The world seems to be abuzz with chatter about the "Millennium Trilogy," as the triple set of blockbuster novels by Swedish author, Stieg Larsson, has been labeled. Not only have all three books been adapted into Swedish films, but now, acclaimed American director, David Fincher (Se7en, Fight Club, ...Benjamin Button) has signed on to helm the upcoming Hollywood revamps.
I, myself, have read the first two books in the trilogy, and as of today, have also seen the first two Swedish film adaptations. My assessment: The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo was a good, but not great novel, that received a pretty decent transfer to the cinema. There were some glaring details from the book that were dropped in the making of the film, but I don't really fault the filmmakers for that. It was more a shining example of why it is so difficult to adapt books into films. Even at 2 1/2 hours, there simply wasn't enough room to include everything. Moving onto The Girl Who Played With Fire, you have a great novel with a couple of minor flaws, that has been demolished by a complete and utter hackjob of a film adaptation. If the objective of the filmmakers in this instance was to suck all of the drama, suspense, and emotion out of the story, well - Mission: Accomplished.
For reasons unbeknownst to me, an entirely different creative team was behind the scenes of this second film, than there was for the first. Perhaps that explains the nosedive in quality. Things started off promising. They lopped off an entire story thread from the beginning - one which, in my mind, constituted the most obvious flaw in the novel. So, I was happy to see they did not include it in the film. Then, throwing in a hot lesbian sex scene never hurts. But, from there, it was all downhill. Again, one must be cognizant of the inherent problems involved in the book-to-movie transition. However, this adaptation was just sloppy. First off, certain supporting characters appeared toward the beginning of the film with virtually no introduction or explanation of who they were. I think one hallmark of a great adapted screenplay is that someone should be able to see the movie without having read the book, and still enjoy the experience. That is impossible to do here, because if you haven't read the book, you'd have absolutely no idea what was going on.
Secondly, they changed things that didn't necessarily contribute to keeping the running time of the movie down. There was simply no reason to change them. There was a particularly critical juncture where the heroine, Lisbeth Salander, was supposed to have been at the scene of a double murder around the time that the crime occurred. This lent a sliver of doubt in the readers' minds as to whether she may have actually had some involvement in the killings. In the book, there was also a clear connection between those deaths, and a third murder that took place. Again, placing Salander's innocence in question. In the film, Lisbeth's whereabouts are completely rearranged, as far as what the viewers can see for themselves. There is passing mention made by another character that she was supposedly at the location of the first killings, but it's never explained why we're supposed to know that. That one seemingly minor oversight deflates the power of the entire mystery that is central to the plot. Later, there is another scene in which one of the major villains is entangled in a fight scene with two supporting characters. The way those characters escape the grasp of the enemy is just made up out of thin air by the filmmakers. It's totally and unnecessarily different from what happens in the book. Here, instead of being dramatic, it just makes the entire sequence of events seem hokey and unrealistic.
The third thing that prevented me from enjoying this film, was the editing. I know absolutely nothing about film editing, but despite that, I could tell this was done with extreme incompetence. The movement of the characters in several scenes was so jarring, I literally threw my hands up in the air as if to say, "WTF?" In one instance, Lisbeth had broken into the apartment of her nemesis, and then was seen rifling through his things while he slept. But, without knowing what was going on from having read the book, you almost couldn't tell that she was in the same location. One second she was just inside the front door, the next second, she was sitting at some desk.
Lastly, there were a couple of climactic scenes in the story, where the emotion should have been running high. But the way those scenes played out here on screen, I felt like I might as well have been watching a panda chewing bamboo in a zoo exhibit.
The whole thing was utterly disappointing. Especially because I was looking forward to seeing what Noomi Rapace could do as Lisbeth in this second film. One major reason I liked reading The Girl Who Played With Fire more than I did ...Tattoo, was because the Lisbeth Salander character was so much more developed in the continuation of the saga. We finally started to get a glimpse into her backstory, and instead of being a mysterious supporting character, which is essentially the role she played in ...Tattoo, she evolved into the emotional center of the story. Seeing a couple of English-speaking interviews with Rapace, it was immediately evident what an amazing transformation she underwent to "become" Lisbeth. I really thought we might be in for an award-worthy performance in this second film. But she simply had nothing with which to work. Salander barely even spoke throughout the entire film, once again relegating the character to being a small part of an ensemble.
For those who have read the books and seen the first two Swedish film adaptations, the fear seems to be great that Hollywood is going to completely ruin the trilogy, as it is alleged to do with all reworkings of foreign films. I, for one, am actually hoping that a skilled group of American filmmakers can transcend what the Swedes have done, particularly with this second film. Unfortunately, I'll have to wait a while. The U.S. version of the first film is not due out until Christmas '11. Here's hoping the third book will at least tide me over until then.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Saturday, July 17, 2010
INCEPTION: The verdict
So, I've been building this one up for a while, as have many critics and movie buffs. See one of my previous posts for my explanation of why I was so eagerly anticipating this film. Basically, the director (Chris Nolan), and several of the actors (Leonardo DiCaprio, Ellen Page, Joseph Gordon-Leavitt, Cillian Murphy) have all been involved in prior favorite movies of mine, so I felt like this was a "can't miss." At the same time that this notion led me to have grandiose expectations, it simultaneously forced me to lower those expectations, because how could I not be somewhat disappointed after already anointing Inception the movie of the year? Bottom line: it was not the epic film I was hoping it would be, but it also was not as much of a letdown as I feared it might be.
I'm going to describe very little about the plot, so as to not spoil things. The film centers around Dom Cobb (DiCaprio), who is a thief-for-hire; his specialty is inserting himself in people's dreams in order to pilfer their ideas for his own (or, presumably, his employers') gain. He has a team of skilled assistants: his long-time right-hand man, Arthur (Gordon-Leavitt); Eames (Tom Hardy) - who can shapeshift himself to take on the physical characteristics of another person; Yusuf the chemist (Dileep Rao); and, for the latest job that serves as the focus of Inception, new hire, Ariadne (Page) - who is an expert architect saddled with the challenge of creating the landscapes of the dreamworld in which all the action takes place. In the movie, a Japanese tycoon, Saito (Ken Watanabe), hires Cobb and his team to pull off an "inception." This is an instance where the team must insert themselves into someone's subconscious, not to steal ideas, but to plant them. Saito wants to trick a business rival, Robert Fischer (Murphy), into wanting to break up his dying father's business empire, effectively giving Saito a stranglehold on the worldwide energy industry. Inception is a highly dangerous and unpredictable undertaking, and no one is really sure whether or not it can be achieved without dire consequences. The motivation for Cobb is that he has been prevented from seeing his two kids back in the U.S., and Saito claims to be able to rectify this situation, upon Cobb's successful completion of the mission at hand. To explain any further would be inadvisable.
One thing has to be said above all else: you will not understand this film after one viewing. I, myself, am contemplating whether I want to shell out the cash for a second go. I probably won't see it again until it's on cable, but just keep in mind that anyone writing a review after seeing it for the first time needs to reserve the right to change his or her views on the film.
That having been said, let's start with what was great about Inception. There likely will not be a more creative, imaginative, or original movie out this year. Also, DiCaprio was pretty spot on in the lead role. Sometimes, I have a hard time taking him seriously, because he still looks so young, but he's a formidable enough actor that he seems to often be able to make me forget about that and become engrossed in the character. This is at least true for the last four films in which I've seen him: The Departed
, Blood Diamond
, Shutter Island
, and now, Inception. Third, I usually prefer movies that are thought-provoking. If I'm still talking and/or thinking about a film weeks after seeing it for the first time, then that automatically wins some points in my book. I am positive that Inception will be such a film. Lastly, the ending was pretty much perfect. I've written before that one of my pet peeves with cinema, is when Hollywood simply doesn't know how to wrap everything up. There is a tendency in those situations to either try to tie all the ends up in a nice, neat bow, kill off almost every major character (see the hideous Mel Gibson flop, Edge of Darkness, from earlier this year - or, on second thought, don't see it), or create a final scene so ambiguous that it's just plain annoying and unfulfilling (hello, No Country for Old Men!). All throughout Inception, I was 100% positive that I knew exactly how it was going to end, and I was dreading the cop-out, predictable conclusion. And Nolan did end it that way...sort of. He put enough of a twist of uncertainty on the otherwise foreseen closing shots to win kudos from me. I can't describe it in any more detail without giving critical things away.
Now, for what didn't work. First and foremost, naturally, is the overall ambiguity of everything that occurred in the film. Thought-provoking and creative: good. Brain-melting mindfuck: not so good. The average filmgoer simply can't keep track of all the reality-bending layers of plot that Inception throws at us. It makes for an interesting experience, but at the end of the day, we kind of want to know what in the Hollywood Hills is going on. One aspect of the film that has been repeatedly ripped by critics, is that Ellen Page's character, Ariadne, basically serves as a point of exposition for the audience (exposition is when the writer deliberately utilizes the dialogue to explain the story - typically a major no-no in creating a quality film). The fact is, though, that without some exposition, we'd be even more lost. It was simultaneously necessary, yet detracting from the artistic integrity of the film.
Secondly, Ellen Page, as much as I love her, was grossly miscast here. Ariadne, in addition to untangling things for the audience, also served as a confidante and conscience to DiCaprio's Cobb. The character needed to be much more strong-willed and dominant, in my estimation. Like DiCaprio, Page's cross-to-bear is her youthful looks, but being 12+ actual years younger than Leo, it's much more of an obstacle for her at this early stage of her career. Seeing Juno in this movie was simply unsettling. What's more, DiCaprio and Page had virtually zero on-screen chemistry. I didn't believe for a second that they cared one iota about each other (not in a romantic way - that, thankfully, was not what the filmmakers were trying to depict). In fact, the entire "team" of dream invaders felt like it was just patched together, rather than being a tight-knit group of highly-skilled comrades. I just never believed that they were working together because they wanted to be.
That leads me to my next issue. I felt the supporting characters were rather under-developed. When you have a team of players moving the story forward in what basically amounts to an action-thriller, you need to have really sharp writing in order to keep the audience interested in each character. That simply wasn't the case here. Eames (Hardy) was designed to be the wise-ass, sarcastic guy. Yet, he had virtually no funny lines in the entire film. As for Arthur (Gordon-Leavitt), it was unclear to me exactly what role he played on this team. He's been described in other reviews as the "organizer." But I really had no idea what his place was, and generally didn't care about his character at all. They tried to construct one funny scene between him and Ariadne, but it fell somewhat flat.
Another supporting character, that of Saito, presented one significant problem; I could understand virtually nothing of what Ken Watanabe was saying during the entire film. I don't know if it was his Japanglish creating the problem or if he was simply mumbling his lines, but I was unnerved by this the whole time. There were some pretty crucial lines of dialogue that I missed completely.
Overall, Inception was one part action flick, one part heist film, one part psychological thriller, and one part love story. Those last two elements worked...the first two did not. Some of the action-oriented scenes, particularly those set in the snowy mountains toward the end, were just plain boring and confusing. And I was not invested in the caper involving Cillian Murphy's character. The whole thing surrounding Robert Fischer and his domineering and unaccepting father, Maurice (Pete Posthlewaite), was a retread of all the daddy issues we've seen time and time again in film...and these characters were barely even relevant to the most compelling parts of the movie. For me, the love story between Dom Cobb and his wife, Mal (and by extension, with their two kids), was the aspect of Inception by which I was most captivated. Mal was played with perfect sadness, regret, and desperation, by Oscar-winner, Marion Cotillard. This thread was almost a sub-plot, but it was the most dramatic and compelling layer of the film by a longshot. It provided the emotional center of Inception, and served to set up the few genuine plot twists, as well as the craftily-handled ending. I almost wish that Dom, Mal and their kids had been the main focus, with all the other acid-trippy stuff serving as the decorative wallpaper for the film, but I'm not sure how that would have turned out.
In short, Inception is a good film, falling somewhat short of great. Some are saying it is Chris Nolan's masterpiece. I say that accolade still belongs to Memento, a film that likewise, takes the viewer on a mind-boggling journey of what's real and what's not, but that in my opinion, pulls it off with much more flare, and stands as one of my favorite movies of all time.
I would recommend Inception, again with the caveat that you will be confused, and potentially be compelled to see it more than once. Overall grade: B+
I'm going to describe very little about the plot, so as to not spoil things. The film centers around Dom Cobb (DiCaprio), who is a thief-for-hire; his specialty is inserting himself in people's dreams in order to pilfer their ideas for his own (or, presumably, his employers') gain. He has a team of skilled assistants: his long-time right-hand man, Arthur (Gordon-Leavitt); Eames (Tom Hardy) - who can shapeshift himself to take on the physical characteristics of another person; Yusuf the chemist (Dileep Rao); and, for the latest job that serves as the focus of Inception, new hire, Ariadne (Page) - who is an expert architect saddled with the challenge of creating the landscapes of the dreamworld in which all the action takes place. In the movie, a Japanese tycoon, Saito (Ken Watanabe), hires Cobb and his team to pull off an "inception." This is an instance where the team must insert themselves into someone's subconscious, not to steal ideas, but to plant them. Saito wants to trick a business rival, Robert Fischer (Murphy), into wanting to break up his dying father's business empire, effectively giving Saito a stranglehold on the worldwide energy industry. Inception is a highly dangerous and unpredictable undertaking, and no one is really sure whether or not it can be achieved without dire consequences. The motivation for Cobb is that he has been prevented from seeing his two kids back in the U.S., and Saito claims to be able to rectify this situation, upon Cobb's successful completion of the mission at hand. To explain any further would be inadvisable.
One thing has to be said above all else: you will not understand this film after one viewing. I, myself, am contemplating whether I want to shell out the cash for a second go. I probably won't see it again until it's on cable, but just keep in mind that anyone writing a review after seeing it for the first time needs to reserve the right to change his or her views on the film.
That having been said, let's start with what was great about Inception. There likely will not be a more creative, imaginative, or original movie out this year. Also, DiCaprio was pretty spot on in the lead role. Sometimes, I have a hard time taking him seriously, because he still looks so young, but he's a formidable enough actor that he seems to often be able to make me forget about that and become engrossed in the character. This is at least true for the last four films in which I've seen him: The Departed
, Blood Diamond, Shutter Island, and now, Inception. Third, I usually prefer movies that are thought-provoking. If I'm still talking and/or thinking about a film weeks after seeing it for the first time, then that automatically wins some points in my book. I am positive that Inception will be such a film. Lastly, the ending was pretty much perfect. I've written before that one of my pet peeves with cinema, is when Hollywood simply doesn't know how to wrap everything up. There is a tendency in those situations to either try to tie all the ends up in a nice, neat bow, kill off almost every major character (see the hideous Mel Gibson flop, Edge of Darkness, from earlier this year - or, on second thought, don't see it), or create a final scene so ambiguous that it's just plain annoying and unfulfilling (hello, No Country for Old Men!). All throughout Inception, I was 100% positive that I knew exactly how it was going to end, and I was dreading the cop-out, predictable conclusion. And Nolan did end it that way...sort of. He put enough of a twist of uncertainty on the otherwise foreseen closing shots to win kudos from me. I can't describe it in any more detail without giving critical things away.Now, for what didn't work. First and foremost, naturally, is the overall ambiguity of everything that occurred in the film. Thought-provoking and creative: good. Brain-melting mindfuck: not so good. The average filmgoer simply can't keep track of all the reality-bending layers of plot that Inception throws at us. It makes for an interesting experience, but at the end of the day, we kind of want to know what in the Hollywood Hills is going on. One aspect of the film that has been repeatedly ripped by critics, is that Ellen Page's character, Ariadne, basically serves as a point of exposition for the audience (exposition is when the writer deliberately utilizes the dialogue to explain the story - typically a major no-no in creating a quality film). The fact is, though, that without some exposition, we'd be even more lost. It was simultaneously necessary, yet detracting from the artistic integrity of the film.
Secondly, Ellen Page, as much as I love her, was grossly miscast here. Ariadne, in addition to untangling things for the audience, also served as a confidante and conscience to DiCaprio's Cobb. The character needed to be much more strong-willed and dominant, in my estimation. Like DiCaprio, Page's cross-to-bear is her youthful looks, but being 12+ actual years younger than Leo, it's much more of an obstacle for her at this early stage of her career. Seeing Juno in this movie was simply unsettling. What's more, DiCaprio and Page had virtually zero on-screen chemistry. I didn't believe for a second that they cared one iota about each other (not in a romantic way - that, thankfully, was not what the filmmakers were trying to depict). In fact, the entire "team" of dream invaders felt like it was just patched together, rather than being a tight-knit group of highly-skilled comrades. I just never believed that they were working together because they wanted to be.
That leads me to my next issue. I felt the supporting characters were rather under-developed. When you have a team of players moving the story forward in what basically amounts to an action-thriller, you need to have really sharp writing in order to keep the audience interested in each character. That simply wasn't the case here. Eames (Hardy) was designed to be the wise-ass, sarcastic guy. Yet, he had virtually no funny lines in the entire film. As for Arthur (Gordon-Leavitt), it was unclear to me exactly what role he played on this team. He's been described in other reviews as the "organizer." But I really had no idea what his place was, and generally didn't care about his character at all. They tried to construct one funny scene between him and Ariadne, but it fell somewhat flat.
Another supporting character, that of Saito, presented one significant problem; I could understand virtually nothing of what Ken Watanabe was saying during the entire film. I don't know if it was his Japanglish creating the problem or if he was simply mumbling his lines, but I was unnerved by this the whole time. There were some pretty crucial lines of dialogue that I missed completely.
Overall, Inception was one part action flick, one part heist film, one part psychological thriller, and one part love story. Those last two elements worked...the first two did not. Some of the action-oriented scenes, particularly those set in the snowy mountains toward the end, were just plain boring and confusing. And I was not invested in the caper involving Cillian Murphy's character. The whole thing surrounding Robert Fischer and his domineering and unaccepting father, Maurice (Pete Posthlewaite), was a retread of all the daddy issues we've seen time and time again in film...and these characters were barely even relevant to the most compelling parts of the movie. For me, the love story between Dom Cobb and his wife, Mal (and by extension, with their two kids), was the aspect of Inception by which I was most captivated. Mal was played with perfect sadness, regret, and desperation, by Oscar-winner, Marion Cotillard. This thread was almost a sub-plot, but it was the most dramatic and compelling layer of the film by a longshot. It provided the emotional center of Inception, and served to set up the few genuine plot twists, as well as the craftily-handled ending. I almost wish that Dom, Mal and their kids had been the main focus, with all the other acid-trippy stuff serving as the decorative wallpaper for the film, but I'm not sure how that would have turned out.
In short, Inception is a good film, falling somewhat short of great. Some are saying it is Chris Nolan's masterpiece. I say that accolade still belongs to Memento, a film that likewise, takes the viewer on a mind-boggling journey of what's real and what's not, but that in my opinion, pulls it off with much more flare, and stands as one of my favorite movies of all time.
I would recommend Inception, again with the caveat that you will be confused, and potentially be compelled to see it more than once. Overall grade: B+
Monday, May 10, 2010
Furry Toilets
There's something that's been bothering me for my entire life, so I thought I'd take now as an opportunity to get it off my chest. OK, well not my entire life. I wasn't really concerned about it when I was two years old. Actually, I guess I wasn't really concerned about it even last week. But, let's just say, for the sake of argument, that it's been on my mind for "a while."
Furry toilets. More specifically, why do they exist? You know what I'm talking about. Those ridiculous looking toilet seat-back covers that many people insist on using to "enhance" the decor of their bathrooms. These things honestly look like someone was carpeting their home, ended up with some carpet scraps, and said, "Hmmm...what should I do with this? Hey! I know! I'll make a furry hat for my toilet."
There is no conceivable purpose for putting carpet on the back of your toilet seat. Are you anticipating a day when you will be barefoot and walking on top of your toilet, and you're afraid that the bare back of the toilet seat will not play nice with the sensitive underside of your feet? Do you want to ensure comfort just in case there comes a time when you are entrenched in a heated game of Yahtzee in the bathroom, and in need of a comfortable place to sit? (And where exactly will the other players be, in the bathtub? Great, now we need more carpet scraps.) Or perhaps, you want to provide insulation so your neighbors below (in the toilet?) will not be disturbed by your constant pacing around that 180-square-inch area.
And what exactly is the protocol for cleaning and maintaining the colorful, furry appearance of your porcelain soldier's ushanka? When you vacuum the rest of your house, are you supposed to tend to the dust mites on your toilet top as well? If you have your carpets steam cleaned, do you make a special request that Mr. Steam Cleaner Man include the toilet hats?
I just can't understand what the thought process is that results in someone saying, yes...toilet-carpet-makes sense. I don't know much about interior decorating. OK, I know NOTHING about interior decorating. But I know that, much like the facts that dogs should not wear sweaters, toilets should not wear hats. Nobody should ever have a furry toilet.
Furry toilets. More specifically, why do they exist? You know what I'm talking about. Those ridiculous looking toilet seat-back covers that many people insist on using to "enhance" the decor of their bathrooms. These things honestly look like someone was carpeting their home, ended up with some carpet scraps, and said, "Hmmm...what should I do with this? Hey! I know! I'll make a furry hat for my toilet."
There is no conceivable purpose for putting carpet on the back of your toilet seat. Are you anticipating a day when you will be barefoot and walking on top of your toilet, and you're afraid that the bare back of the toilet seat will not play nice with the sensitive underside of your feet? Do you want to ensure comfort just in case there comes a time when you are entrenched in a heated game of Yahtzee in the bathroom, and in need of a comfortable place to sit? (And where exactly will the other players be, in the bathtub? Great, now we need more carpet scraps.) Or perhaps, you want to provide insulation so your neighbors below (in the toilet?) will not be disturbed by your constant pacing around that 180-square-inch area.
And what exactly is the protocol for cleaning and maintaining the colorful, furry appearance of your porcelain soldier's ushanka? When you vacuum the rest of your house, are you supposed to tend to the dust mites on your toilet top as well? If you have your carpets steam cleaned, do you make a special request that Mr. Steam Cleaner Man include the toilet hats?
I just can't understand what the thought process is that results in someone saying, yes...toilet-carpet-makes sense. I don't know much about interior decorating. OK, I know NOTHING about interior decorating. But I know that, much like the facts that dogs should not wear sweaters, toilets should not wear hats. Nobody should ever have a furry toilet.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Take a Walk
A revolutionary new concept in public travel has emerged: it's called "walking." Walking, according to the article at Wikipedia (you know a concept is highly complex when it requires a Wiki entry to explain it to the masses), is one of the main "gaits of locomotion among legged animals." It is accomplished by lifting one leg off the ground, swinging it forward from the hip, placing it on the ground in front of you, and then repeating the same motion with the other leg. If you keep doing this over and over again, you will find you are able to relocate yourself from here (your current position) to over there (your intended destination). And I, inevitably stuck behind your once motionless ass, will subsequently also be able to get over there. It's ingenious, really. No longer will you be confined to one place. You are now free to roam and explore foreign areas such as that corner, the end of the hallway, and the until now only mythical "other room." Yes, it is a strange and unfamiliar world we live in with iPads, Blackberries, Wi-Fi, and now walking. From the neurons and synapses that brought you sitting, kneeling, and rolling over, comes a remarkable new activity that is sure to provide you with hours of enjoyment. Just think, now, when the person behind you screams at you in frustration to, "Move the fuck out of the way, you moron!" you will actually know what to to do in order to comply with his or her polite request. Feel free to refer back to the Wikipedia article or any number of other helpful online sources if you have trouble remembering the correct sequence of motions (you can view this article by clicking on the title of this blog entry). Hell, now that we have all these handheld techno-geeky gadgets, the instructions will always be at your fingertips. Once you feel that you have mastered the art of walking, you may be ready to up the ante. Increasing the speed at which you ambulate your legs in the above-described forward motion will eventually result in a highly advanced and much more technical form of walking...RUNNING. I stress, this is not for beginners. Little is known about the benefits and drawbacks of running. However, one thing is clear. This activity will come in quite handy when I am behind you and struck with the overwhelming and uncontrollable urge to smack you upside the head.
Wednesday, April 21, 2010
In My Dreams?
If you've read my "Movies of the Decade" blog post from last October, you'll know that my Top 4 cinema selections from the 00's were, from #3 (tie) to #1, Memento
, The Lookout
, The Departed, and Hard Candy
. Now, if you go read Entertainment Weekly's "Summer Movie Preview," you might be inclined to believe that somebody, somewhere, infiltrated my dreams and assembled my perfect storm of director and actors to come up with this Summer's sure-to-be blockbuster, Inception. Christopher Nolan, who helmed both Memento as well as the #16 entry on my list, The Dark Knight
, wrote and directed this one. As for the cast? Let's start with Leonardo DiCaprio, who was part of the amazing ensemble from The Departed, and who also turned in a gritty performance in my #11 flick from last decade, Blood Diamond. Leo is joined this time around by Joseph Gordon-Leavitt (The Lookout), and Ellen Page (Hard Candy). And just for good measure, let's throw in The Dark Knight's Cillian Murphy and Michael Caine. Seriously, somebody was sifting through my thoughts while I slept. There's no other explanation for how they came up with this masterful array of silver screen professionals, tailored specifically to my off the beaten path tastes. But the real kicker? The film's plot is centered around a group of thieves who insert themselves into strangers' subconscious and steal their dreams for corporate gain! (Cue creepy Twilight Zone
theme here) I mean, that's exactly what they did to me in order to create this movie! Now, of course, the only thing that remains to be seen is if Inception can live up to my lofty expectations. It seems like every time I think a dream cast has been assembled, I'm only left disappointed (see Heat
, with Robert DeNiro
and Al Pacino
, and Chris Nolan's own Insomnia
, with Pacino and Robin Williams). Al Pacino's not interfering this time, so hopefully, all will be well. All I know is, I know where I will be on July 16th...in a movie theater, ready to add the next entry to my list of Top Movies of the '10's. Anyone else who wants to hop into my dream state and turn things into reality, feel free.
, The Lookout, The Departed, and Hard Candy. Now, if you go read Entertainment Weekly's "Summer Movie Preview," you might be inclined to believe that somebody, somewhere, infiltrated my dreams and assembled my perfect storm of director and actors to come up with this Summer's sure-to-be blockbuster, Inception. Christopher Nolan, who helmed both Memento as well as the #16 entry on my list, The Dark Knight, wrote and directed this one. As for the cast? Let's start with Leonardo DiCaprio, who was part of the amazing ensemble from The Departed, and who also turned in a gritty performance in my #11 flick from last decade, Blood Diamond. Leo is joined this time around by Joseph Gordon-Leavitt (The Lookout), and Ellen Page (Hard Candy). And just for good measure, let's throw in The Dark Knight's Cillian Murphy and Michael Caine. Seriously, somebody was sifting through my thoughts while I slept. There's no other explanation for how they came up with this masterful array of silver screen professionals, tailored specifically to my off the beaten path tastes. But the real kicker? The film's plot is centered around a group of thieves who insert themselves into strangers' subconscious and steal their dreams for corporate gain! (Cue creepy Twilight Zone theme here) I mean, that's exactly what they did to me in order to create this movie! Now, of course, the only thing that remains to be seen is if Inception can live up to my lofty expectations. It seems like every time I think a dream cast has been assembled, I'm only left disappointed (see Heat, with Robert DeNiro and Al Pacino, and Chris Nolan's own Insomnia, with Pacino and Robin Williams). Al Pacino's not interfering this time, so hopefully, all will be well. All I know is, I know where I will be on July 16th...in a movie theater, ready to add the next entry to my list of Top Movies of the '10's. Anyone else who wants to hop into my dream state and turn things into reality, feel free.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Oscars Schmoscars
Well, since I'm always chiming in with my opinions on movies, I figured I'd throw my hat in the ring with respect to the Oscar races. I'm utilizing the typical Should Win/Will Win format, as employed by most major respectable magazines and newspapers, because...well...I'm not creative enough to come up with something original. So, here it goes...
Let's start with the least interesting...what Entertainment Weekly classifies as "The Other Races." These include Best Visual Effects, Best Editing, Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing, Best Art Direction, and Best Cinematography. Safe to say, I wouldn't know a brilliant sound mixer if he or she hit me over the head with a...er...sound mixing machine. I'm just going to go out on a limb and say that Avatar SHOULD and WILL win all of these. It won't, but I know it should and will win at least half of those, so the odds are on my side here. Primarily, if it doesn't win Best Visual Effects, an international investigation needs to be launched.
Best Adapted Screenplay
SHOULD WIN: Precious - Geoffrey Fletcher
WILL WIN: Up in the Air - Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner
Best Original Screenplay
SHOULD WIN: I haven't seen either The Messenger or Up, but based on how much I enjoyed the other three films here, I'd say one of those two deserves to win.
WILL WIN: Inglorious Basterds - Quentin Tarantino. QT hasn't won anything significant since Pulp Fiction, so I expect this to be the Academy's make-up kiss to him. It's possible that voters might go with The Hurt Locker here in lieu of giving it the nod for the more major awards.
Best Supporting Actress
SHOULD WIN: Mo'Nique (Precious) - I didn't quite flip out over this performance as much as others have, but it still blows away the other two nominees who I actually saw...Vera Farmiga and Anna Kendrick from Up in the Air. Kendrick has no business being nominated for anything...she gave one of the most annoying performances of the year, in my opinion. I didn't see Nine, but it certainly looked ridiculous, and Penelope Cruz got her award last year. I also didn't see Crazy Heart, but according to general consensus, Jeff Bridges overshadows everything else in that film.
WILL WIN: Mo'Nique - this is as much of a lock as Daniel Day-Lewis and Javier Bardem were a couple years ago for There Will Be Blood and No Country for Old Men. There is absolutely no way on Earth Mo'Nique loses.
Best Supporting Actor
SHOULD WIN: Haven't seen enough of these films, but I wonder why Alfred Molina wasn't rewarded with a nomination over Matt Damon (Invictus) for his work in An Education. I walked out of the theater halfway into that film, but he was the only even mildly entertaining aspect of it.
WILL WIN: Christoper Waltz (Inglorious Basterds) - Not quite as much of a walk as with Supporting Actress, but close. If The Lovely Bones had been a box office and critical success, this would have been Stanley Tucci's to lose, but the lackluster response to that film led The Messenger's Woody Harrelson and especially Waltz to leapfrog him in the awards season showdowns.
Best Actress
SHOULD WIN: Meryl Streep (Julie and Julia) - On another planet, in another cosmos, in some distant time, Sandra Bullock's name might warrant mentioning in the same sentence as Streep's. But sorry, Sandy...not in this world. The surprising thing for me, was how much I actually enjoyed Julie and Julia. That marks the second year in a row that Streep led the charge in what I thought was one of the best films, or in last year's case of Doubt, THE best film, of the year. I was also surprised that I liked The Blind Side, but it was not even close to J&J.
WILL WIN: Meryl Streep - She's becoming the Susan Lucci of the Oscars. Although she won three awards earlier in her career, she's 0 for her last 12 nominations. I think it's time to put an end to that nonsense. I can only pray that Bullock's name is not called, which it may well be. I also think Gabourey Sidibe deserved more buzz for her performance in Precious. Why did Mo'Nique get all the attention there when she was only in a supporting role?
Best Actor
SHOULD WIN: My SHOULD WIN unfortunately wasn't even within 10,000 miles of being considered for a nomination. Robert DeNiro in Everybody's Fine, to me, was a return to form for our generation's greatest actor. I still don't get how nobody else liked that film. Out of the actual nominees, again by virtue of the fact that I didn't like the three movies I saw (Invictus, Up in the Air, and The Hurt Locker), I'd say either Colin Firth (A Single Man) or Jeff Bridges (Crazy Heart).
WILL WIN: Jeff Bridges (Crazy Heart) - If you had asked me three months ago, I would have said George Clooney, hands down. Crazy Heart originally wasn't even supposed to be released in time for this year's Oscar race. So Bridges basically came out of nowhere, but it looks like he is a strong favorite.
Best Director
SHOULD WIN: James Cameron (Avatar) - I know I'm prone to hyperbole, but I say this with extreme seriousness; if Cameron loses to The Hurt Locker's Kathryn Bigelow, his ex-wife, somebody, somewhere should die a slow and painful death. I mean honestly, there will be no comprehensible excuse. There's already no excuse for her beating him for the Director's Guild Award - a primary reason many people now think she'll actually win the damn Oscar. True, I know nothing about the nuances of film direction, but for the love of Pandora, Cameron freakin' invented the technology he used to helm Avatar. He basically revolutionized film making as we know it, with the entire industry now scrambling to figure out how to make every film 3D and not look like colossal failures up against Cameron's benchmark work. Please tell me how...HOW does Bigelow's accomplishment even approach this level? Thankfully, she's the only threat and no one else has a shot.
WILL WIN: I'm sticking to my guns and saying James Cameron wins.
Best Picture
SHOULD WIN: Avatar - It bears repeating that Cameron is easily a much better director than he is a writer, as the story here was not up to snuff. But for once, that truly was nearly inconsequential. I think it's painfully ironic that this was the year, of all years, that the Academy opted to expand to 10 nominees in this category. I mean, this is the freakin' year where they may as well have had only ONE nominee. For me, it's Avatar, and then everyone else. The blood, sweat, and tears that must have gone into this film couldn't possibly be comparable to what it took to produce An Education or The Blind Side. People completely overlook how difficult the acting tasks must have been...playing against blank screens, having to get accustomed to the technology being used, and even learning an entirely new language! I just don't get how anyone else is even in this conversation.
WILL WIN: Avatar - Again, many people believe The Hurt Locker is now the film to beat. I'm thinking that babies and kittens will cry if that happens. And we wouldn't want that. I say saner heads will prevail. As an anonymous industry Producer so eloquently put it in an Entertainment Weekly sampling of how four Academy voters voted, "He (Cameron) is such a bastard. He's really a hard guy to root for, and always has been, but what he created with this movie--just the beauty of it--he blew me away." Even THAT chick didn't vote for The Hurt Locker!
I'm still looking forward to seeing more of the nominated films, so there are some holes in my analysis here, but oh well...there are other things besides movies.
Let's start with the least interesting...what Entertainment Weekly classifies as "The Other Races." These include Best Visual Effects, Best Editing, Best Sound Editing, Best Sound Mixing, Best Art Direction, and Best Cinematography. Safe to say, I wouldn't know a brilliant sound mixer if he or she hit me over the head with a...er...sound mixing machine. I'm just going to go out on a limb and say that Avatar SHOULD and WILL win all of these. It won't, but I know it should and will win at least half of those, so the odds are on my side here. Primarily, if it doesn't win Best Visual Effects, an international investigation needs to be launched.
Best Adapted Screenplay
SHOULD WIN: Precious - Geoffrey Fletcher
WILL WIN: Up in the Air - Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner
Best Original Screenplay
SHOULD WIN: I haven't seen either The Messenger or Up, but based on how much I enjoyed the other three films here, I'd say one of those two deserves to win.
WILL WIN: Inglorious Basterds - Quentin Tarantino. QT hasn't won anything significant since Pulp Fiction, so I expect this to be the Academy's make-up kiss to him. It's possible that voters might go with The Hurt Locker here in lieu of giving it the nod for the more major awards.
Best Supporting Actress
SHOULD WIN: Mo'Nique (Precious) - I didn't quite flip out over this performance as much as others have, but it still blows away the other two nominees who I actually saw...Vera Farmiga and Anna Kendrick from Up in the Air. Kendrick has no business being nominated for anything...she gave one of the most annoying performances of the year, in my opinion. I didn't see Nine, but it certainly looked ridiculous, and Penelope Cruz got her award last year. I also didn't see Crazy Heart, but according to general consensus, Jeff Bridges overshadows everything else in that film.
WILL WIN: Mo'Nique - this is as much of a lock as Daniel Day-Lewis and Javier Bardem were a couple years ago for There Will Be Blood and No Country for Old Men. There is absolutely no way on Earth Mo'Nique loses.
Best Supporting Actor
SHOULD WIN: Haven't seen enough of these films, but I wonder why Alfred Molina wasn't rewarded with a nomination over Matt Damon (Invictus) for his work in An Education. I walked out of the theater halfway into that film, but he was the only even mildly entertaining aspect of it.
WILL WIN: Christoper Waltz (Inglorious Basterds) - Not quite as much of a walk as with Supporting Actress, but close. If The Lovely Bones had been a box office and critical success, this would have been Stanley Tucci's to lose, but the lackluster response to that film led The Messenger's Woody Harrelson and especially Waltz to leapfrog him in the awards season showdowns.
Best Actress
SHOULD WIN: Meryl Streep (Julie and Julia) - On another planet, in another cosmos, in some distant time, Sandra Bullock's name might warrant mentioning in the same sentence as Streep's. But sorry, Sandy...not in this world. The surprising thing for me, was how much I actually enjoyed Julie and Julia. That marks the second year in a row that Streep led the charge in what I thought was one of the best films, or in last year's case of Doubt, THE best film, of the year. I was also surprised that I liked The Blind Side, but it was not even close to J&J.
WILL WIN: Meryl Streep - She's becoming the Susan Lucci of the Oscars. Although she won three awards earlier in her career, she's 0 for her last 12 nominations. I think it's time to put an end to that nonsense. I can only pray that Bullock's name is not called, which it may well be. I also think Gabourey Sidibe deserved more buzz for her performance in Precious. Why did Mo'Nique get all the attention there when she was only in a supporting role?
Best Actor
SHOULD WIN: My SHOULD WIN unfortunately wasn't even within 10,000 miles of being considered for a nomination. Robert DeNiro in Everybody's Fine, to me, was a return to form for our generation's greatest actor. I still don't get how nobody else liked that film. Out of the actual nominees, again by virtue of the fact that I didn't like the three movies I saw (Invictus, Up in the Air, and The Hurt Locker), I'd say either Colin Firth (A Single Man) or Jeff Bridges (Crazy Heart).
WILL WIN: Jeff Bridges (Crazy Heart) - If you had asked me three months ago, I would have said George Clooney, hands down. Crazy Heart originally wasn't even supposed to be released in time for this year's Oscar race. So Bridges basically came out of nowhere, but it looks like he is a strong favorite.
Best Director
SHOULD WIN: James Cameron (Avatar) - I know I'm prone to hyperbole, but I say this with extreme seriousness; if Cameron loses to The Hurt Locker's Kathryn Bigelow, his ex-wife, somebody, somewhere should die a slow and painful death. I mean honestly, there will be no comprehensible excuse. There's already no excuse for her beating him for the Director's Guild Award - a primary reason many people now think she'll actually win the damn Oscar. True, I know nothing about the nuances of film direction, but for the love of Pandora, Cameron freakin' invented the technology he used to helm Avatar. He basically revolutionized film making as we know it, with the entire industry now scrambling to figure out how to make every film 3D and not look like colossal failures up against Cameron's benchmark work. Please tell me how...HOW does Bigelow's accomplishment even approach this level? Thankfully, she's the only threat and no one else has a shot.
WILL WIN: I'm sticking to my guns and saying James Cameron wins.
Best Picture
SHOULD WIN: Avatar - It bears repeating that Cameron is easily a much better director than he is a writer, as the story here was not up to snuff. But for once, that truly was nearly inconsequential. I think it's painfully ironic that this was the year, of all years, that the Academy opted to expand to 10 nominees in this category. I mean, this is the freakin' year where they may as well have had only ONE nominee. For me, it's Avatar, and then everyone else. The blood, sweat, and tears that must have gone into this film couldn't possibly be comparable to what it took to produce An Education or The Blind Side. People completely overlook how difficult the acting tasks must have been...playing against blank screens, having to get accustomed to the technology being used, and even learning an entirely new language! I just don't get how anyone else is even in this conversation.
WILL WIN: Avatar - Again, many people believe The Hurt Locker is now the film to beat. I'm thinking that babies and kittens will cry if that happens. And we wouldn't want that. I say saner heads will prevail. As an anonymous industry Producer so eloquently put it in an Entertainment Weekly sampling of how four Academy voters voted, "He (Cameron) is such a bastard. He's really a hard guy to root for, and always has been, but what he created with this movie--just the beauty of it--he blew me away." Even THAT chick didn't vote for The Hurt Locker!
I'm still looking forward to seeing more of the nominated films, so there are some holes in my analysis here, but oh well...there are other things besides movies.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Thursday, I'm in Love?
No people, this post has nothing to do with love, so scrape yourselves back off the ceiling. The title is just a riff on the old song by The Cure. In other news:
Dear Thursday, Why did you suck so? Were you jealous of how much Mondays suck so you decided to up the ante? Were you just trying to make Friday seem THAT much awesomer in comparison? Or were you just mad that you're pretty much the only day that does not have its own identity? (Think about it - Mondays suck, new CD's come out on Tuesdays, Wednesday is Hump Day, Fridays are Fridays, Saturday Night's Alright for Fighting, and God rested on Sunday.) No matter your reasoning, I tell you, your suckfulness was completely unwarranted and unwelcomed. Kind of like that old, fat chick on the beach in the string bikini (my apologies to old, fat chicks). In any case, I am fully expecting Friday to kick your everloving ass.
Love,
Jeremy
P.S. No, my day did not really suck THAT much...it's hyperbole, folks. Would it have been as funny if I started out by saying, "Dear Thursday, Why were you mildly annoying?"
Dear Thursday, Why did you suck so? Were you jealous of how much Mondays suck so you decided to up the ante? Were you just trying to make Friday seem THAT much awesomer in comparison? Or were you just mad that you're pretty much the only day that does not have its own identity? (Think about it - Mondays suck, new CD's come out on Tuesdays, Wednesday is Hump Day, Fridays are Fridays, Saturday Night's Alright for Fighting, and God rested on Sunday.) No matter your reasoning, I tell you, your suckfulness was completely unwarranted and unwelcomed. Kind of like that old, fat chick on the beach in the string bikini (my apologies to old, fat chicks). In any case, I am fully expecting Friday to kick your everloving ass.
Love,
Jeremy
P.S. No, my day did not really suck THAT much...it's hyperbole, folks. Would it have been as funny if I started out by saying, "Dear Thursday, Why were you mildly annoying?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)