am sure there are copyright problems with inserting pictures of them, I will simply direct you to Google or otherwise check out Moonlight Landscape, by Joseph Wright of Derby, and Roman Courtship, by Sir William E. Reynolds-Stephens, for a bit of art appreciation.
Saturday, March 3, 2007
West Palm Beach and "This Week in Culture"
What up, tigers?
My friend, Miriam, sent me this week's "Best Headline Ever," courtesy of the Washington Post, "Swiss Accidentally Invade Lichtenstein." You know, after all these years of neutrality, you thought they would have aimed a little higher with their first invasion. Like, Luxembourg even. Or my grandmother's house.
If you've never been to West Palm Beach, you should go. I got here last night, driving down Route 70 (I highly DON'T recommend that) from Sarasota to St. Lucie, Route 1 to Jensen Beach (cute little town) where I met up with S, and then down the Florida Turnpike to downtown West Palm. She lives right next to Cityplace, which is the reason all these high-rent condo highrises are being constructed. Cityplace is like a Disney/Rodeo Drive esplanade of shops, restaurants, a gelatery, a movie theater, a music hall, and a lighted outdoor piazza where live music plays on weekend evenings (possibly more often). The first time in weeks I've been around people my own age, eating awesome mashed potatoes for the first time at The Cheesecake Factory (who knew it had real food?), and getting gelato at Bacio (that's kiss in Italian).
Saw Zodiac last night at Muvico (the aforementioned movie theater). Not shockingly, it's more akin to Se7en than Fight Club. Fincher made an excellent film, extremely watchable, violent, well-acted (you may not know Anthony Edwards is in it, because he didn't get top billing, but he's got a big part, and he's very good), well-shot, everything is pretty much perfect, particularly Mark Ruffalo's softened voice and Robert Downey Jr.'s hair... but it's not something I'd watch again. Despite the violence of Fight Club, there was a cool, funny edge to it that you wanted to see again and again. A single viewing didn't feel complete. The case-reality of Zodiac and its presentation worked both for it (it's a movie set in a very specific time) and against it (if you're not from California, I imagine it doesn't resonate as much). This is an issue I have with all films that are true stories. They don't have re-watch value with me.
Same goes with Flags of our Fathers. Its extreme focus on these three guys and the infamous Flag of Iwo Jimo photo is both necessary to what Eastwood and the writers wanted to (and could do, considering this is based on the book of the same name) and ultimately to its detriment. There is no added fiction, no subtlety, no nuance. It is an account, and thus, a film worth watching once -- but only once.
I finished Perfume as well. I'm not sure how to critique it because I knew the ending beforehand, which may have caused me to be anxious for it to move along. However, even if I hadn't known how it would end, I would still have felt the pain of padding in the slim 250-page novel. The seven years in a cave may have resonated for others, but for me it just felt like Suskind was afraid to get on with things. Sometimes I think the novel would have been better as a long short story or novella. Then again, this one may be all on me. I still recommend the book, though. When it's good, it's very very good.
My friend, Miriam, sent me this week's "Best Headline Ever," courtesy of the Washington Post, "Swiss Accidentally Invade Lichtenstein." You know, after all these years of neutrality, you thought they would have aimed a little higher with their first invasion. Like, Luxembourg even. Or my grandmother's house.
If you've never been to West Palm Beach, you should go. I got here last night, driving down Route 70 (I highly DON'T recommend that) from Sarasota to St. Lucie, Route 1 to Jensen Beach (cute little town) where I met up with S, and then down the Florida Turnpike to downtown West Palm. She lives right next to Cityplace, which is the reason all these high-rent condo highrises are being constructed. Cityplace is like a Disney/Rodeo Drive esplanade of shops, restaurants, a gelatery, a movie theater, a music hall, and a lighted outdoor piazza where live music plays on weekend evenings (possibly more often). The first time in weeks I've been around people my own age, eating awesome mashed potatoes for the first time at The Cheesecake Factory (who knew it had real food?), and getting gelato at Bacio (that's kiss in Italian).
Saw Zodiac last night at Muvico (the aforementioned movie theater). Not shockingly, it's more akin to Se7en than Fight Club. Fincher made an excellent film, extremely watchable, violent, well-acted (you may not know Anthony Edwards is in it, because he didn't get top billing, but he's got a big part, and he's very good), well-shot, everything is pretty much perfect, particularly Mark Ruffalo's softened voice and Robert Downey Jr.'s hair... but it's not something I'd watch again. Despite the violence of Fight Club, there was a cool, funny edge to it that you wanted to see again and again. A single viewing didn't feel complete. The case-reality of Zodiac and its presentation worked both for it (it's a movie set in a very specific time) and against it (if you're not from California, I imagine it doesn't resonate as much). This is an issue I have with all films that are true stories. They don't have re-watch value with me.
Same goes with Flags of our Fathers. Its extreme focus on these three guys and the infamous Flag of Iwo Jimo photo is both necessary to what Eastwood and the writers wanted to (and could do, considering this is based on the book of the same name) and ultimately to its detriment. There is no added fiction, no subtlety, no nuance. It is an account, and thus, a film worth watching once -- but only once.
I finished Perfume as well. I'm not sure how to critique it because I knew the ending beforehand, which may have caused me to be anxious for it to move along. However, even if I hadn't known how it would end, I would still have felt the pain of padding in the slim 250-page novel. The seven years in a cave may have resonated for others, but for me it just felt like Suskind was afraid to get on with things. Sometimes I think the novel would have been better as a long short story or novella. Then again, this one may be all on me. I still recommend the book, though. When it's good, it's very very good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
