|
MI:III
|
May. 23rd, 2006 @ 06:06 pm
|
|---|
Jaime: Tom Cruise sure does have a winning smile. I liked this movie, I did. I have different expectations for different movies. I expect political leaning films to rouse me or make me think. I expect comedies to make me laugh, dramas to make me cry, kung fu movies to exhilirate me and action movies to impress me with bouts of physical strength or blow-upiness. Mission Impossible III succeeded in the cool special effects, gadgets and twists and turns I have come to expect from the spy subgenre. As a Mission Impossible movie, I expected cool gadgets (already mentioned) which they had, cutting edge technology that will both fill me with awe and a little fear about what our government is capable of, cool masks and voice changing stuff, suspence, minor romance, and Tommy's white toothed grin. What more could you ask for? Nothing really, in my opinion. I liked it for what it was, entertainment.
Summer is my favorite time of year. The sun, the heat, the shirtless men, the sun, and yes, the blockbuster movie. I love nothing more than to be there on opening night, as I was for this and the Da Vinci Code also (see upcoming review). New movies excite me.
I would definitely say this is the best of the three Mission Impossible Movies. Number one was great because it was so new and the betrayal was so cool. That and the exploding fish tank at the restaurant, the helicopter in the tunnel, the gadgets, the masks, etc. Number two was fucking horrible. Period. And Thandie Newton is VERY thin.
I think Number Three was the best because it had the best and most sadistic villain, the least obvious betrayal, a surprising number of talented costars, killed off an annyoing person/"good guy" right away (washed up Felicity), outrageous stunts, etc. But mostly it was Phillip Seymour Hoffman and Jonathan Rhys Meyers and Billy Crudup who made it enjoyable for me. And Ving Rhames made me laugh despite the fact that I hate him normally. The plot is of course, just a means to an end, but I thought new guy (to films) JJ Abrams helmed an interesting movie. The movie starts out with a shot of a wrenching scene and cuts back to the weeks before that scene plays out. So we know this dude is one to not be fucked with. And the people helping him out and betraying Ethan do so for interesting reasons.
The only weakness is, well, Cruise. Can you forget its Tom Cruise? It might as well have been Katie Holmes he was trying to save, did you notice that resemblance? Maybe I read too much gossip column garbage, and believe me I do, but I just couldn't help but think, how insane is Tom Cruise? And maybe that is just me. But without Tom it would have been better, but it also wouldn't have been Mission Impossible. There is a point at the end of the movie where he is walking away with his gal on his arm and that too-big grin escapes and stretches across his face, and its just soooo Tom Cruise. The only other thing that bothered me was a really far fetched death defying deal at the end. Tom Cruise literally defies death, medicine, reality, but c'est la vie I suppose. But I really have few complaints, for few can resist the allure of the summer blockbuster, including a snob like me.Current Mood: Bloated - too many fajitas Current Music: Beatles |
Jeff: Up until viewing Peter Jackson’s King Kong, I always thought the best version of the Kong story belonged to the Simpsons’ “King Homer,” a portion featured in their annual Treehouse of Horror episode (I think it was the 3rd one). I’m not joking around even one bit that really was an amazing adaptation – I could devote a good amount of time discussing how good/funny that one is. That said, I think Jackson’s interpretation of the well-known Kong story edges out the Simpsons one…barely. Kidding, obviously. Not only is Jackson’s King Kong by far the best Kong movie made, but an almost perfect blend of awe-inspiring action sequences and touching quiet moments, which helps to rank this movie among the best action/adventure movies I’ve seen in many years.
I don’t think they could’ve made Kong look any more true to life if they tried. I knew coming in to the movie that since this is Peter Jackson’s work, he’s got to have the best in the business preparing his CG Ape for him. It’s pretty cool to have a digitized ape exceed your expectations, because you get to see all the detail of this creature. Dude’s been in his share of scrapes and probably doesn’t own a toothbrush – two features that are perfectly realized when seeing Kong on the big screen. I’d have to put this one right alongside Gollum from Lord of the Rings and Hulk as probably the three best CG creations I’ve ever seen. (Think what you want about Hulk as a movie, but you can’t argue that the scenes with CG Hulk kicking ass were pretty sweet.)
Likewise, the action sequences were nothing less than exhilarating, incredibly well done and intense. The spider pit sequence is one that stands out, which was truly ghastly and freaked me out. But there was also Kong’s epic brawl with a trio of hungry T-Rexes, one that covered damn near all of Skull Island. As with those Lord of the Rings movies, Peter Jackson proves once again he’s a master at gripping action scenes.
The look of this movie is spectacular, particularly the digital recreation of depression era New York, complete with its vaudeville joints and movie billboards located in and around Times Square. I loved this depiction of New York because I’ve always found a certain comfort in the old-time-y nostalgia of the 20’s/30’s. It’s a time when people worked hard, didn’t need safety harnesses to build a skyscraper, and threw in a good amount of elbow grease to get the job done. A time when vaudeville and other stage acts were just as important as the allure of the moving picture – HEY! The movies! Flicks! Talkies!
Anyway, Skull Island was also pretty amazing, but the lasting images of King Kong belong to New York City, especially the final sequence atop the Empire State Building.
I thought pretty much all the actor’s did fine jobs given what could be done with their characters. That may be understating their performances, which, among the cast, there isn’t a weakness to be found. It’s just that Jack Black, Adrien Brody, and Naomi Watts towered above the rest by a large margin – especially Black. Adrien Brody was no less than great, and Naomi Watts proves once again she’s one of the better actresses working these days. Concerning Jack Black, I honestly had really had low expectations coming in about him being in this movie. I think he’s a talented enough actor, but it always seemed like he was destined to do comedy, because he always had a way of giving line reading that made me snicker. When I saw he was going to be major part in King Kong, I was a little worried that the movie would become a showcase for Jack Black-style craziness. It sounds dumb, but at least I was completely wrong. Black’s character was probably my favorite in the movie. His character arc spanned the most ground among all the other characters, starting as an enthusiastic film maker who wants nothing more than to make pictures, and ending up as a kind of crazed showman who would stop at nothing for public notoriety, with a lot of steps in between that transformation. It’s a far more difficult role to pull off than it seems, but Jack Black was more than exceptional in the role. The amount of emotional intensity and depth that Black displayed in the movie truly surprised me.
The minor problems I have with the movie are barely worth mentioning, because they involve aspects of action/adventure movies that, when taken out, ruin the type of mood that is trying to be set in movies similar to this one. Things like great dialog and the absence of goofy or cutesy moments were only meant for intense emotional dramas, not action packed thrillers like Kong. Not to say that Kong can’t be taken seriously as a dramatic entry, just that whatever little flaws may be present are easily forgivable given how much I enjoyed the rest of the movie. The I initially was worried about the running time, being that it’s a tad over three hours, but the duration of this movie had long left my mind pretty much after the first couple of scenes. Which is pretty nice, because I would have hated being distracted enough to miss any portion of King Kong by something as pointless as a movie’s running time. I didn’t think Peter Jackson had it in him to make another great movie this soon after the Lord of the Rings movies, but it’s always nice to be pleasantly surprised.
Jaime: Well, I must be the biggest hypocrite alive because I am now going to do something I accused Jeff of doing too much of, I'm bout to rip shit up.
First though, I will say that Peter Jackson and the Wega team are absolutely top of the line at what they do. As Oscar night will attest, they are simply head and shoulders above everyone in CGI and special effects. I loved Lord of the Rings and the effects in that movie, and King Kong did not disappoint me. Obviously this movie is more effects heavy but Jackson made it all look real and believable. I agree with Jeff, probably the most intense sequence was the spider pit scene. All those ginormous hideous icky and scary bugs. The worst were those slug like things that sucked a guy's face.
Really what I enjoyed most about this film were all the scenes on skull island. It reminded me a lot of Jurassic Park, parts alternatively thrilling and terrifying. There were a few moments were I almost could not bear to watch, but was unable to tear my eyes away from the action. I did think that this movie would definitely not be suitable for kids. Way too scary. I normally don't give a fuck about children, but I just remember thinking about that as I watched the movie. I was also really disgusted by Kong ripping the T. Rex's jaws apart. Ew. That still makes me sick to think about. Too graphic I thought. I did like how it seemed that Naomi Watts kept running into increasingly larger and scarier creatures until she finally meets the T. Rexes that try to eat her in one snap. Also, when those velociraptors and the men were ducking in and out of the falling/running whatever they are calleds was very tense-I was impressed.
I was very disturbed and didn't really now what to think about the people who inhabit Skull Island. Was that racist to make them like that? I don't know. I know they were nasty and again, just yuk. I did think to myself as the men were poking around and stupidly "There's only women and children here," that where there are women and children, there are men. And they were promptly ambushed.
So all of that is well and good. The rest of the movie, in my opinion was pretty laughable. I was ecstatic to see Jamie Bell in the movie, I think he is great and cute, but he played the typical cliche'd orphan with big dreams, or boy with delusions of manhood. Barf, and of course his big strong mentor dies. Could you smell that one coming from a mile away like me?
My biggest problem and the film's worst parts, I believe, were those shared by Naomi Watts and Kong. Um, I don't buy it. Maybe she feels bad for the thing when its clear he's gonna die. But gazing into his eyes like you are in love with the thing. Wrong. That would never happen. Never, sorry. Maybe Naomi should have brought out her sad eyes, but not her in love with Mr. Dreamboat eyes. The worst was on top of the Empire State Building or whatever that was supposed to be. I just kept thinking, Fucking Die Already! My butt was numb, my patience was gone, it had been three hours already! Let the ape get sniped and fall! But no, googly eyes had to be made for at least ten more awkward minutes. I wanted to walk out, I kid you not. But I stayed and saw the even more predictable and annoying closing comments.
Adrien Brody was completely wasted. What the hell was he doing in this film really? Yes, he's dreamy and I can see how Naomi Watts and him could fall in love in such a short time (their characters), but he was not given much to actually do except take the man with integrity in times of peril who will stop at nothing and risk his own life for some dumb brawd role. Did you like that one? It just came to me. Jack Black was okay. I didn't think his part was any feat to pull off.
I guess I would conclude that Peter Jackson is not Mr. Screenwriting. With the LOTR he had plenty of material, when he's alone, its time to pull out the movie cliche's and lean on them, HEAVILY. And what the hell is the big deal with Andy Serkis? Why does everyone praise him so much? How hard is it to don a black suit and pretend to be an ape? Maybe I am missing someting. But even that seemed trite. A gorilla thumping his chest a lot, hm, have we seen that before? I'll give you Kong was lifelike, hell yes. But I don't know if gorillas actually do that and that annoyed me. In summation, I would say King Kong was mostly a special effects extravaganza and I was blown away by that. BUT on character development, plot, etc., a lot was left to be desired.Current Music: The Kinks - Set Me Free |
Jaime: Spike Lee's latest effort, to me, was a fun caper film, but smarter than the average caper film. Someone I saw it with compared it to Ocean's Eleven, and I don't think it was very similar to that movie at all. While Ocean's Eleven pokes fun at itself and has a lot of comedy and is smart in that sense, I would proabably compare Inside Man more to the Usual Suspects. Of course, if you have seen both Inside Man and the Ususal Suspects, you will not deny that the Usual Suspects is a better movie. However, they are similar in the not so predictable endings and buildup of suspense.
Inside Man features an A-List cast with an A-List director and A-List cinematography. I also enjoyed the music that opened and closed the film. But besides the cast, the movie was little more than entertainment. Which is fine, I'm just saying that for a Spike Lee Joint, there is not much in Inside Man to remember. But isn't it okay to just make a movie nowadays? Does Spike Lee always have to be synonymous with thought provoking movies, especially regarding race relations? I don't think so, necessarily. I just expect a certain kind of movie from him just as I expect a certain kind of movie from Ben Stiller.
On to the cast, the most shining part of this film. Clive Owen was far and away my favorite player. His voice, his piercing eyes, he just has so much presence and allure for a man that probably would not be looked at twice if he weren't famous. He was perfect as the ringleader of a bunch of bank robbers, and magnificent in his self-righteousness in this movie. SPOILER: I absolutely LOVE it when the bad guy wins! Although in this case, he's the lesser of two bad guys, in my opinion.
Denzel did well as the sleazy detective. I am consistently amazed by how young his love interests get, even as he ages. Oh well. Christopher Plummer is always good, and he did well here as the aging, somewhat mysterious bank owner. It was hard for me to see him playing such an old man, even though he is old. I just don't want to lose one of our finest character actors, not yet. Another standout is Chiwetel Ejiofor (yes, I did have to look up the spelling on that one). I have seen him in other films, and I just really like what he brings to any film, plus he is good looking. The only cast member that didn't belong was Jodie Foster. She was visibly uncomfortable in her role. I just did not buy that she was this big powerful bitch. She did not sell me at all, I mean she looked pained in one scene to be called a "c**t" (I can't write that word, it is so vile). Maybe that was how her character was supposed to react, but I didn't think so.
And another thing that I like about Spike Lee films in general is how he makes the background swell, disappear or move in fast motion while keeping the character in center frame, immobile. What is that technique Jeff? Most memorable in this movie when Denzel runs to the bank after a hostage is killed.
In short, good entertainment, satisfying ending, but, obviously, little to write home about.
Current Mood:  Because I have been ill. Current Music: The Who - We're Not Gonna Take it |
This is a website devoted to the critique of films. My name is Jaime, my bro's name is Jeff and while we enjoy a lot of the same films, we thought it would be more fun for us and hopefully more interesting to you to see us duel. One of us will write a review and the other will respond and respond and respond, until we get bored. If there is anything you would like to see, for example a film you are interested in seeing reviewed, please let us know by e-mail (duelingcritics@yahoo.com) or simply post a comment. Don't agree with something you see? Post a comment for all to see and make us look stupid! PLEASE! Especially to make Jeff look stupid, its not that hard to do.
Neither of us are any type of expert. But who is? Roger Ebert? That is truly a joke. I believe we are somewhere in between Mr. Fatbert and the Onion AV Club, which is way arty farty snobby. If you don't agree with anything we say, let us know.
Also, many older movies will not have spoiler warnings. We just assume you know the plot already. Newer movies may have spolier warnings or duh! spoilers (where you should know what happens without a warning). I also believe its not that big a deal to know plot details, unless its Buffy the Vampire Slayer, in which case I am only on Season 3, so don't spoil that for me. I mostly believe a film is about the journey not the outcome.
Anyway, please participate and ENJOY! |
Jaime: Can a movie change the world? I wish it could.
(Omigawwd! It's so CLEANSING!!!! Gimme a break - Jeff)
There was not a whole lot I could find wrong with this film. I loved the action, the script, the actors, the art direction (who notices that? I did, oh yes), the use of that song, 1812 Overture maybe? Anyway, I was blown away, just as the Old Bailey building was at the beginning of the film.
This is a story of revolution. A story I know needs to be told and hammered into the American conciousness. How different is the society portrayed in the film from the one in which we exist right now? I don't think it is that far off. Government coverups, excuses made for increased citizen surveillance and control in the name of "security" and fear gripping the citizens with the help of the media. It sounds all too familiar to me. This made it so much more sweet for me every time V blew something or beat someone up.
But even if you don't feel as I feel, I believe you will enjoy this movie. Brought to us by the Wachowski Bros (Matrix trilogy) one could expect plenty of cool tricks. There are plenty. As I said, things get blown up, but my favorite was a sword fight where they enhanced the sword's movements, beautiful and deadly. However, the martial arts are kept somewhat to a minimum, so some Matrix nerds, I mean, dweebs, may be disappointed.
Onto the plot, the only piece of a movie that Roger Ebert cares to remark on in his columns nowadays. The movie mostly follows the movements of a young woman, Evie, who meets by chance a masked stranger named "V". Their first encounter showcases V's wonderful athletic ability as well as his penchant for lengthy "arty farty" speeches. He began nearly every word in his tirade with a "v" and I thought, okay, I can't take this for two more hours, but thankfully, that was the worst by far of V's speeches. We soon learn of V's plot to change the land and shake the citizenry free of the shackles which choke it into submission. I hoped from that moment on that he would be victorious. The rest of the movie is largely devoted to how V will accomplish this, who stands in his way, and just who the hell he is.
Evie and V slowly fall in love and some, including Jeff, thought this was an unneccesary plot piece. I thought about that and have concluded that as usual, Jeff is wrong and cyborg-like. I cannot think of one time in my life where I was not interested in someone sexually (or "more than a friend" before I knew what sex really was). In other words, love is part of our daily lives, and that is reflected in our films. I even found myself looking forward to seeing V's face throughout the course of the movie. So even I was feeling something about this guy. I think the plot would have been fine without any sparks between the characters and I would be interested to know if that plot piece played out in the original comic books, but I think that with it we glimpse part of V's remaining humanity, of which there is very little remaining. I can understand the point of view that it is annoying when you think about the fact that nearly every movie MUST have a romantic subplot, but I don't think it is forced or out of line in this context at all.
There may be some, including my dad, who would not believe some of the feats of strength and courage of V. But to that I say, just relax already. Whatever happened to suspension of disbelief while watching a movie? Could Harry Potter really work any magic (or get girls) in real life? No. Can I enjoy the movie anyway? Yes I can.
The cast are so excellent in this movie. I just adore Hugo Weaving, especially his voice. I know they cast someone else (who I am not going to bother to look up right now) before him, but wow, he is so perfect for this role. I remember when he showed up to my surprise in the first LOTR movie and I expected him to turn to Frodo and sinisterly say something like, "Welcome, Mr. Anderson." But I digress. Natalie Portman did wonderfully well. And her beauty is undeniable. If someone can still look gorgeous without hair, I think that is a feat. Her features remind me a lot of Audrey Hepburn, especially with short hair. I look forward to seeing much more of her in the future. I also love Stephen Rea (The Crying Game). He is always a go to man for the sheepish good guy who pulls through in the end. And of course John Hurt as the oppressive yet ultimately cowardly leader of the Britons was pitch perfect. Did anyone else notice that his eyes were strangely dialated when he was on the big screen? What's up with that?
In short, I thoroughly enjoyed watching this film. I was completely wrapped up in the story and did not want it to end. I was very moved by the end of the film, I felt a rush of excitement and wondered what it would take to shake people up in my country, to make people wake up and stand up and kick that dumbfuck and his gang of assholes out of there? I don't know, it seems we have little more to lose at this point, but Tomorrow Never Knows. But this film gave me hope, even while revealing truths that are hard for some to look at. Roger Ebert basically said this movie's themes scared him and were perhaps too dangerous. Nothing could have made me angrier. It seems Mr. Ebert is officially now a puppet. But I will keep you updated on his fatcapades in another blog. Bottom line: this was a beautifully acted, shot and scored movie - go see it!
Jeff: Can a movie change the world? Despite the fact that art, as a concept, has a slight capacity to change the world, it will never happen. Movies can change the mind of a person or people who will change the world, but no movie will ever be able to single-handedly change the world. Unless you're talking about the movie world, in which case a movie can change that world (Birth of a Nation, Citizen Kane, Pulp Fiction...maybe). Yes, I do realize I'm rambling at this point. Bottom line - V for Vendetta does neither of those things. I liked the movie, but not all that much. It had a lot going for it; good premise, some nice ideas floating around, and even a couple of decent action sequences. But I can't say this movie...moved me. Not really in any way.
Let's throw something right out there that needs to be talked about - American actors who try on British accents. This NEVER works, because the only thing you end up with, no matter the skill of the actor, is simply somebody trying to sound like a Brit. There are hundreds of different sounds to a British speaking person, yet in movies, all you ever hear from an American actor is that same old, tired 'stately' accent. It isn't natural, and it isn't a sign of either good acting or any sort of courageous effort on the part of the actor. It is a joke, and I wish it would quit happening. Case in point, Natalie Portman. Granted, I think she's an o.k. actress (I don't really see the big deal), but as soon as she started up with that same gimmick, I knew it would be unbearable throughout the movie. Contrast this with Hugo Weaving, an Australian, who gives a near flawless rendition of a type of Briton; no, not an attempt to sound 'British', but instead opting for a specific dialect. It's really too bad that the movie has this glaring problem with Portman, because the rest of the cast, mainly Stephen Rea, are more than well-equipped to handle their roles.
I did, however, enjoy the politically charged nature of this movie - mostly because it didn't make an attempt to be witty or high-concept about it. This movie knows what it is (pure entertainment with a dash of insight) and doesn't try to be something else. Movies adapted from comics or graphic novels have little room for sublety, but V works well because that spirit is there. Obviously, comparisons to the current Bush administration exist, as well as the fear of governmental control resulting in the loss of freedom. Again, I like it, and I think it will work very well with audiences, but it didn't really blow me away and force me to think about it for days after the fact.
That's most likely due to the fact that at the very end, Natalie Portman does the whole 'professing her love during the death of the hero' routine (if I 'spoiled' the ending for you, dear reader, then you haven't seen many movies, so shut up). Jaime, the problem I have with your comment that I'm wrong and cyborg-like because I didn't care for this love story crap in 'V' is about as valid as you claiming that Ebert talks too much about plot, then going ahead and explaining the plot; it's weak. I don't have a problem with love stories, or storylines in a movie involving two characters in a movie becoming romantically involved. However, it has to work, which is to say that it's believable, and I care about the relationship. The problem in 'V' is that it unfolds exactly like every other movie involving a romance/love that I've seen before. Oh, she's initially intrigued and interested, but then she gets chased off - but WAIT! Oh, at the end, she realizes...something, and now they're back together, but then Hero X dies, and we close our story with Female Love Interest crying and saying something like "No!!!". Yes, things are slightly different in 'V', but it's only a slight variation to the norm. And while it's also true that even the best romances in movies are also only slightly different from a basic structure, it will always be in the presentation. With 'V', that presentation goes over with as much tenacity and polish as an elementary school play. Thanks, but no thanks.
Jaime: What would you do if the person you loved were dying? Stand there and watch, or get emotional? I know it is contrived and happens a lot in movies, but how else should one react? I understand that you think ALL movies end like that and its stupid (see King Kong for the most laughable example) and boring, but I still don't understand why you think it DOESN'T work in this case.
And on to Roger Ebert . . . Yes, I describe the plot to some degree, to a much lesser degree than Ebert mind you, but that is not the ONLY thing I discuss, which was my gripe with Ebert, but maybe you didn't catch that. In any event, it is disappointing that a man with so much self-proclaimed knowledge and credibility regarding films has little more to say on any film than whether the story line is believable. I just think Ebert has become what he thinks will make him the most popular he can be, and therefore leaves a lot to be desired for anyone caring to discuss or contemplate other aspects of what make a film great or entertaining. Do I always care that something in the plot is not totally believable in the real world? No, I rarely feel that way and therefore that alone will not deter me from seeing a movie, but apparantley Roger Ebert, and his vision of the American moviegoing public, only care about those things. Its just disappointing to me and I think the public is smarter than that.
Sometimes, Jeff, it seems as though you find as much wrong with a movie as you can. Natalie Portman's accent? Who cares? I know she's an American, but I didn't listen for her diction. Its fine that you did, but I think its a little nitpicky.
I am glad that you at least acknowledge that there are political messages and leanings in this film. Did they make you think, make you think twice about your misconceptions or think about how they enriched your feelings? If so, then I think it is possible for movies to change the world, one thought, one person at a time. Maybe you, Jeff, only thought about this movie for a few moments afterwards, but you did think enough about it to compare it to our government, which is something, for many who see that movie will no doubt miss the comparison, or, more likely, push that out of their minds. I really rarely enjoy movies that don't make me think. I enjoy movies like Syriana, Brokeback Mountain, Crash, movies that make me think about my relationship to society, to my government, to my partner. I am encouraged by "V" mostly because it is a movie that will reach a mass audience within a package that may make that audience think. I am always encouraged when a movie like this does well. It shows Hollywood that we don't all just want to rot away watching 40 year old Virgin and Wedding Crashers, movies that require no thought before, during or after. I think V is helping to change the world, in its own way.
Jeff: Ok, why would watching 40 Year Old Virgin or Wedding Crashers cause one to 'rot away?' Just because there's crude humor in 40 Year Old Virgin doesn't mean that there wasn't any sensitivity or heartfelt moments. And just because Wedding Crashers cut corners to make the plot work, that doesn't mean that there weren't any funny moments at all. I like the occasional "serious" movie just as any other movie fan, but that doesn't mean I'm not partial to movies like Dumb and Dumber, Office Space, The Big Lebowski - any of which I'd rather watch over 'thinkers' like Syriana, Traffic any day of the week. Don't demean a movie just because it doesn't aspire to be high art. It's far too condescending, and it makes you seem just a smidge above pretentious. There was one thing in mind when the moving image was created - to serve as entertainment. Like I just mentioned, intelligence and thought-provoking experiences are more than welcome, but movies will always remain entertainment first.
And how can I remain entertained when the only thing I'm thinking about is how one of two things should've happened before the filming of V for Vendetta;
1 - Have Natalie Portman ditch the accent
Who cares? I care. If I have to be reminded, every second of the movie, that Natalie Portman is trying her darned best at being British, all while knowing that it's a performance, it doesn't work. What she did in V for Vendetta was good enough ACTING, but that was not a character. And I don't want to hear any of that noise about "oh, but everything in movies is a performance", because I know that. But in my mind, a character is DeNiro in The Deer Hunter, or Brando in On the Waterfront, Adrien Brody in The Pianist, Orlando Bloom in Elizabethtown (oh...wait, that's the exact opposite of what I'm getting at). There's something that happens while you watch those movies - they cease to be Marlon Brando or Robert DeNiro or Adrien Brody. And you know the great thing about Brody's performance? He wasn't trying on some weak attempt at a Polish German accent. The audience wouldn't have bought it, so it doesn't exist. Unlike Natalie Portman in V for Vendetta.
2 - Find a lead actress who's actually British
If the script is good enough, anybody can carry the movie because actors don't make the movie - the story makes the movie (to paraphrase William Goldman...possibly incorrectly). Natalie Portman is not that big of a star. The same certainly goes for John Hurt, Stephen Rea, or the voice of Hugo Weaving. They're all known, but they're not that well known. So why not just find an actress who actually speaks in an English accent, but can pull off the role just as well? As a matter of fact, probably better, because I don't think much of Natalie Portman as an actress.
But as far as that being nitpicky? Maybe that's how it appears to you, but when something just sticks out in a movie as being wrong/annoying/stupid, what do you do...not pay attention to it? It's impossible. Are you telling me that in any additional viewing of Lord of the Rings - The Two Towers, you won't be laughing when Orlando "The best actor of any generation" Bloom screams "THEY'RE TAKING THE HOBBITS TO ISENGARD!!" You know you'll have a smile on your face...just like he did every time he was on screen, even when it shouldn't have been there.
What would I do without Orlando Bloom?
Also, how can you possibly say that I'm the one who points out all the negative parts of a movie? Just take a look at the previous posts on this website: Who picks apart Flightplan? Who trashes Mr. and Mrs. Smith - after not even having seen the entire movie? If anything, I tend to avoid talking about the really bad parts of a movie because I believe that most movies have at least something good to offer. Once the negatives start to be pointed out, it puts people in a bad mood - one that discourages movie viewership, which is opposite of my intentions on this site.
And, on a personal note, which one of us firmly attests to a dislike of Tom Hanks, Steven Spielberg, Forrest Gump or Cast Away, for no other reason that they are Tom Hanks, Steven Spielberg, Forrest Gump and Cast Away? Is that you, or is that me? I can't remember, but I do know that Forrest Gump and Cast Away crack my all-time top ten. So there is that...
Jaime: So why am I wrong and snooty and pretentious for liking movies that make me think? I can enjoy movies like 40 year old virgin and Wedding Crashers, but I do think they are different than V for Vendetta and Syriana. My brain doesn't need to work for those movies. That's not wrong that I say that or wrong that they exist. I am MORE entertained and enjoy my mutliplex viewing experience more when I can think about what I have just seen. By the way, I would never lump Office Space and the Big Lebowski in the same class as Dumb and Dumber. I would never say those movies are bad or rot my brain. I own Office Space and I thought that and the Big Lebowski are not typical comedies. I am glad that movies are made to entertain everyone. If I had to pick between Slither and Failure to Launch, two movies out right now, I wouldn't go. I don't like those type of movies, they do not entertain me. Saying that movies are for entertainment is fine Jeff, but you can't put me down for having different tastes than you. I don't care if a movie doesn't aspire to be high art, you know more about artistic elements of films than I do I'm sure, as you are the film major. I do care if I am not given any choices at the local AMC that I think are entertaining, but thankfully that is usually not a problem. I do not apologize for that feeling and I think it is wrong that you down me for that and claim that I am being the snotty one. If that is how I came off, well now you know how I really feel about it.
You can continue to hate Orlando Bloom and Portman's accent if I can continue to be nitpicky and critical too.
And this is the shiz to see We're taking the Hobbits to Isengard...
http://youtube.com/watch?v=gfcybanFKjUCurrent Mood:  contemplative Current Music: Oasis - Let There Be Love - had to go Brits for this one. |
| » Black Hawk Down |
|---|
Jaime: I recently watched this film again and was surprised by how much I liked it. Ridley Scott is not my favorite director by any means but I really enjoy a lot of his films (not Matchstick Men - the trailer was cooler than the movie). His movies stand out to me by how they look, their aesthetic qualities. I love the cinematography in this movie. Everything looks grainy and washed out by the sun, how one would expect the desert to look and feel like.
The film at times seems so real. I feel the blades of those black hawks turning and whirling in my ears. I get a rush of adrenaline when I hear those semi-automatics unload round after round into the blinding, endless crowd of "skinnies." I loved the realism and chaos portrayed as one of the men (Orlando Bloom) falls hundreds of feet to the ground below from a chopper. I was moved by the beautiful shots of the helicopters taking off from base to enter Mogadishu, the mixture of thick black smoke and beautiful manly faces. Yummy. But yes, the art, the art. Anyway, this film is downright captivating and I think that is why I could accomodate a certain amount of schmaltz towards the end, or whenever someone died. After all, this movie was produced by Jerry Bruckheimer for God's sake.
On to the acting. I saw Josh Hartnett and I thought, uh oh. At the time this movie was released (2001) I was majorly hooked on old Joshy. Now I think he is pretty much a joke. I feel bad for him, but he really is not good. And this movie is no exception. He is a very good looking guy, but not a great actor (or smart - see the extra "On the Set" feature where Josh describes how smart his character is while revealing how stupid he himself is). Even so, only the biggest of Josh Hartnett haters could let his performance spoil the rest of the movie. Black Hawk Down had about 35 speaking parts, according to Sir Ridley, so many hunks, I mean actors, had to be found. My favorites were Eric Bana, who played "Hoot", the ultimate manly man, Jason Patricks, a leader of the Rangers, and Tom Sizemore - a jerk and scary guy in real life, but a great go to guy for military men (for a laugh, see "Paparazzi"). The rest filled their parts pretty well, but who knows who the hell they are. I did not like Ewan McGregor's performance, it was not believable at all. Who buys that this actor, the talented, independent, free-spirited, non-American has that haircut and is that much of a knob? Not me. His accent was so bad, hardly believable, and his character is so pathetic its hard to let that go. Orlando Bloom looks horrible, he's too pretty to be sweating and given such a bad haircut.
One of the primary strengths of the film lies in the simple heroics it portrays. The film accomplishes so much more when Ridley allows the viewer to sit back and watch the action sequences, rather than explain away what we are seeing to make sure we don't miss any emotions through sappy little speeches. One example is the scene where a young medic is desperately trying to save a bullet-ridden ranger. This was excrutiating to watch and we all feel his frustration and guilt when the task cannot be accomplished. No more needs to be said, but of course the impact of the action alone is not enough, the viewer must be clobbered over the head with how we should be feeling watching this. Then witness the ending of the movie (with Josh Hartnett speaking, not a good sign in any scene) which was particularly lame. Josh is giving a little speech and then the camera pans back to reveal he was speaking at a dead guy. Weird, and unrealistic, maybe a voiceover would have worked better there. When will directors/writers/Bruckheimer learn that less is more-let the action onscreen tell the story? A couple examples of how to masterfully convey emotions without ramming them down our throat with unneeded dialogue would be from Saving Private Ryan. When everyone is getting ready to leave or fight, nobody talks about "make sure Martha at home knows I love her" we just get Ed Burns wisecracking about boobs or Tom Hanks breathlessly bellowing "earn this." We know what they must have felt by the way they look and what they do, we don't need the pathetic and unneccessary side comments, "you did all you could" or "you did good out there today." We KNOW!
One of the most moving sequences in the film involved the two snipers volunteering to defend a downed black hawk that was about to be overran with Somalis so that they could try to protect the one surviving pilot. The two died in the pursuit and we did not need a long, drawn out explanation of why they did what they did and who they would be leaving behind back in the USA. In fact, these characters had not been introduced before in the movie. They were just two souls, doing their job to the best of their ability and it was a terrifying duty to behold. I was truly scared to watch as they were overtaken and later paraded through the streets as trophies. Those two won the Congressional Medal of Honor in real life, as we are told at the end of the film, and we know why. We didn't need those emotions forced on us.
The music in this film really reminded me of Gladiator. And I thought the shots of Mogadishu (or Morocco where they actually filmed) were spectacular. I was moved during the first shot of the Muslim call to prayer, and I thought it was clever and observant that they used that as a weakness later on in the movie.
Overall, I admire Ridley Scott as a director and thought he handled this movie and the subject matter quite respectfully. A lot of films, especially these days, are quick to scapegoat anyone who is a Muslim and I hate that. This movie portrayed the bad guys as the war lords, but also included a speech from the bad guy reminding the U.S. that they are seen as bad guys by everybody else, or maybe that is just my thought. Egos flared, wrong decisions were made, comrades were surrendered, basically the Americans were not perfect heroes and at the same time not everyone who was a Somali was portrayed as a villain, although the confusion of the situation was certainly felt. I basically thought the movie was a beautiful and thoughtful retelling of an event in American history forgotten by most.
Mar. 1st, 2006 @ 07:50 pm
|
| » For A Few Dollars More |
|---|
Jeff: Okay, now that the Oscar picks are out of the way, it's time to write a little about one of the best westerns ever made - For a Few Dollars More.
When I first saw this movie, Leone had me in the first few minutes - I'm that easy. From far away, a lone rider slowly traverses the desert plain, all attention is fixed on this speck in the distance. Moments pass, tension slowly builds. A shot rings out – that unmistakable Leone gun burst – dropping the rider off his horse, hitting the ground in a crumpled heap. Welcome to Sergio Leone’s Old West. ‘For A Few Dollars More’ is a far better movie than I would have expected it to be. I imagined that it would be slightly better than ‘Fistful of Dollars,’ but not on par with the ‘Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.’ After seeing ‘For a Few Dollars More,’ however, it’s difficult to decide which is the best of the three. ‘Fistful’ established Leone’s directorial style, and ‘Good, Bad, Ugly’ is most synonymous with Leone, in terms of his work. But it is ‘For a Few Dollars More’, which features incredible performances and amazing visuals that defines Leone’s vision of the new western movie. I love it because not because it’s such a cool movie, but because Leone knew that it would that cool.
Nobody has a better ability to stylize entrances for heightened dramatic effect than Leone. There’s nothing ordinary or typical about Leone’s openings, which is one of the reasons his westerns are landmark achievements in cinema. His uses of long takes prove to be just as thrilling as fast paced action or montage. Look no further than the opening shot and title sequence, the extreme long shot that lasts a few minutes. Long takes aren’t all that natural in movies, especially today. But as the time passes in the opening shot, with that rider prodding along ever so slowly, I became instantly hooked into the movie’s world. It’s a different technique than a violent action sequence, but the result is similar – all eyes are glued to the screen.
This occurs because Leone has a visual style that is all his own. A style that is visually appealing because it looks like a lot of the shots were designed with reckless abandon, and with that there is a sense that the images and shots on screen are something special, something unique to movies. Consider the shots when Indio’s gang members are scooping out the bank in El Paso. Their intent is to count out how long it will take the guards to circle the bank. To visualize this, Leone places the gang members in the foreground; in extreme close ups, while the guards are in the background, in extreme long shots. It’s difficult to describe.
But the shots are not put together just for the sake of being different, there’s an obvious reason behind them. The shots are all very carefully constructed to look incredibly stylized, almost operatic in a visual sense. Some of the shots, edits, and stylistic choices could easily come off as perhaps too stylized. But there’s a certain allure involved, as though Leone wishes to dazzle the viewer with the spectacle of his western. Visually, I believe that no other director of westerns has been able to do what Leone has done. He brings a sense of the western movie less as a tale of good and bad, but more as a showcase of everything audiences love about them – gunfights, bad guys, and every other gritty detail that was probably found in the ‘real’ Old West, not the one produced by Hollywood.
A lot of this idea, however, is contained in Leone’s characters in ‘For A Few Dollars More.’ Like his visual style, Leone presents a different version of the western hero and villain, one that plays against myths of the stoic hero and droll villain – the black hat/white hat dynamic seen in westerns from the 40’s and 50’s.
Clint Eastwood is perfect as the same soft-spoken, ultra-cool, brilliant gunslinger that he was in ‘Fistful of Dollars’ and would be in most of his later western roles. He’s a protagonist that isn’t above killing for bounty or other misdeeds in the name of money, because really, there’s no room for glorified or altruistic acts in Leone’s western world. Eastwood’s ‘man with no name’ defined a new type of western hero, one that worked outside of the law instead of as the law.
In any other western story, Lee Van Cleef’s character, Col. Mortimer would be the villain, but in the twisted morality of Leone’s westerns, he fits a different definition of a hero. Mortimer is sinister, cold, calculating, and an expert bounty hunter. Van Cleef has just the right facial features for the role, because character faces are very important in Leone’s westerns.
- Can't leave Van Cleef out of this post!
They have to look battered, weathered, and ugly, in an attempt to distance these characters from the cardboard cutouts from westerns past. Van Cleef has that look, mostly in his eyes. They’re shaped in a way that you can’t trust him when he’s being ‘good’ (or as good as can be in this movie), because they look so threatening and icy. He’s one of the heroes of the movie, yet there’s nothing typically heroic about Mortimer. Lee Van Cleef is a gifted actor, and he pulls off this role with just the right balance between good and bad.
But the movie belongs to Gian Maria Volonte, whose Indio is one of the more charismatic and complicated villains in many of the westerns I’ve seen. I said that Van Cleef was ruthless, but Indio takes that about ten steps further; this is one scary dude. It’s bad news when the villain is a bit on edge, but Indio strikes me as someone bordering dangerously to complete insanity, almost as though he has nothing to lose. He robs banks as though it were a thrill sport, and kills either out of boredom or because someone makes the mistake of being in his way.
But then there’s an additional aspect to the character of Indio, one that makes him more complex. This unfolds through flashbacks of Indio walking in on someone assumed to be a lover, as she sits in bed with another man. It’s a moment that humanizes Indio in a way that made me forget about the thoughtless nature of his killing and violence. In this sense, perhaps Indio is a tragic villain; one that inspires empathy for complicated reasons, yet still inhabits the role of ‘bad guy.’
I think part of what makes him memorable, as a villain is the music that plays through his pocket watch, which acts as a timer for his quick draw standoffs. The tune, a lullaby of sorts, plays more like a haunting reminder that all is not peaceful in the heart of Indio. The watch connects him with the memory of his lover, and puts him in a trance-like state, one that wills him into casually opening fire on opponents.
Probably what I love most about Leone’s style is his skill in the presentation of gunplay, especially in ‘For a Few Dollars More.’ On one hand, he has the ability to make his gunfights shockingly brutal. For instance, there is a moment when one of Indio’s gang members quiets a defenseless, crying baby by shooting it (off screen); it’s a slow build up with just one single shot, in order to give the moment additional impact. There’s also Leone’s ability to make gunfights thrilling in the build up of their dramatic tension, like in the final showdown. Or simply quick bursts of energy, such as scenes when four, maybe even five or more bad guys get iced with bullets in just a few quick movements. There’s really no way to describe these scenes other than the fact that they’re just…cool. If only because Eastwood, Van Cleef, or in some cases Volonte, do it all without breaking a sweat.
As the second part of director Sergio Leone’s spaghetti western trilogy with Clint Eastwood, it’s a much more accomplished and exciting movie than ‘Fistful of Dollars,’ but ‘Good/Bad/Ugly’ is more sprawling and features one of the best gunfights in movie history, as well as some of the more iconic western movie moments. Choosing a favorite is difficult, yet overall irrelevant, because each movie has something wonderful to offer. ‘For a Few Dollars More’ is excellent because it’s everything Leone wanted his westerns to be; violent, visual extravaganza that distances itself far away from being called a ‘formulaic’ western.
Jaime: There is not much I have to dispute on Jeff's dissertation here. I actually saw this movie for the first time after the Good, the Bad and the Ugly, which was a requirement for my ASTRONOMY class in high school (as was Big Trouble in Little China - FRANKE RULES!). Anyway, there are obvious parallels to GBU because as most people know, Leone made these three movies as kind of one series, the man with no name series. GBU had the most money pored into it, and I believe it is the best of the three. But For a Few Dollars More comes in a close second.
Many of the things that stand out to Jeff in this movie stood out for me too. I loved the extreme close-ups. You can watch a fly walk across a gunfighters stubbly face as he sizes up his prey. Most shots look like a comic book and this film was one of the first and most influential in its use of tightly held, unshakable close-ups. It has been parodied and used in earnest in several action and western movies to this day (see the Matrix fight between Agent Smith and Neo-complete with "tumbleweeds").
I also cannot remember a movie where the bad guys as well as the good guys are seriously flawed. Clint and Lee Van Cleef both shoot em up and ask questions later. Gian Maria Volonte is obviously on drugs and I loved that you were never sure what would happen with him. I never thought that those flashbacks which included a woman in bed with a lover were Indio's girlfriend. I just never thought of that, good thinking Jeff! The whole film kind of lingered on the brink of madness and many characters seemed on the verge of exploding in a fit of rageful violence. A memorable scene I think of often occurs between Lee Van Cleef and Klaus Kinski in a bar where Van Cleef lights a match on Kinski's face. Even I thought, "Don't do that!" Its a wonderful mix of bandits and murderers.
This movie is also unique in that its biggest star is actually featured less than the other characters or at the very least, leaves a smaller impression on the audience. Lee Van Cleef and Gian Maria Volonte rule this show. Volonte rules a haphazard, dangerous gang in his drug induced/rageful haze. And Van Cleef is perfect as the lonely, aging gun fighter out for revenge. His eyes and face make him look like a hawk, and every time he aims, this feeling is intensified.
And there is one character that I think should not be overlooked, the wonderful score by Ennio Morricone. A Leone regular, Morricone never fails to inspire and incite powerful feelings in any Leone picture. The standout in this film is the repeating melody played on the time piece. It recalls the horrible flashbacks of the woman being killed and causes viewers to question what each character must be thinking about when they hear it.
One thing I do disagree with Jeff on is Leone was trying to be "cool" in his use of extreme c/u and other stylized elements. I think he was experimenting, but I don't think he was like the Wachoski Bros trying to be cool, "hey this would look cool!" I don't believe he was that kind of artist. But any filmgoer will find nothing but good things and breathtaking shots in this film. So the dueling aspect of this review is a little lacking I am sure.
Feb. 24th, 2006 @ 06:15 pm
|
| » OSCARS!!! |
|---|
Jaime: BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN!!! I honestly have to say I am very proud of the Oscars this year. There is no Chicago in the mix just because of campaigning, no Tom Hanks, very little Ron Howard/Brian Grazer schmaltzy feel good crap, just real good movies. I will preface my remarks by saying there are still a few films I have not seen and so do remember that and I admit that this may not be entirely fair, but I am not a real academy voter, so tough shit. But I will give you what I believe SHOULD win and what I think WILL win. See www.oscar.com for more details. The Oscars will be aired on ABC on Sunday, March 5 at 7 p.m. Central Time.
BEST PICTURE
Good Night and Good Luck – unfortunately, I still have not seen this film. I was thisclose last weekend, but alas, did not make the trek.
Capote – This was a great film. Phillip Seymour Hoffman WAS Truman Capote. I did not think for one minute that he was not. Yes, the voice got annoying at times, but its part of the role. What I liked about this movie was it made Capote human. Here is an absolute genius of a writer (I read the book a few years ago, its long as hell but I could not put it down) complete with flaws. One of the truest scenes was after the premiere of “To Kill a Mockingbird” where we find Truman sitting alone in a bar. This is a great biopic, but there is nothing about it that makes it Best Picture.
Munich – good movie. The academy loves it when Spielberg goes serious, and not SciFi serious. The movie was full of great performances, a great ensemble piece. But in the end it was only added to the list because of Spielberg. It will not win.
Crash – This one has a good chance of winning. A good message, great performances from everyone involved, but I just don’t believe it has enough steam to take the trophy home.
Brokeback Mountain – This movie SHOULD win and this movie WILL win. The heart wrenching tale of two men in love is probably not going to win in the acting categories (although it SHOULD!) so I believe the academy will give it Best Picture – an accolade this movie deserves hands down. This movie blows the others away in terms of emotional appeal. Everything came together to make the film a cut above the rest. Bravo Brokeback!
BEST ACTOR
Terrence Howard/Hustle and Flow – I have not seen this film but I can already tell you he won’t win. From what I have heard about this film he is the only good thing about it. I know Terrence is a phenomenal actor, I believed his performance was the best in “Crash” but I think he is too much of a newcomer to be taken this seriously by the academy this year.
Joaquin Phoenix/Walk the Line – It was a tough decision for me to bet against Joaquin Phoenix in this category, but I believe I am right in this regard. Yes, he won the Golden Globe, but so did Philip Seymour Hoffman. I believed that Joaquin was Johnny Cash. I knew in every move he made with every muscle of his body that he loved Reese Witherspoon’s June. I watched as his life was stripped to nothing because of addiction and I felt for him. But the bottom line is, I believe PSH will win for Capote. Its really too bad that academy voters have come to feel lately that an actor must be portraying a living/dead famous person rather than a make believe person. Which brings me to,
Heath Ledger/Brokeback Mountain – I believe Heath SHOULD win. Not only because I have loved him since “10 Things I Hate About You” but also because I thought his performance was phenomenal. You could FEEL how Ennis must have felt: the heartache, the anger, the frustration, the confusion, the mistrust. I was haunted by this film for days, largely because of Heath’s performance. Pity he won’t win.
Philip Seymour Hoffman/Capote – He WILL win. Hands down. This man is the actor’s actor. He has never compromised to take a role that I can remember. He has embarrassed himself in unpopular roles and stood out in small parts. I believe he will win the Oscar because of his years of such roles and because he seems to be well liked by arty farty types. Don’t get me wrong, I love him too. I thought he did an excellent job in Capote and was 100% convincing. I just have a sour taste in my mouth for biopics (especially “Ray” – Jamie, Foxx, give me a break! I could go ten years without hearing his voice again) and I think Heath Ledger not winning is just a shame.
BEST ACTRESS
The only movie I have seen is Walk the Line and therefore I believe that Reese Witherspoon SHOULD and WILL win the Oscar. Charlize just won, Judi Dench is in the running just as a respectful nod, Keira Knightley is too new and has done too much shit (see “Domino” for evidence). Felicity Huffman won the Golden Globe, but I really don’t think she will win. No one has seen that movie and never underestimate the power of Reese Witherspoon or her perfect teeth. She actually did a marvelous job in Walk the Line. I believe she and Joaquin made a wonderful pair and her singing is excellent, actually better than June’s. Go Reese.
BEST DIRECTOR
Steven Spielberg/Munich - See my review of Munich above. No chance, well, very small chance.
George Clooney/Good Night, and Good Luck - Not this year Georgie Porgie. For someone as radical as Clooney (although I do agree with everything he does and says politically) its a big stretch to even be nominated. Although I think the Academy may have lost a few voters to old age, what else would explain its more liberal view lately, they still are pretty fuddy duddyish and I think this nomination is all George will walk away with come Oscar night.
Paul Haggis/Crash - This movie was awesome and made me think about my life and the lives of others for days afterword. But I don't think Haggis will win, but see writing nominations below.
Bennett Miller/Capote - As I have stated above, I don't think Capote is much more than a Philip Seymour Hoffman showcase. Not enough besides that stands out to make this film a Best Picture, and no other actor or element stands out enough to give Miller directing honors.
Ang Lee/Brokeback Mountain - SHOULD win and WILL win. People love Ang Lee. Did you know he and Roger Ebert are from the same home town? Or near each other anyway. Ang Lee is such a wonderful artist. He takes chances with scripts that he believes in, as he did with Brokeback, and to a much less successful degree, the Hulk. (Eric Bana again!) This movie has several performances that leave you gasping for breath, shots of such overwhelming beauty that you are tempted to take your eyes off the leads (almost impossible for me to do in this movie :P ). Ang deserves this and I believe the Academy agrees with me.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Paul Giamatti/Cinderella Man - I actually have a fear that this idiot may win. I hate the pity awards the academy always seems to give out (i.e. Renee Zellwegger PLEASE - she was the worst thing about Cold Mountain besides the scary house full of horny women). But I think this nomination is a consolation for the dumb wine movie he didn't get nominated for. Who cares?
Matt Dillon/Crash - Good for him! Really, look how far Matty has come! But I don't even think he gave the best performance in that movie. He won't win.
William Hurt/A History of Violence - This is just a thank you from the Academy for William Hurt participating in movies again. He does NOT deserve to win. I mean he was in the movie for 10 minutes, maybe?
Jake Gyllenhal/Brokeback Mountain - He SHOULD win. There are some that would argue Jake did a better job than Heath. I disagree, but Jake did a phenomenal job as the heart broken Jack. To watch Jack's slow deterioration into sorrow and cynicism is one of the things that makes Brokeback so fundamentally real. It is horrifying to watch people who once had a beautiful spark slowly decay into bitterness and resentment and Jake captures that perfectly, but he won't win.
George Clooney/Syriana - I loved this movie. George's performance was brilliant, as was Matt Damon's and especially Alexander Siddig's. But I believe George will get shafted in the rest of his categories so he WILL win.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Amy Adams/Junebug - Nobody cares, next . . .
Frances McDormand/North Country - They throw something at her for every movie she does now.
Catherine Keener/Capote - She was kinda boring in this role, didn't really do much in my opinion, so no!
Michelle Williams/Brokeback Mountain v. Rachel Weisz/The Constant Gardener - This is the real race as far as I am concerned and I am really torn between them. I am leaning towards liking Michelle's perfomance better so I will say she SHOULD win but I really don't think she will. We're a little too close to Dawson's Creek maybe? But nothing would give me more pleasure than seeing her up there holding Oscar. I do think Rachel WILL win. Her performance was full of contradictions, which I believe is more due to the director, but she did a good job nonetheless. Besides, she has been slumming in Mummy movies for too long and I think people enjoy seeing her rise above.
MUSIC (SCORE)
If Gustavo Santaolalla does not win for Brokeback Mountain I will die a thousand deaths. The score was as much a part of this film as any of the excellent cast.
ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
Larry McMurtry and Diana Ossama SHOULD and WILL win for Brokeback Mountain. They took a short story from the New Yorker and turned it into the best film of 2006. And everyone seems to love Lonesome Dove, so I think they'll get it.
ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
I think Stephen Gaughan SHOULD win for Syriana. But I am fearful that it may not win for its politics and because it is TOO original for the Oscars. But I hope it does. This film made me want to dump my boyfriend for not giving a shit about what we had seen onscreen. I cried for probably an hour thinking how insignificant I am and out of frustration for our stupid country. But I digress. What WILL win? I honestly don't know, so I will guess . . . Paul Haggis and Bobby Moresco WILL win for Crash since I don't think that film will win anything else.
Jeff: I am also proud of the nominations this year, but there seems to be a hint of predictability for this year's telecast. It seems now more than ever that the popular/expected vote will likely win, which may make the awards a drag. Don't get me wrong, I love the Oscars. It's a little too heavy on the spectacle, at least for the most part, but for some strange reason, I'll always watch it. It's like the Superbowl of movies - tons and tons of hype, but often times disappointing in its presentation. Now, I'm not saying that the nominees and winners are mostly disappointing, because I don't view an oscar nomination or award as the do-all end-all of what was the best...whatever in movies from the year. Therefore, it's hard to be let down by oscar snubs (though it is nice to see movies/performances/scripts I like win). It's just that the jokes are pretty much stale, the crap they make presenters spew out is wretched, and some of the awards could stand to be not televised (how many people know/care about animated short subject? Come on now).
And sometimes, there's nothing compelling about an upcoming Oscar ceremony, pretty much like this year. I like that certain movies and certain people have been nominated, but this is a contest (of sorts...it's incredibly flawed), and what's a contest without drama? The way I see it, this year's list of nominations features far too many 'happy to be there' entries. I know Brokeback Mountain is going to win Best Picture, so it's not going to be as fun as...say, watching the awards in '98, when I wanted Saving Private Ryan to win, but then it lost out to Shakespeare in Love. It was a crushing blow, it sucked, I didn't agree...but it made for quite an interesting telecast.
Because a lot of the Oscars concerns politics, it lessens a lot of that conflict. That being said, I'm still excited to watch the awards, with the hope that something good will come out of it.
Now, the thing about the nominations is...I'm not quite up to speed on a lot of the movies that are nominated, so I can't give any real opinions about them. This year, I'm going purely on my gut feelings about the main categories. Plus, you already said what needed to be said about all the picks. Let's see who wins.
My Picks (only the majors)
Best Picture
Should win - Brokeback Mountain
WILL win - Brokeback Mountain
Best Director
Should win - Ang Lee
WILL win - Ang Lee
Tough thus far...
Best Actor
Should win - I'd agree, I thought Heath Ledger was damn good.
WILL win - Joaquin Phoenix. Don't underestimate the power of Cash
Best Actress
Should/Will win - Reese Witherspoon
note - I didn't think much of Witherspoon as an actress before Walk the Line, I actually couldn't stand her. All of that went right out the window when she played June Carter.
Best Supporting Actor
Should Win - Gyllenhall amazed me with his performance. It may have been even better than Ledger's.
Will Win - George Clooney. Nothing but positive buzz about his role.
Should not have been nominated - William Hurt. How long was he in this movie? Do you even remember what he did? Where is this nomination coming from? Why wasn't Siddig put in here?
Best Supporting Actress
Should/Will win - As with Gyllenhaal, I didn't think Michelle Williams was capable of such a powerfully emotional performance. All the rest of those nominations seem to be based on the strength of the movies.
Best Screenplay (Original)
Should/Will win - Syriana. Damn, I have GOT to see this movie. I can't believe I haven't yet.
Best Screenplay (Adapted)
Should/Will win - Nothing will stop Brokeback from winning this award, as well as Best Picture and Director. Not quite an oscar landslide, but it's as close to a sure thing as I can imagine.
Best Documentary - Short Subject, Best Animated Short, Best Sound Editing
Should...not be televised. Not because the awards don't matter, but because not many people have any idea how they get nominated, or why one movie's sound editing is better than that of a different movie.
Honorary Award
Should/Will win - Robert Altman. I've got a feeling about this one...a feeling that I can't lose
In Memorium
I'm just hoping the academy doesn't screw this up by giving it not enough attention. I know the awards are supposed to be about this year's winners, but at least give those that passed on this year a little more time than is given to best animated short subject.
Achievement in finishing this post
Should/Will win - Jeff
Feb. 15th, 2006 @ 05:25 pm
|
| » Flightplan |
|---|
|
Jaime: Sometimes movies are made to make money. That is simply a fact of life. Sometimes actors make movies simply to make money for themselves. I have come to live with that. But how far must we watch Jodie Foster fall? First was Panic Room. I guess maybe we could say she signed on for the director, because she certainly could not have signed on for the script. We cannot make the same guess for Flightplan so my only explanation would be dough.
Flightplan does have more twists than Panic Room, but that doesn’t make it any more satisfying. As I’m sure everyone knows, Jodie turns into a frantic woman on mid flight on a plane she has designed when her daughter goes missing. Where is she? Is Jodie a nut? You be the judge and trust me it won’t take too long. What has happened to the young girl is not so surprising. Certain visual and musical cues revealed the culprit to me before they were revealed to the audience. The end of the movie was so disgusting in terms of sugary sweetness that I could not wait for the final credits to ensue.
Unfortunately, Jodie is not the only one slumming it here. Peter Sarsgaard, one of my favorite indie actors shows his lovely face. I thought he was above acting for big bucks, apparently not. Also along for the ride is Sean Bean. It used to be that the very sound of his voice melted my insides, but now I feel a little betrayed. And what ever happened to Erika Christensen after Traffic? God she blew me away in that. Oh yeah, I remember, swimfan.
So, everything in this movie comes together to tell a somewhat entertaining story. I guess I just expected more from an Oscar winning actress who picked roles for their merit and a woman who stayed away from acting for years to have children. This movie made me laugh at all the wrong times. The score became loud and ridiculous at “key” moments, the overacting was rampant, especially from Jodie Foster, there were even slow motion sequences for no reason. In short, don’t make this trip.
On a side note, I did think they did a good job of throwing in some men of middle eastern descent and showing how regular Americans truly will pin the blame on their poor race for any thing they damn well please. I was also angry that Jodie’s character did not apologize to them at the end of the movie, which I thought would have been more appropriate than just taking her belongings and smiling at him. But I suppose that would not be true to life.
Jeff: Aw...come on, Panic Room was amusing...wasn't it? But the issue you bring up, the cashing in (or mailing in) of performances is a trend that is too highly noticeable in movies of today. It's not enough that we have to sit through the convoluted crap that many movies dish out, but we have to witness talented actors humiliate themselves to no end, and be forever linked with both the lousy movie, and the fact that the only reason they're in the movie is because of that dollar sign.
Now, I'm not saying it's wrong to take a boatload of money to act in movies - hell, if their quotes are that high, why not? - but clearly there's a correlation with the quality of the movie and the amount of money made by a given actor. It's movies like Flightplan or Two for the Money when you think, what in the world is Pacino doing in this piece of trash? Well, other than yelling...
Eh, whaddya gonna do? Winning analysis, I know. But maybe its time you realized that the good, or great actors just don't have it any more. I'd like to believe that Pacino or De Niro will give at least one more pantheon-level performance, but as the years go by, and more projects are done simply for that cash, the realization is forming in my mind...maybe they don't have it in them.
And that's what money seems to be doing, if not for actors, then for scripts, or directors (Scorsese), or movies as a whole. It's been known for a long time that Hollywood, a.k.a. money, has been ruining movies. What's really scary is that it's seeping into the world of independent movies all too frequently. It's a sad state to be in right now, but at least for every Flightplan, there's a Brokeback Mountain.
Feb. 5th, 2006 @ 08:39 pm
|
| » Mr. and Mrs. Smith |
|---|
|
Jaime: Yuck. In the words of Jay-Z . . . what more can I say to you? Bang bang, shoot em up, have some sex, kill every bad guy and never get hit, the couple stays together in the end and realizes they do love each other. I could only watch about a half hour of this movie cumulatively. If there is anyone in the world who disagrees, please tell me why.
Jeff: Well, I disagree, because I have seen 30 seconds of this movie, pieced together from trailers, and already it's my favorite movie of the year. Obviously, I'm kidding...but not really. Tell me, Jaime, did you expect anything OTHER than a shoot-em up, sex filled, bad shooting villains and expert 'good' guys, with the end wrapping up nice and pretty-like with the two loving each other? I mean, what from the trailer would give you the impression that the filmmakers were going for something else here? It's an action movie with two of the bigger stars in Hollywood. What's better than a sexy action thriller starring them? It's Angelina Jolie; men will see it because of her, women will see it to spit acid towards her image on screen. Personally, I'd see it for Vince Vaughn. He had to have had a few moments that were worthwhile. The point is, sometimes you just can't expect anything more than a formulaic action movie, you just can't.
Feb. 5th, 2006 @ 07:54 pm
|
|
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=91.6){kind=small}
duelingcritics's journal