Invictus

I usually don’t like sports films. I find them predictable. It’s obvious from the start who’s going to win the match/game/contest. If it wasn’t, then why make a movie in the first place?

Then I saw “Invictus” and promptly changed my mind.

“Invictus” isn’t a story about rugby – and that’s good, because I know nothing about rugby. It’s not even a political statement – although it certainly could be construed as one. “Invictus” is a story about a county that wasn’t ready to embrace change, until they were given a reason.

Directed by Clint Eastwood, and superbly acted by Morgan Freeman as Nelson Mandela and Matt Damon as Team Captain Francois Pienaar, “Invictus” details the quest of the South African rugby team to capture the World Cup in the mid 1990s, right after Mandela’s election and the end of apartheid. Within the boundaries of a “sports film”, Eastwood once again crafts a simple story on a grand scale transcending cliché to make an extremely moving film. The only slight misstep is the ending – the last match is necessary for dramatic purposes, but far too long for someone who has no clue how the game progresses.

Even though I don’t like sports films, I love sports. I’ll watch just about anything – baseball, football, tennis, even an NBA game. The more sports I watch, the more I realize that in today’s era, athletes (at least the ones that I hear about) aren’t loyal to anything but the Almighty Dollar. And don’t even get me started on the illegal activities of athletes. So I can’t really relate to an idea of a nation supporting one team.

We do have our national Olympic team. But most people (myself included) don’t know about these athletes and don’t care. I usually don’t watch the winter Olympics, as I don’t watch most of those sports. And the summer games are even worse. You have the same professional athletes you watch regularly competing on an international stage, which most do anyway daily. It just doesn’t make sense.

Now combine that with politics (and let me climb on my own soapbox). About a year ago, America was united by promise. A year later, it seems that people are becoming disillusioned. People wanted immediate change in a place where putting a band-aid on a hemorrhage just won’t work. And the racist population (and more than one “news” network) continues to make slurs and allegations to micromanage something that will take years to undo. Be patient people – it took us over a decade to get here; it’ll certainly take more than a year to dig out.

Why do I do my Oscar quirk annually? Because I’m neurotic of course, but also because every now and then I force myself to watch something I wouldn’t normally watch, and end up beyond pleasantly surprised in the bargain. I hope the Academy will think so as well.

“Invictus” – Rated PG-13, 134 minutes (*** ½)

A Culinary Masterpiece - in my kitchen and out!

Given the fact that Golden Globe nominations came out this week (among others), the Oscar hunt is now underway. I am, of course, behind. As I write this, there is a blizzard – always a good time to catch up on cleaning, writing, reading and of course film. Did I mention that I haven’t finished my Christmas baking yet either? As a way to cross numerous things off my list simultaneously, I watched my first film of the week – “Julie and Julia”.

Not only did it motivate me to bake, it also made me realize that it’s pretty freaky to see yourself in your idiocy and neuroses portrayed onscreen (and I don’t mean Meryl Streep).

“Julie and Julia” is a combination of two true stories – one from Julia Child, the reknown chef, and the other of Julie Powell, a lost married woman from Queens who gets it in her head that it’d be a great idea to cook herself through Mrs. Child’s French cookbook within one year and then share her story via her blog.

I know that Meryl Streep has gotten numerous accolades for her portrayal of Child, and I guess they’re well-deserved. The problem I have is that this is Meryl Streep. Does anyone really expect anything OTHER than her nailing the mannerisms, diction, etc perfectly? Can’t say I’m even close to being shocked.

Maybe it’s because it’s Amy Adams’ Julie Powell’s story which is new to me that made me like her character. Or the fact that Julie’s quest for culinary mastery is quite similar to my own Oscar Quest which I embark on annually (and usually finish, thank you very much). Or maybe it’s just because Amy Adams is so darn cute (as a friend tells me often). For all of those reasons, I think that “Julie and Julia” is one of the best films I’ve seen this year. This is quite a switch, because when this film was released in theaters I had almost no interest in it, and felt I could wait until the DVD release.

In addition to Streep and Adams, the other actor in this film is fantastic. Stanley Tucci plays Paul, Julia’s husband. I have no idea what their actual story was, as I didn’t read any of the source material, but he comes across as a loving, supportive, nurturing husband who would love his wife no matter what. I find that extremely refreshing to see onscreen.

I usually don’t notice the editing within a film unless it is a device within the story itself. That’s exactly what happens here. The juxtaposition of these two stories shows how closely these two align – regardless of where or when the stories are set. This concept is also underscored by the screenplay.

Every once in a while it’s nice to get a cinematic surprise. Here’s hoping that the endless dozens of cookies I have yet to bake are just as effective.

PS - Not long after I watched this film, I got my "501 Must See Movies" and notated that I had 269 left to see. We'll see if that actually goes anywhere! =)

"Julie and Julia" - Rated PG-13, 123 minutes, ***1/2

A hodgepodge of good films - you just have to look a bit.

This week’s slate consists of three very different films – 1 theatrical and 2 DVD releases – all of which are worth seeing.

First up is “Brothers”. This remake of a Danish film stars Natalie Portman, Tobey Maguire and Jake Gylenhaal. Maguire plays Sam, who goes off to fight in Iraq, only to be taken prisoner and held as a POW. On the home front his wife Grace (Portman) is informed that he died in action. As life starts to go on, her brother-in-law Tommy (Gylenhaal) discovers that he may indeed be a family man – in his brother’s family. When Sam returns home from the dead, all bets are off. What could have been a woman’s melodrama unexpectedly has some substance, primarily due to the performances of Maguire and Portman. Maguire channels a pair of Nicholson performances – “The Shining” and “A Few Good Men”. Portman is her usual solid self as the glue who holds everything together. The other good performance here is Sam Shepard, playing Sam and Tommy’s father. He’s great at playing an ass. For some reason I cannot explain or understand, the last third of this film is extremely affecting – I found myself in tears. I recommend the film, but I recommend more that you bring tissues.

Next up is “Cheri”. I’ve never hidden my adoration of Michelle Pfeiffer. I think she’s one of the best actresses of this generation, and I respect her and her work greatly. I hope to look that good at her age. This film is a period piece, a flip side to her “Dangerous Liasons” performance. She is the older woman (a courtesan, actually) who becomes enamored with a much younger man. As the relationship progresses, we see how maturity doesn’t have a thing to do with age. In addition to Pfeiffer, there’s also support from Kathy Bates as another courtesan. The direction by Stephen Frears is also fantastic. The last minute and a half is a closeup of Pfeiffer’s face (similar to the ending of “Wolf”), and she’s got quite a bit of aging makeup on. Not many actresses would be brave enough to even try the shot, but Pfeiffer just radiates.

Finally is “World’s Greatest Dad”. In light of all the heat that Robin Williams is getting regarding his latest Disney fiasco, it’s a shame that people didn’t really see this EXTREMELY dark satire, directed by Bobcat Goldthwait. At times extremely funny, at times disconcerting, and always right on the nose, Williams plays Lance, a high school teacher with no life who suddenly becomes a celebrity when his son commits suicide. What could be extremely dark ends up revealing something about us as a culture relating to celebrity as its effects. It might not sound good, but trust me, it is.

That’s all I’ve got for this week. Catch me next week when who KNOWS what I’ll end up seeing (although I can guarantee it WON’T be “Avatar”).

Films That Suck.

I concede that I’m a sucker for box office hype. Be it good or bad, if people are talking about a film I’m usually interested. I’m even enough of a total dork to predict the Oscar nods AND pick the Razzie “winners” as well.

So this week’s topic is films that suck – literally and figuratively.

First on the slate is the box office juggernaut “The Twilight Saga: New Moon”. Before you ask, yes I have read the books and NM is my hands down favorite. I went to see this on a Saturday at 11:00 AM with some female friends from work. I also admit that while snickering at the suburbanites marking out at the sight of Jacob shirtless or Edward’s glittering, I thought the film was great. It was faithful to the book, told a great story, ended on a decent stop, and left me eagerly anticipating “Eclipse”.

I watched “Twilight” the week of NM’s release, and it’s pretty obvious the difference between a studio not having money and dumping LOADS of money. The effects were much better in this film. I also thought that it’s more character driven. It’s more about Bella than anything else, which is fine by me. Also for the record, I’m neither Team Edward nor Team Jacob – I’m Team Bella, something that I’m surprised they haven’t thought of yet. For those that claim this is a teen film, try again. My audience was firmly in my age bracket, thank goodness.

Next is the alleged Oscar darling “Precious: (long title I don’t want to type)”. Each year has one Best Pic nominee I hate with a passion – I’ve gotten this year’s entry out early. This film was just stupid. I don’t care what celebrity endorses it this is NOT a good film. Story – nonexistent. Acting – Sadly lacking. Gimmick casting – check, and still stupid. I understand that there are many Preciouses in the world. But if you need to have this film tell you that, perhaps you need to read some more newspapers or pay closer attention. This film is either understandable or interesting. There’s NO back story – no motivation for any of the characters. The film is as disjointed as Precious’ ridiculous daydreams.

I could go off on a Dennis Milleresque Rant here, but for this film to be an Oscar front runner is just wrong. I will play the race card here – if this girl wasn’t African American, this film would be on Lifetime (which is exactly where it should be in my opinion). I have a friend who is African American who told me that the accolades of this film are “white people guilt”. I wholeheartedly agree with her. People keep saying that the lead actress did a great job. She may have, but most of the time I couldn’t understand what she was saying. There’s no connection anywhere – not between the characters, and certainly not with the audience. In fact, this review is also as all over the place as the film.

But, you know, it does follow one of the newer Oscar “rules” – films with illiterate women score BIG. So I’m sure that the film will mop up all the awards. Too bad it’s getting the wrong ones, because I’d clearly give this a Razzie nod instead.

“The Twilight Saga: New Moon”, PG-13, 130 minutes, ***
“Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire”, R, 110 minutes , blank