Some years ago I came up with the idea of an "Oscar Pass" - a "Skip this Film" card. Oscar Passes could be used once per year. The films I Passed on were overdone ("Munich"), contained a star I avoided ("Master and Commander"), or played too far away to see at the time ("Secrets and Lies").
This year, I was going to Pass on Danny Boyle's "127 Hours". Given the subject matter, and my current circumstances, the very LAST thing I wanted to watch was a film extolling The Survival Instinct. I think I already have that concept down.
But as the Oscars got closer, I decided I would try it. Boyle is, after all, a great director, and any film with his name had to be deeper than a two-sentence plot synopsis would indicate. And James Franco is nothing if not interesting. So I left this year's Oscar Pass in a drawer.
I'm glad I did. This isn't an easy film to watch. Being a horror veteran, it takes a lot to gross me out or make me squeamish. This film, however, had me turning my head several times, and way before the "money shot".
I can't image this was an easy film to make. The film literally and figuratively rests on the limbs of Franco. Normally with true stories, knowing the outcome makes the film boring or anticlimactic. In this case, knowing the final outcome was the only way I got through it. Franco gives a powerhouse performance, no doubt. It's too bad that it's an "In Any Other Year..." performance. But I have a feeling he'll eventually get his.
Combine the lead performance, the introduction of a video camera as a character/catalyst, and the tight framing, and you almost develop a sense of claustrophobia. I was expecting to go through the film thinking the main character was an idiot and rooting against him, as I have so many times before. I don't know if it's my age, my situation, or the fact that I actually "get it", but I was in tears by the closing credits.
I had a conversation with my other half shortly after the film ended. I said I couldn't believe after everything the main character went through, he still decided to continue climbing. He maintained that climbing is apparently part of who he is, and that he wasn't going to let fear beat him. If he never went back into a canyon, then he had been defeated. But he made a concession so that he wouldn't be in the same situation again. To me, that's the definition of growth - realizing you could be in the same situation, but taking an alternate action to make sure the outcome differs.
Perhaps Aron wasn't the only one who learned something from his predicament - which is why they make films about true stories like this in the first place.
2/20/2011
This "Salt" Leaves a Bitter Aftertaste
There was an article printed this week where a high-placed Hollywood studio official decried Hollywood is not in the business of telling stories - they are in the business of making money. Most people realize an approach like this can't really sustain an industry for long (Take note, Peter Angelos!). To that official I reply that you may be in the business of making money, but given your current watered down product, and the price you demand for your "service", it's only a matter of time before people start catching on and staying home. It's already started.
I had a movie I wanted to watch for my first weekly Girls Night with a friend - "Red". We'd been planning this for weeks and we decided that was the film we wanted to see. However, I forgot to reserve it through Redbox online and by the time we went to get it, it wasn't there. So we settled for "Salt".
"Settle" describes this film perfectly. Let's talk about all the people who settled for this movie. Firstly, the studio. They were naive enough to actually think that this could be the start of a female-driven action franchise. Actually it could have been - twenty years or so ago. They locked up start Angelina Jolie, who settled for a paycheck. They hired writers who wanted to write about the villainous Russians, in a time when international cinematic villains are usually from the Middle East. That's story settling if I ever heard it (that doesn't involve Nazis, that is).
The second part of the article says that the reason films are unimaginative is that studio heads are my age - people who grew up with a lack of storytelling. They mention the creation of the "summer blockbuster" as the time when it all started to go downhill. It is true that "Salt" was released in July, during the height of the summer season, when Disbelief and Plausibility have also gone on vacation. However, I do have limits. Given the fact that it made under 125 million domestically, I'm not alone.
It's funny how the less you pay for something, the less you expect. There's really no such thing as a bargain. That's why Redbox is so popular. I won't pay 4.99 to see most things On Demand. I sure as hell won't pay 10.00 (or 13.00) to see them theatrically. But for 1.06 my standards do drop. Was it worth 1.06? Sure. My friend and I sat in her living room, and although we don't usually agree cinematically, we were right in synch with this one. We both agreed that it was ridiculous, and we groaned in all the same places.
But as we go into Oscar Week, let's remember that there's a time to settle, and a time to select. Here's hoping that Hollywood (and Mr. Angelos) eventually get the hint. I only have faith in one of them.
I had a movie I wanted to watch for my first weekly Girls Night with a friend - "Red". We'd been planning this for weeks and we decided that was the film we wanted to see. However, I forgot to reserve it through Redbox online and by the time we went to get it, it wasn't there. So we settled for "Salt".
"Settle" describes this film perfectly. Let's talk about all the people who settled for this movie. Firstly, the studio. They were naive enough to actually think that this could be the start of a female-driven action franchise. Actually it could have been - twenty years or so ago. They locked up start Angelina Jolie, who settled for a paycheck. They hired writers who wanted to write about the villainous Russians, in a time when international cinematic villains are usually from the Middle East. That's story settling if I ever heard it (that doesn't involve Nazis, that is).
The second part of the article says that the reason films are unimaginative is that studio heads are my age - people who grew up with a lack of storytelling. They mention the creation of the "summer blockbuster" as the time when it all started to go downhill. It is true that "Salt" was released in July, during the height of the summer season, when Disbelief and Plausibility have also gone on vacation. However, I do have limits. Given the fact that it made under 125 million domestically, I'm not alone.
It's funny how the less you pay for something, the less you expect. There's really no such thing as a bargain. That's why Redbox is so popular. I won't pay 4.99 to see most things On Demand. I sure as hell won't pay 10.00 (or 13.00) to see them theatrically. But for 1.06 my standards do drop. Was it worth 1.06? Sure. My friend and I sat in her living room, and although we don't usually agree cinematically, we were right in synch with this one. We both agreed that it was ridiculous, and we groaned in all the same places.
But as we go into Oscar Week, let's remember that there's a time to settle, and a time to select. Here's hoping that Hollywood (and Mr. Angelos) eventually get the hint. I only have faith in one of them.
2/13/2011
Companion Films - "The Social Network" and "Catfish"
I've been looking for a way to supplement Oscar Quest 2010-2011. After seeing most of the nominees, and being underwhelmed by most, I needed to find something more. So earlier this week, while in the shower (where I usually get my best ideas), I came up with the idea of a "Companion Film". Companion Films share the basic premise or theme, but present it in two totally different ways. I'm hoping if I find a Companion Film for each of the BP nominees, there will be SOMETHING that energizes me, just a little.
For example, take "The Social Network" and "Catfish". While I'm sure you've heard of the former, the latter has gone relatively unnoticed. It documents the story of Nev, who frequents Facebook and become attached to the "family" that he finds there. It starts with 8-yr old Abby, a talented painter and branches out to Abby's mother, half-sister and other family members. The entire experience is filmed by Nev's brother.
But, as the axiom goes, don't believe everything you read, or everything you hear. When Nev develops feelings for Abby's half sister Megan, he decides they should meet. Without giving anything away, let's say the results are surprising - for Nev and the viewer.
Personally, I get it. I had my years where I obsessed over my internet friends. I still have a few of them, and I've even met one personally. Although I never had any issues and the people I befriended were all upright and honest, that doesn't apply to everyone. Just like in real life, virtual life has its fair share of liars.
What I preferred about "Catfish" is that it's true. More than the other Facebook film, things weren't manipulated or sensationalized for effect. Even though I thought I knew where it was going, it still kept me entertained for its run time (about 90 minutes).
I also found the film relatable. Although I'm not on Facebook for my own reasons, I understand why other people are. I even understand the need for constant updating - on your phone, at work and now even in your car. It's just not for me at this stage of my life. Guess I miss the days where it wasn't necessary to announce you were going to the grocery store to buy milk. I also like the fact that I communicate with the people I know NOW, not twenty years ago. There's enough high schoolishness (yes, I made that up) in my life without having to correspond with someone I actually attended high school with. But that's my choice, and I realize it's not a popular one.
"Catfish" wasn't a film that was going to make the critical splash of "The Social Network". And that's really unfortunate, because I think it should have. It's a much better film, and I highly recommend it.
For example, take "The Social Network" and "Catfish". While I'm sure you've heard of the former, the latter has gone relatively unnoticed. It documents the story of Nev, who frequents Facebook and become attached to the "family" that he finds there. It starts with 8-yr old Abby, a talented painter and branches out to Abby's mother, half-sister and other family members. The entire experience is filmed by Nev's brother.
But, as the axiom goes, don't believe everything you read, or everything you hear. When Nev develops feelings for Abby's half sister Megan, he decides they should meet. Without giving anything away, let's say the results are surprising - for Nev and the viewer.
Personally, I get it. I had my years where I obsessed over my internet friends. I still have a few of them, and I've even met one personally. Although I never had any issues and the people I befriended were all upright and honest, that doesn't apply to everyone. Just like in real life, virtual life has its fair share of liars.
What I preferred about "Catfish" is that it's true. More than the other Facebook film, things weren't manipulated or sensationalized for effect. Even though I thought I knew where it was going, it still kept me entertained for its run time (about 90 minutes).
I also found the film relatable. Although I'm not on Facebook for my own reasons, I understand why other people are. I even understand the need for constant updating - on your phone, at work and now even in your car. It's just not for me at this stage of my life. Guess I miss the days where it wasn't necessary to announce you were going to the grocery store to buy milk. I also like the fact that I communicate with the people I know NOW, not twenty years ago. There's enough high schoolishness (yes, I made that up) in my life without having to correspond with someone I actually attended high school with. But that's my choice, and I realize it's not a popular one.
"Catfish" wasn't a film that was going to make the critical splash of "The Social Network". And that's really unfortunate, because I think it should have. It's a much better film, and I highly recommend it.
1/31/2011
The (Anti) Climactic End to a Much Anticipated Trilogy
Usually the third film in a trilogy is the best. It ties up all the loose ends and provides a (usually) satisfying resolution. Think "ROTK". No matter which of the MANY endings you prefer, there's still a sense of completeness, like you've been through hell and back with these characters and now you're going your separate ways.
Or think "Return of the Jedi". Or maybe not. Or the worst example - "The Godfather, Part III". Or "The Dark Knight Rises". OK, so that one hasn't started shooting yet, but aren't you just SURE it'll be great? :)
So when I sat down last week to watch "The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest" from Netflix streaming, I couldn't help but wonder on which side it would fall.
I could technically review this film in one word - anticlimactic.
The first film in this set, "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo", was gritty and felt like a 70s film. My favorite is the second film, "The Girl who Played with Fire". This is probably because it feels like an 80s film. It then logically follows that this film would feel like a 90s film, but it doesn't. It feels like a 90s television drama.
The problem isn't the acting or the story itself. It's more the tone of the film. I think by the third film you're used to Lisbeth's ways. And to see her stoically sit in a courtroom or in a jail cell simply doesn't fit. It feels like this film should have been about the chase to put Lisbeth into custody, not a courtroom battle to see how she can get away with a completely justified attempted murder. This film isn't action filled; it's dialogue filled. And that's a problem if you're not familiar with the Swedish judicial system.
Throughout the last third of this 2.5 hour film, I kept wondering how they were going to tie up all of the loose ends. How was the Blomquist/Salander relationship going to end? How will she clear her name and go on with her life? What kind of life would she have? The final "family" confrontation, however, was lame and uneventful. It seemed like Salander was settling for something.
As a member of the audience, the last thing I want to feel after almost eight hours of watching these characters is that they settled. It makes me feel like I, by extension, settled. And that doesn't make me happy. But upon further reflection, even though some of the plotlines were settled rather hurriedly, it seems that the relationship between Blomquist and Salander ends perfectly.
I'm glad that her story (partially) ends here. I'm actually interested to see how David Fincher interprets it all. I just hope he gives her (and me) a bit more satifaction in the end.
Or think "Return of the Jedi". Or maybe not. Or the worst example - "The Godfather, Part III". Or "The Dark Knight Rises". OK, so that one hasn't started shooting yet, but aren't you just SURE it'll be great? :)
So when I sat down last week to watch "The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet's Nest" from Netflix streaming, I couldn't help but wonder on which side it would fall.
I could technically review this film in one word - anticlimactic.
The first film in this set, "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo", was gritty and felt like a 70s film. My favorite is the second film, "The Girl who Played with Fire". This is probably because it feels like an 80s film. It then logically follows that this film would feel like a 90s film, but it doesn't. It feels like a 90s television drama.
The problem isn't the acting or the story itself. It's more the tone of the film. I think by the third film you're used to Lisbeth's ways. And to see her stoically sit in a courtroom or in a jail cell simply doesn't fit. It feels like this film should have been about the chase to put Lisbeth into custody, not a courtroom battle to see how she can get away with a completely justified attempted murder. This film isn't action filled; it's dialogue filled. And that's a problem if you're not familiar with the Swedish judicial system.
Throughout the last third of this 2.5 hour film, I kept wondering how they were going to tie up all of the loose ends. How was the Blomquist/Salander relationship going to end? How will she clear her name and go on with her life? What kind of life would she have? The final "family" confrontation, however, was lame and uneventful. It seemed like Salander was settling for something.
As a member of the audience, the last thing I want to feel after almost eight hours of watching these characters is that they settled. It makes me feel like I, by extension, settled. And that doesn't make me happy. But upon further reflection, even though some of the plotlines were settled rather hurriedly, it seems that the relationship between Blomquist and Salander ends perfectly.
I'm glad that her story (partially) ends here. I'm actually interested to see how David Fincher interprets it all. I just hope he gives her (and me) a bit more satifaction in the end.
1/29/2011
Is "The King's Speech" Worthy of an Oscar Night Acceptance Speech?
Oscar Quest 2011 continues. I only have a few more left to see. Earlier this week, I watched "The King's Speech", which is usually my (and the Academy's) favorite type of film. It fulfills all my usual requirements - solid acting, decent writing, and the whole England connection doesn't hurt. In addition to this, there's also references to Nazis - another Oscar Rule adherence.
But as I watched the film, I kept realizing that I was WATCHING A FILM. I didn't really feel any connection to the characters, and how can I? The film takes place in the 30s in England as a young king abdicates the throne to run off with a divorcee and leaves all of England (including his brother) with a challenge.
On the front cover of this week's "Entertainment Weekly", it says "King's Speech vs. Social Network". And that's what this year's Best Picture race comes down to, my friends. As usual, there's two films battling it out and eight "It's nice to be nominated"s. But the more Oscar conversations I have, it is being brought to my attention that there might be something more than that.
This comes down to one thing - old school vs new school. Does the Academy reward the stodgy, well-acted, outdated biopic or does it give the bald guy to the new kids in town, the ones who supposedly changed not just cinema, but society in general? What's more important - society then or society now?
But as far as "The King's Speech" goes, I was entertained, but not mesmerized. It's a good film, but not a great film. I don't want to own it. I'd like Colin Firth to win, since I've loved his work since "Pride and Prejudice" (as all good British girls do). But he was nominated last year in a part that moved me far more than this - moved me to tears, in fact. For the whole run time, a voice inside my head kept reminding me that I've seen this film before. More than once.
Actually, you can make a case that the two films are marginally similar. Both tell the story of a man who was basically an afterthought, and went on to a position of great power. Each needed the help of another man to help him get there. Both affected the course of history. Both have to do with a society affected by the advent of new technology. And they have one last thing in common - neither film is great.
I'm not sure, but I think I'm getting too jaded. Maybe I'm just not into film right now, although I am trying. But maybe it's society, that's changed, not just me. But the real question is whether or not the Academy has changed. We shall see.
But as I watched the film, I kept realizing that I was WATCHING A FILM. I didn't really feel any connection to the characters, and how can I? The film takes place in the 30s in England as a young king abdicates the throne to run off with a divorcee and leaves all of England (including his brother) with a challenge.
On the front cover of this week's "Entertainment Weekly", it says "King's Speech vs. Social Network". And that's what this year's Best Picture race comes down to, my friends. As usual, there's two films battling it out and eight "It's nice to be nominated"s. But the more Oscar conversations I have, it is being brought to my attention that there might be something more than that.
This comes down to one thing - old school vs new school. Does the Academy reward the stodgy, well-acted, outdated biopic or does it give the bald guy to the new kids in town, the ones who supposedly changed not just cinema, but society in general? What's more important - society then or society now?
But as far as "The King's Speech" goes, I was entertained, but not mesmerized. It's a good film, but not a great film. I don't want to own it. I'd like Colin Firth to win, since I've loved his work since "Pride and Prejudice" (as all good British girls do). But he was nominated last year in a part that moved me far more than this - moved me to tears, in fact. For the whole run time, a voice inside my head kept reminding me that I've seen this film before. More than once.
Actually, you can make a case that the two films are marginally similar. Both tell the story of a man who was basically an afterthought, and went on to a position of great power. Each needed the help of another man to help him get there. Both affected the course of history. Both have to do with a society affected by the advent of new technology. And they have one last thing in common - neither film is great.
I'm not sure, but I think I'm getting too jaded. Maybe I'm just not into film right now, although I am trying. But maybe it's society, that's changed, not just me. But the real question is whether or not the Academy has changed. We shall see.
1/25/2011
Oscar Rant 2011
Just like the rest of the cinephiles in America, I was glued to my chair at 8:30 this morning, waiting to hear the bell go off that starts the Official Oscar Campaign. Usually, I have to tell my boss that I’ll be a bit late on Nod Day, but today I had the extra blessing of working from home, so as I set my day into motion, I had it on in the background.
I’ve heard people say that the Academy is full of nothing but yuppified, elitist snobs who wouldn’t know a good film if it hit them in their firmly ensconced in their seat buttocks. I’ve defended them against people who say that nobody ever HEARD of the films that are nominated, so who really cares. But I always defend them. The Oscars is my Super Bowl when the Colts don’t make it in. It’s the day I wait all year for. Hell, when I found out I was having SURGERY, the first thing out of my mouth was “Not during Oscar week, I’m not!”
But now they’ve even pissed ME off! I simply do not understand. There are Oscar RULES and they should be followed. And they’ve made a mistake so grievous that I just don’t think I can forgive them.
Christopher Nolan, the visionary director behind this year’s BEST film “Inception”, is NOT nominated in the direction category. He’s not there. Other people are there, and perhaps deservedly so. But he NEEDED to be there. And he’s just not.
Oh sure, he’s nominated for Screenplay. Like that really matters. And “Inception” IS nominated for Best Picture. But that doesn’t really matter either. He SHOULD be nominated. He DESERVES to be nominated. When TDK got robbed of its Best Picture nomination, the Academy rectified this by expanding the field to 10 films. Do we need to do the same for directors?
I don’t want to hear that it’s a “strong year for film”. No, it wasn’t. It’s the same as it always is. There’s a handful of films that deserve Oscar recognition. Unfortunately, many more films are nominated. This brings me to the snoozefest known as “Winter’s Bone”. This film was ok at best. It was slow. It was not original. It didn’t make me think. I forgot it the next day. Sure, Jennifer Lawrence was great, but that’s about it. BEST PICTURE? ARE YOU KIDDING ME? I know there’s ten films, but you are SERIOUSLY telling me that this was better than “The Town”?
So this year, in my Oscar quest, I have seen seven out of the ten Best Picture nominees. I will be seeing two of the remaining three by the end of the month. I have a handful of other films I need to see (such as “Blue Valentine” and “Biutiful”. I may get to them.
But if not, ok. At this point, I don’t really want to watch either of the Super Bowls.
1/15/2011
New Year, New Take
I recently got a book called “501 Must-See Movies” from my godmother for Christmas. Inside is a checklist of all the films. I counted off the ones I had seen, which numbered about half. That’s a solid start. There are some favorites on there, and some I’m unfamiliar with. There are some classics I haven’t seen, and there are some of my most hated cinematic foes.
When I first started this blog, I realized that I have some biases. I don’t like romantic comedies and abhor all things Nicolas Cage-related. I don’t think Kate Hudson can act and I don’t care if Matthew takes his shirt off or leaves it on – he still sucks.
But above all I reserve a hatred for a few select films. One of these is “The Matrix”. I did see this in a theater upon initial release and thought it was a trumped up, green-soaked version of “Star Wars” (which I’m also not crazy about). But alas, the film is on the checklist and must be re-viewed and reviewed.
There are certain cinematic truths that are self-evident.
Keanu Reeves cannot act. He has a monotone look and an even worse voice. He’s boring.
The directors of this film will never again be able to match this success.
“The Matrix” is a technological wonder .
I AM capable of being wrong about a film. This film, although not great, is not that bad. In fact, I might even go so far as to say it’s quite good.
Now that I’m older and not as cinematically jaded, I can see that this is the millenium’s “Citizen Kane”, the film that puts me to sleep but still changed everything. It’s one of a handful of films whose mark is still present today. Even though the effects are dated now and have been repeated ad nauseum in every conceivable way, there’s still something to be said for being first on the scene.
With all that being said, though, you’ll notice I haven’t said much about the story. That’s cause there’s really not much to say. I appreciate the fact that they didn’t go for the obvious sell outs of killing Morpheus in the first film, but the story still is as old as time. I’m not one for philosophical thought, especially these days. It makes my head hurt. It was entertaining, but not distinctive.
So I guess it’s a sign that I’ve finally grown up. And I have been dared to watch the sequels. I don’t recall if I saw those in a theater – probably not. I think I actually but my foot down and told my ex-husband to see them on his own, which I think he did. I have agreed to watch the second one, but will probably pass on the third.
However, I didn’t put a time line on that stipulation. So maybe in about ten years I’ll look into it. :)
When I first started this blog, I realized that I have some biases. I don’t like romantic comedies and abhor all things Nicolas Cage-related. I don’t think Kate Hudson can act and I don’t care if Matthew takes his shirt off or leaves it on – he still sucks.
But above all I reserve a hatred for a few select films. One of these is “The Matrix”. I did see this in a theater upon initial release and thought it was a trumped up, green-soaked version of “Star Wars” (which I’m also not crazy about). But alas, the film is on the checklist and must be re-viewed and reviewed.
There are certain cinematic truths that are self-evident.
Keanu Reeves cannot act. He has a monotone look and an even worse voice. He’s boring.
The directors of this film will never again be able to match this success.
“The Matrix” is a technological wonder .
I AM capable of being wrong about a film. This film, although not great, is not that bad. In fact, I might even go so far as to say it’s quite good.
Now that I’m older and not as cinematically jaded, I can see that this is the millenium’s “Citizen Kane”, the film that puts me to sleep but still changed everything. It’s one of a handful of films whose mark is still present today. Even though the effects are dated now and have been repeated ad nauseum in every conceivable way, there’s still something to be said for being first on the scene.
With all that being said, though, you’ll notice I haven’t said much about the story. That’s cause there’s really not much to say. I appreciate the fact that they didn’t go for the obvious sell outs of killing Morpheus in the first film, but the story still is as old as time. I’m not one for philosophical thought, especially these days. It makes my head hurt. It was entertaining, but not distinctive.
So I guess it’s a sign that I’ve finally grown up. And I have been dared to watch the sequels. I don’t recall if I saw those in a theater – probably not. I think I actually but my foot down and told my ex-husband to see them on his own, which I think he did. I have agreed to watch the second one, but will probably pass on the third.
However, I didn’t put a time line on that stipulation. So maybe in about ten years I’ll look into it. :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)