Essential Viewing: Sunday TV

As is my usual custom on the day of rest I spent most of last Sunday in front of the television.   There’s just something about coming across blockbusters from the 80s and 90s I never intended to see them again that’s hard to resist.  Really, what’s better than pressing a button and seeing a CGI tornado chasing Bill Paxton (or anything chasing Bill Paxton for that matter)?  It’s all in the flipping.  I don’t generally watch anything for more than a few minutes.  For some reason my attention span fluctuates according to medium.  I can sit and watch a movie about a log washing up on the beach (really) but when I watch TV I start channel surfing like a 5 year-old after a box of fruit rollups (those things are dangerous when I was three I saw a commercial for them and ran headfirst into a coffee table.  22 stitches.)

I’m If I’m honest with myself I think the reason I take so much pleasure in these bulging budget marathons is because I enjoy skewering bad movies as much as I enjoy watching good ones.  And if I’m even more honest with myself, it’s because I actually like them (a case of reverse cinematic denial?  Perhaps.)  On with the skewering.  I know movies are big and dumb these days but man, in the 80s and 90s when studios figured out they could make terrible films and market them to huge opening weekends, movies were down right brain-dead.  Sure they’re enjoyable, Independence Day is a great watch.  But a computer virus?  The Aliens just happened to be using Windows 95?  And how did they get an Internet connection in space?!

Another Sunday viewing joy is that it can be serendipitously hilarious.  For example, I caught the scene in True Lies where an incredibly sexy Jamie Leigh Curtis does a strip tease for her husband Arnold Schwarzenegger, (she doesn’t know it’s him, because of the plot).  Then later on I saw her in a commercial enthusiastically endorsing Activia, the yogurt laxative.  Hot.  Speaking of True Lies, every time I see it, or parts of it (I haven’t watched it end to end since I was about 14) I’m reminded of what an great ride of a movie it is.  You need both hands to count the great action sequences.  Plus, it’s genuinely a funny comedy that manages to have a strip tease scene that essential to the plot and Bill Paxton actually being good and funny as opposed to his usual bland and bland routine.

I flipped from True Lies over to the end of Terminator 3.  Which, I’m going out on a limb here, I liked when it came out.  I don’t remember why, I haven’t seen it since, but I left the theatre thinking it was good and I’ve maintained and defended that position ever since.  Boy was this a wake up call.  I’ve been living a lie.  Watching Arnold awkwardly rehash his iconic character from the 90s that, despite being from the future, feels painfully out of date was discombobulating in it’s own right.   But considering that this man is currently the Governor of Caleef-oarn-i-ah and that he took office the same year the movie was released takes its absurdity to new levels.  Still the solid ending (judgment day, nuclear bombs gong off everywhere, because of the plot) did get me kinda amped Terminator 4, coming out next month.  But more than that it made me jonesing to watch Terminator 2.  Because really, is there a better action film than T2?

While pondering this essential question my mind drifted once again to True Lies.   Not as iconic as Terminator but that last 45 minutes has to put True Lies in the conversation.  Another contender I immediately thought of was Aliens, a film I rewatched for the 10th time just a couple months ago.  If I had the ability to visit various premieres in film history, along with Douglas Fairbanks’ The Thief of Baghdad, Buster Keaton’s The General and Star Wars, I’d go to the opening night of Aliens just to hear the crowd’s reaction when Sigourney Weaver lays the smack down on the alien queen.  “Get a way from her you bitch!”  Strong.

Then it dawned on me, Terminator 2, True Lies, Aliens, all directed by James Cameron.  I love to rip on Cameron and won’t stop, when you stand on a stage and say to a billion people “I’m the king of the world!” after winning an award for directing Titanic you deserve what’s coming to you.  But Sunday viewing has forced me to give him his due.  Three kick-ass films films that are endlessly watchable and actually really good.  I tip my hat to you Mr. Cameron.

I don’t what’s going on with him lately.   He hasn’t directed a narrative film since Titanic.  Instead he’s been making underwater IMAX movies with bizarrely similar titles that contain titles of his previous films, Ghosts of the Abyss and Aliens of the Deep.  I wonder if Secrets of the Piranha 2: The Spawning is next.  See, now I’m ripping on him again.  James Cameron’s sense of entitlement is so unlikeable even when being praised he gets made fun of.  Perhaps Avatar, his 3D extravaganza coming out this December, will “right the ship.”  I hope so because I’d love to add another action film to my endlessly watchable repertoire (it’s been filling it up with Paul Rudd’s films lately).

Ahhh, the is the glory of Sunday TV.  Thanks for all the pearls of widsom.  I wonder what fruits will you bear next week.

Why?!?!?!?!

Fast and Furious made $72 million dollars this past weekend.  I’m going to jump out of a window.  That is all.  Goodbye world.

In Cinematic Denial

When people ask me what I thought of “Watchmen” I say something like: “There was a lot of great stuff, Jackie Earle Haley was awesome, so was Dr. Manhattan’s origin.  The plot was pretty glossed over since they had to cram everything in so you probably need to read the comic to get it but, overall I thought it was pretty good.”

Now, is this really my opinion?  Or the opinion I’m telling myself to cope with my disappointment?  I honestly don’t know.  It’s only been a few weeks since I saw “Watchmen” which makes me wonder, am I in cinematic denial?

Cinematic denial is a phenomenon that affects millions of movie-goer’s every summer and late fall/holiday season.  It occurs when one’s anticipation to see a film is so high that when it is ultimately horribly disappointing, either because of unreasonable expectations or because it was just plain crap, they tell people they liked the film in attempts to convince themselves, and to spare the pain of a matrix-like-shaking-your-fist-at-the-sun-tantrum.  Being someone who frequently comes down with this condition I can tell you it’s often hard to know when you’ve got it.  Typically, it takes a least 3-4 months to diagnose.   A well documented example of this disease is the case I came down with in the summer of 2006.  Here are the details:

I grew up, as did many others, wanting to be Superman.  I had a Superman shirt, with red cape attached of course, that I probably wore 80% of my waking hours between ages 3-5 (are you calling my bluff about the ages?).  My childhood environment was universally infused with Superman toys, movies, 5th birthday parties and underpants.  And though I’ve outgrown the undergarments with Superman furiously breaking through massive coils of chains (that image has a completely different meaning to me now) I maintain my enthusiasm for the man of steel (Admittedly, John Williams’ theme is one of my iPod’s 25 most played songs).  So, of course, when I heard about the prospect of a new Superman film it was met with giddy screeches of joy.  I was careful not to get too excited because I’d been burned before (I’ll save Phantom Menace for another time), but the hiring of Bryan Singer as director, whose previous efforts with the X-Men franchise had aptly demonstrated his knack for the genre, was very promising.  Hwever, what really sent my anticipation to stratospheric levels was the first trailer.  The music, the spit-curl, and Brando’s Jor-El, I watched it just now and I still got chills.  Not only did this guy know how to make a superhero movie, he clearly understood and deeply respected the material.  Against my better judgment, I was stoked.

Then came the fateful day.  When I look back, this movie could have easily been a home run for me.   I didn’t need it to be good to enjoy it, I just needed it to be Superman.  In the film’s opening credits when the music took off into it’s familiar fanfare and the superman S emblem appeared on screen I honestly welled up.  It had nothing to do with that film in particular, it was just the excitement of seeing Superman, any Superman, on the big screen.  I was the fish, the theatre was the barrel and Bryan Singer had the gun.  I was ready for my life to be changed.

Ok, where do I start?  Kate Bosworth, tragically miscast as Lois Lane.  Kevin Spacey, who let him on set?  Parker Posey, why are you in this movie?   Superman has a kid? What?  And worst of all, only one big action set piece.  ONE.  That freaking movie cost $270 million!   Almost as much as the entire Lord of the Rings trilogy.  All I get is Superman chasing after an airplane?  Don’t get me wrong it’s a good sequence that looked very expensive, but it’s no where near the top 10 actions sequences of all time, and let’s face it, with today’s technology and the limitless possibilities with Superman they should’ve have had no trouble cracking the top 5.  Aside from the airplane all the other action, including the mind-numbing climax, was increasing displays of his Super strength.  Wow superman is strong.  Wow, Superman is really strong!  Wow Superman is really really strong!  The most depressing feeling when watching a big summer movie is thinking “that was it?” (Matrix Revolutions flashback).

The movie was such a pompous substandard letdown I should have walked out of the theatre and immediately started hitchhiking to Hollywood to personally egg Byran Singer’s house (I’m glad I’ve matured).  But, despite the sacrilege, I walked out of the theatre in defiance.   I was not prepared to face the reality that the film I had been waiting to see for basically my entire life was a dull exercise in mediocrity.  Knowing I would be called on to take a stance I subconsciously formed a completely invented opinion.  This fallacy was centered on one of the film’s dim yet bright-ish spots, Brandon Routh’s wooden but not dreadful performance.  I would say things like “Well it was all so meticulously planned, with his costume and his hair having to be perfect, plus acting in front of all those blue screens.  For him to say a line even halfway truthfully is a miracle.”  I’m not exaggerating.  This was the basis of my defense of “Superman Returns.”  What a racket.

I finally came to my senses some months later after the box office drubbing Superman took at the hands of Johnny Depp (pathedic Superman!) and “Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest” (which I enjoyed due to super low expectations).  I hadn’t thought about “Superman Returns” for a while and was reading about a Q & A Bryan Singer gave regarding prospects for a Superman sequel.  The article talked about how when one of the questioners expressed of his disappointment with Returns it was met with universal applause from the crowd.  And that was when I realized.  If I had been in that audience I would have applauded too.  I couldn’t keep living this lie.  It was time to come out of the cinematic closet and say it, “Superman Returns” sucked.

You’ll be happy to know I made a full recovery and thankfully “Superman Returns” did not soil my memory of the previous entries in the franchise.  But the idea that it could have makes me take this sickness very seriously.  Looking back, I can think of many instances when I’ve been in cinematic denial and I know I’m not alone.  My question is, has it always been like this?  Has cinematic denial always been a cross for movie buffs to bear? Were people in 1930 walking out of “Free and Easy” trying to convince themselves that Buster Keaton was just as good with sound? Or is it a modern mutation caused by too much exposure to George Lucas (yes)?

Whatever the cause, until Hollywood starts making films that are universally awesome – which isn’t happening anytime soon – hopes for a cure remain grim.  But there are many ways to combat the symptoms.  If you or a friend may be suffering from cinematic denail, take solace (not the James Bond movie that will only make it worse), you aren’t alone.  If I survived “Superman Returns” you can survive “The Haunting in Conecticut” (why did you think that would be good?)  Just take a deep breath, throw up your arms and say “Who am I kidding? That was terrible!”  See?  Now doesn’t that feel better?

The Hugh Jackman Show (aka The Oscars)

When Hugh Jackman, otherwise known as the ideal man, finished his dynamite standing-ovation-inducing opening number you had the feeling there was no where they could go but down.  But let’s not worry about that for now. What an opening!  Jackman, a legitimate triple threat, took the audience by storm using his exceptional talents to turn the traditional opening ditty recapping the nominated films into a showstopper.  So well conceived, from the glittery “cost cutting” cardboard sets to the interpretive dance representing the “The Reader” to his final triumphant declaration a top the ropes of a wrestling ring a la Mickey Rourke “I’m Wolerveriiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiine!” it was the most entertaining Oscar moment in my recent memory.  Bravo sir.  I wonder if he just wanted to announce Best Picture and call it a night right there, I wouldn’t have mined.

I remember saying right after it was over, well it’s all down hill from here.  I felt little bad for being so pessimistic, but I was right.  The newfound excitement was immediately undone by the self-serious, self -congratulatory tone we’ve become accustomed to.  Most notably in the new format used to present acting honors.  Instead of having the previous winner present the award, five past winners came out and each individually introduced a nominee providing a brief bio and praise.  Not a bad idea, but many of the presenters seemed unprepared with nothing particularly insightful to say, and the odd image of five men or women regally posed in formation looked more like the induction of some freaky cult minus the black hooded robes.

When it came time for another production number, dedicated to the movie musical, Jackman was now accompanied by the one Beyonce and it sadly was not nearly as memorable.  With far too many references the overly ambitious piece was often incomprehensible.  Hmmmm, do you think that had anything do with Baz Lurhman being the director? (Rip alert)  Would people just get over this guy.   I loved, loved Moulin Rouge! (despite having an exclamation point in the title).  But what has he done since?  A bunch of Chanel commercials that were embarrassingly self-important, not mention expensive, it cost like $40 million, (he also insists they be referred to as films, please), a Broadway show that by all accounts was atrocious, and “Australia,” a movie even I didn’t see this year because by all accounts it was so brutal (I have friend who walked out).  So why, oh why did they let him in the room when planning this years Oscars?  I picture him tip-toeing around in Groucho Marx glasses.

The rest of the show was fine, boring, overlong, but fine, it just didn’t live up to the first 8 minutes.   In terms of the actual awards there were few surprises.  Probably the biggest, or the most high profile, was Sean Penn taking home best actor.  I’ve been saying all along how much I hoped he’d win because Mickey Rourke wasn’t that great in “The Wrestler.”  Of course the second they said Sean Penn I immediately felt bad for Mickey.  I am such a pushover.  That must be tough when everyone expects you to win and then you don’t.  Then it must really feel like you lost.  I mean, he had to sit there for 4 freaking hours thinking he was going to hear his name called.  I feel for ya Mickey.  At least he didn’t storm out like Eddie Murphy did in 2006.

Another surprise winner I was particularly happy about was “La Maison en petits cubes” picking up best animated short!  Yay!  Why am I the only one clapping?  The film was one of two surprise wins for Japanese films whose acceptance speeches ran headfirst into the language barrier.  The second, “Departures” for foreign film, was probably the biggest shocker of the night.  I don’t know anyone who wasn’t picking “Waltz With Bashir” or “The Class.”  I have a hard time believing “Departures” is better than those two but if it is, hats off.  Who knows, maybe it’s another “The Lives of Others.”  When that beat out heavily favored “Pan’s Labyrinth” back in ’06 people, including me, were aghast.  But upon actually seeing the film everyone loved it, and if not for the Oscar it never would’ve gotten an audience.  So I’ll give “Departures” the benefit of the doubt.  If it ever gets released.

I hope Hugh’s back next year.  The ratings were up (not hard to do since the previous year was the worst ever) and he managed to shake off, however briefly, some of the staleness that has taken hold of the ceremony.  It’ll be interesting to see if this bumps ticket sales for his summer tent-pole “Wolverine.”  I know I’m a little more excited.  Here’s a formulaic trailer with an intense choral soundtrack.  Also check out the opening number that I’ve built up so much there’s no way it can live up to the hype (I hate when people do that, “Slumdog Millionaire”).  Until next year…..

Oscar Time!

Whoa, so the Oscars sure came up fast.  Is it just me or are people kinda “meh” about the them this year?  I feel like I haven’t had (or randomly engaged in uninvited) nearly as many conversations regarding them as in past years.  I do know that in terms of box office the traditional bump films get as a result of being nominated has been largely nonexistent.  The only film that seems to to have benefited is “The Reader,” which has doubled it’s take since being nominated.  But at 19 million in today’s prices maybe, what, 30 people have gone to see it?

Still the Oscars are the Oscars and for all my berating I still love them.  Since 2005’s loss of innocence (damn you “Crash”!) I maybe haven’t held them in as high a regard, but I still acknowledge them, for better or for worse, as an great annual celebration of films.  And how is a guy blogging about movies not going to pay attention to that.

So how about some predictions?  As I said it’s pretty boring this year, I think many of the categories are easy to pick.  I’ll run through the major ones.

Best Picture – Slumdog Millionaire

If Benjamin Button were a little better received it would win by default but since the entire world seems to have caught Slumdog fever I think it’s pretty much a lock.  I would love to see “Milk” pull out an upset but it doesn’t seem to have any momentum going.  It’s kinda sad, you’d think “Brokeback Mountain’s” breakthrough in ’05 would’ve been the perfect setup for a film like “Milk” not to mention it coming in on the coattails of Obama’s air of hope and change, which producers never could have anticipated.  Maybe if “Crash” hadn’t beat out Brokeback in ’05 for Best Picture things would be different.  Ok, I’ll stop hating on Crash now.  Ummmmm, no I won’t.  I hate you Crash.

Best Actor – Mickey Rourke, The Wrestler

It just seems unanimous.  This one frustrates me a little because I think he’s great in this, really great.  But I don’t think he’s as incredible as everyone is making him out to be.  So even though I dug his performance I’m always on the dissenting side of conversations.  In the end, he’s playing a character that is dealing with some things that must be very close to Mr. Rourke’s experiences.  And while there’s nothing wrong with that, for my money, Sean Penn in “Milk” had to create that person from scratch within himself.  And you can bet that, for Penn, the affable persona of Harvey Milk took some digging.

Best Actress – Kate Winslet, The Reader

It’s not a great film but Kate Winslet is easily one of the two best actresses named Kate on the planet (and the best to spell it with a K).  She’s been nominated 5 times before and while there are no travesties in the people who won the phrase: Helen Hunt and Halle Berry beat out Kate Winslet for an Oscar just doesn’t sound right.  Personally I’d love to see Melissa Leo win for her fantastic work in “Frozen River” but I’d be bummed if Kate was ousted a 6th time.

Best Supporting Actor – Heath Ledger, The Dark Knight

How bad do you feel for everyone else in this category?  Do you think they’re more worried that they might actually win than anything else?  What would someone like Michael Shannon say?  Who’s Michael Shannon?  Exactly.  In all seriousness, Heath does deserve to win for his unforgettable work as the Joker.  As I’ve said before, coming out of “The Dark Knight” my overriding feeling was sadness that we wouldn’t get another 40 years of his performances.

Best Supporting Actress – Penelope Cruz, Vicky Christina Barcelona

She’s as much a lock as anyone.  The film has some large flaws (one of them is named Scarlett Johansson) but Cruz is such a firecracker in her role as a passionate/insane artist you forget about everything else when she’s onscreen and when she’s offscreen you’re just thinking about when she’ll be back.  I really couldn’t see anyone breaking through here.  Cheers Penelope.

Best Director – Danny Boyle, Slumdog Millionaire

Zzzzzzzzzzzzz.  Are there actually people evaluating direction in the Academy?  It’s feels like when deciding the Directing nominees they just ctrl+c the Best Picture noms and paste them in the Directing category.  This year all 5 nominated Directors had their films nominated for Best Picture as well.  In the last 5 years only 3 directors have been nominated whose film wasn’t.  Boring.  Don’t get me wrong, Danny Boyle’s great and I’ll be happy to see him win.  This category just seems uninspired.

Best Original Screenplay -Wall E

This one’s tough.  I’m going with “Wall E” because there’s been some backlash stemming from it’s Best Picutre snub.  I think this’ll be offered up as a consolation.  However, the same thing could happen for “Milk” since it probably won’t win anything else.  To which I offer “The Simspons” reference: boo-urns.  Or “Happy-go-Lucky,” another well received but under represented film.  Basically I have no idea so I’m just listing the nominees to take up space so I can move on.  It could be “In Bruges” or “Frozen River” you never know!

Best Adapted Screenplay – Slumdog Millionaire

I say a clean sweep.  But Benjamin Button certainly has a shot.  As I mentioned above the screenplay categories are often reserved as consolations for films that don’t take home the big prize.  “Juno,” “Sideways,” “Lost in Translation,” “Little Miss Sunshine,” “Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.”  You know looking at this list, these are all films of the same ilk, got great reviews, did great business, loved by all but ultimately deemed not “important” enough for Best Picture.  Coincidence?  The Oscars: exposed.

Odd and Ends

“Wall E” is a lock for animated film (despite “Kung Fu Panda” randomly winning “The Annie” award a couple weeks ago).  The spectacular “Man on Wire” should pick up best doc.  I think Pixar’s “Presto” will win animated short but I’d like to see Japan’s wonderful “Maison en Petits Cubes” pull out an upset in the highly anticipated category.  In foreign film I’ve only seen 2 and I’m torn.  Both “The Class” (please read my novel, I mean, review I posted couple weeks ago) and “Waltz With Bashir” are decidedly great films.  I think Bashir has a little more buzz surrounding it so I’ll make that my pick, but for sure, check them both out.

Who’s excited for Sunday!  I’ll post my reactions to the winners, losers, all the glitz and glam, and that delicious Hugh Jackman sometime next week.

The Original Blockbuster

I happened to catch the second half of “Jaws” on TV the other day.  I’ve seen it probably about 5-7 times, but not in the last year. I came in at the scene where they’re cutting the shark in half at Brody’s house.  Oh cool, I’ll watch until they find the license plate.  But before I could even think about turning to something else, Richard Dreyfuss was underwater at night, examining a hole in the hull of an abandoned boat.  Well, it’s not like I wasn’t going to watch the dead guy’s head pop out.  And from then on I was screwed.  “You are going to ignore this particular problem until it swims up and bites you in the ass!”. “We’re going to need a bigger boat.” The scar battle, USS Indianapolis, shark cage, smile you son of a…boom!  How good is that movie?  I mean seriously.  Has to be one of the most watchable movies ever.

While reveling in it’s mastery I was reminded of the impact “Jaws” made on the film industry when it was released and it rekindled some thoughts I have on the subject.  Arriving in 1975, the New Hollywood movement in full swing film and American film was at an impressionable juncture.  Finally liberating itself from the shadow cast by the production code and the Ed Sullivan show, like the French and Italians before them, Americans now too had their new cinema.  Films like “Bonnie and Clyde,” “Easy Rider,” “The Graduate” and “Midnight Cowboy” closed out the sixties, giving way to the 70s and the emergence of Martin Scorsese, Francis Ford Coppola, Robert Altman, and yes George Lucas with great films like the “Godfather,”  “Mean Streets,” “MASH” and Lucas’ “American Graffiti” (so ironic) to name just a few.  This crusade not only drastically changed the way films were made but how they were seen.  With more attention paid to the artistic aspects of filmmaking a new generation found themselves engaged in cinema with a passion not seen since the golden age of the 1940s.  Smaller, independent production companies were churning out groundbreaking films and the public was eating them right up.

So along comes Jaws, a troubled production, due largely to a malfunctioning Shark, helmed by a largely unknown Director, the obscenly young Steven Spielberg.  It’s release on June 20th was remarkable in itself.  Up to this point film distribution was done on a much smaller scale compared to today’s standards.  Beginning with a handful of theatre in major cities a film would gradually accumulate screens as word of mouth spread.  Here, MCA executive Sidney Sheinberg gambled by opening Jaws on 409 theatres across the country making it the first wide release in film history.  This was coupled with a nation wide marketing campaign that was aimed at raising awareness and elevating the release to something of an event.  Suffice it to say, Sheinberg’s strategy paid off and the blockbuster was born.  “Jaws” was the first film to surpass $100 blowing by “The Exorcist” to become the highest grossing film of all time.   “Jaws” was a bona fide phenomenon and the film industry has never looked back.  Event films are now the cornerstone of big studio business.  This past summer “The Dark Knight” opened in 4,366 theatres and grossed $100 in two days.

There are some people, myself included, who view this blockbuster mindset as an exercise in cinematic mediocrity.  The films, to attract the biggest audience, are as broad as possible and their chief goal is a huge opening weekend.   The profits of a film are dived between the studio and the theatre.  The first two weeks of a films run are the weeks the studio gets it’s biggest piece of the pie, as time goes on the theatre takes an increasingly larger ratio.  So basically, studios pump up the marketing, get everyone to turn out on opening weekend, the movie stinks, but they’ve already made their money so who cares?  I acknowledge this opinion is littered with exceptions but I still think it’s a fair assumption.

Now, there are also some people (looking for someone to blame perhaps) that accuse “Jaws” of being the catalyst of this trend.   And contend that it’s like-minded kin, “Star Wars,” “Indiana Jones,” “Jurassic Park,” have permanently cemented reliance on the big budget drivel we’re exposed to every summer.  “These films have obliterated the dignity of American film and spawned the demise of the New Hollywood!”  Author Peter Biskind actually wrote best selling book called “Easy Riders and Raging Bulls” that showcases this philosophy.  Well to Mr. Biskind and all the other haters out there I say, *fart noise*.

You know what, if all blockbusters were half as good as “Jaws” we’d still be in a new wave, but by now it wouldn’t be new.  We’d just be in a wave.  Or maybe it wouldn’t even be a wave, it would just be the way movies are.  Good.  If a movie costs a lot of money or makes a lot a money that doesn’t make it bad.  What makes a movie bad is a studio exec looking to cash with a string of poor imitations.  Case in point, look at the epic craze that took over after “Lord of the Rings” took the world by storm.  You wouldn’t blame Peter Jackson for “Troy”, “Alexander” and The “Golden Compass” would you? (Although I wouldn’t mind a personal apology from Brad Pitt).

Film represents different things to different people. There are those who see it as pure entertainment and others a sophisticated art form.  Except for the extreme members of each party (I’m speaking to the fans of the “[insert genre] Movie” franchise and a large percentage of Film Forum’s audience), I think it’s healthy to subscribe to both.  Growing up a movie obsessed kid I watched “Superman” and “Ghostbusters” practically on repeat, and now I myself am a frequenter of Film Forum.  I just think a good movie is a good movie.  It can cost $5,000 or $250,000,000.   To quote a line from “Ratatouille” (shut up I love that movie) “Not everyone can become a great artist, but a great artist can come from anywhere.”  So lay off Spielberg (unless it’s for “Indiana Jones 4”).  And if you didn’t have problem with him to begin with, watch “Jaws” again.  Just remember, don’t hate the player, hate the game.

Oscar nominations, ok I was wrong…

but I was also right! I just watched the nominations announced by, who else, Forrest Whitaker.  I’ve never seen them announced live before since I only started acting like an adult and waking up at a reasonable hour in the last year. It was surprisingly nerve racking, and brisk.  It took 8 minutes to read the names of the nominees in all major categories.  No clips,  no awkward shots of hopeful candidates, just one read after the other.  I could barely process it, I was like, wait, wait, slow down, I’m not ready, no! ahhhhh. I can’t imagine what it’s like for those watching who are in the running.  Mickey Rourke got his name read last, I’m sure his heart skipped a beat.

You can see the nominations here.

So, onto my reaction.  First off, “The Reader”!  What?  I only gave it Kate Winslet supporting actress, which is practically all it didn’t get because she was nominated for Best Actress instead! (which actually helps her a lot, I’ll explain later).  I feel somewhat vindicated for giving “The Reader” a mostly positive review (I’m not comfortable going against Mahnola).  The Reader was also nominated for Adapted Screenplay, Director and Best Picture.  Quoi? This film had so little buzz, not great reviews (52% positive with top critics on rotten tomatoes), and no word of mouth; no one was seeing it (12 mil at box office).  So what happened?  Your guess is as good as mine.

Equally puzzling is the shunning of box office juggernaut “The Dark Knight.”  I predicted (as did others) the caped crusader would be in for Picture, Director and Adapted Screenplay.  “The Reader” basically substituted for “The Dark Knight” in each of those.  Traditionally critically acclaimed films that do huge box office fare great at the Oscars; Lord of the Rings, Titanic, Gladiator.  So rare is the popular film that’s actually that good people go crazy for it.  So why not “The Dark Knight”?  My guess is that comic books still are perceived by some as low-brow adolescent entertainment.  That’s a tough stigma to shed.  Personally, I would’ve liked to see Frost/Nixon left out of Best Picture instead.  Shame on the academy for holding their noses at a great film.

Onto the rest,

Best Director:

All 5 directors of the Best Picture nominees, boring.  Think outside the box people!  With “The Dark Knight” Christopher Nolan made not just one of the best superhero movies ever but as good a crime drama as any in recent memory.  Ron Howard directed a filmed version of an already established play with the same cast!

Best Actor:

Sorry Clint, I would’ve voted for you over Brad Pitt.  This is Mr. Pitts second nomination since “Twelve Monkeys” in 1996.  The academy has desperately been trying to get him nominated since and they finally had an excuse too, never underestimate the value of star power, just ask Julia Roberts. However, they didn’t make the mistake of nominating two undeserving movie stars (Sorry Leo, I’m sure your next Scorsese film will get you there).  Congratulations Richard Jenkins!  But this is Mickey Rourke’s year, he’ll take home the statue.  I’m still rooting for Sean Penn (for once).

Best Actress:

Angelina Jolie for Best Actress in “Changeling,” once again wielding the powers of stardom to procure a nomination.  At least Brad Pitt’s movie is getting a lot of attention, this right here feels like a conspiracy.  One I will get to the bottom of……by blogging.  Angelina bumps Sally Hawkins, which is a bummer, her performance wasn’t one of my favorites but it would have been refreshing to see her on the red carpet.

Speaking of refreshing, my favorite female performance of the year Melissa Leo was nominated!  She bumps Michelle Williams (a pipe dream I guess), and is a real dark horse candidate, think Adrien Brody.  To her benefit Kate Winslet was nominated once for best actress in “The Reader” (not supporting as most were expecting, including me) instead of “Revolutionary Road”  (it’s rare anyone is nominated twice in the same category) Not only is “The Reader” a stronger performance, now she doesn’t have to worry about have the splitting of votes over two nominations problem, a la Julianne Moore in 2002 (her performance in Far From Heaven is one of the more memorable of that year, poor gal).  I’m pretty sure Kate will take this home.  It is a tough category though, Anne Hathaway is also going to make a strong push, and don’t forget about Meryl Streep, I just think there’s consensus that it’s time for Kate Winslet.

Best Supporting Actor:

Shazam! I called them all.  I said I wouldn’t complain and I won’t.  This is a good bunch of performances.  Heath Ledger will join Peter Finch as the only posthumous Oscar winners in the history of the ceremony.

Best Supporting Actress:

Kate Winslet crossing over to best actress for “The Reader” threw a wrench into my predictions.  In her place is Amy Adams for Doubt, I love the actress, her performance in last year’s “Enchanted” was more deserving (retribution for the academy?).  Otherwise I had ’em right, what did I say bout Marisa Tomei?  Since Kate’s gone it’s wide open for Penelope Cruz.  Deservedly so, she’s dynamite in this.  Taraji P. Henson is a dark horse if Benjamin Button starts to win everything.

Original Screenplay:

The only bright spot for me was “In Bruges.”  Otherwise my list looks like it was thrown down a garbage disposal.  My happiest surprise of all the nominations, not just this category, is Courtney Hunt for “Frozen River.”  Coupled with Melissa Leo’s nod people will finally seek out this great film.  Wall E (no complaints there) and Happy-Go-Lucky (odd since it’s widely known to be mostly improvised) are the others noms I didn’t see coming.  The only really upsetting omission is Vicky Christina Barcelona, Woody’s best comedic work in a long while.  And where is Rachel Getting Married?

Adapted Screenplay:

The Reader’s charge out of obscurity foiled me again.  If I had put the Reader in all the places I put “The Dark Knight” I’d be golden.  All the usual suspects are there otherwise.  I give the edge to Benjamin Button, but I really don’t have a strong sense on this one.

Other notables:

Waltz With Bashir vs The Class in best foreign film.  Cinematography nominations are dumb.  The documentary category is stacked, Man on Wire, Encounters at the End of the World, Trouble the Water.

Now the real insanity begins.  I’m sure I’ll have more to talk about regarding the Oscars.  Look for more analysis following the awards on February 22nd.

Kate’s Big Night

I am so jaded when it comes to award shows.  I find them self-congratulatory, artificial and often nauseating.  However, this was not always the case.  I used to regard the Oscars as a prerequisite for excellence in film before I became wise to their injustices.  “Shakespeare in Love” over “Saving Private Ryan,” Jennifer Hudson, Julia Roberts for “Erin Brockovich” over Ellen Burstyn for “Requiem for a Dream” and the topper, “Crash” over “Brokeback Mountain” (this is the second time I’ve referenced my disdain for “Crash” in the inaugural week of this blog, it won’t be the last).  I became enlightened to their absurdity.

Probing the results of past contests didn’t help the academy’s cause.

1969: John Wayne in True Grit over Richard Burton, Peter O’toole (never won!), & Dustin Hoffman and Jon voight for their performances in Midnight Cowboy.
1974: Art Carney over Pacino and Deniro in godfather II.
1976: this one’s a real stunner, nominated for best picture Network, All the Presidents Men, Taxi Driver. The winner? Rocky. ROCKY! Sure it’s a good film but wow.  Wow.

So Sunday night was the Golden Globes, Oscar’s bratty little cousin.  I went with the less ludicrous option, the premier of 24. Around 10:30 I was waiting for the 11 Sportscenter and flipped over to see final trophies handed out.  After “Vicky Christina Barcelona” winning best comedy (with Woody sadly absent) the award for best actress in a drama was announced. I was surprised to see Kate Winslet win for “Revolutionary Road.”  The film that once seemed poised for awards season success had not been well received.  But what really surprised me was the astonished look on her face when her name was called.  How could someone this accomplished actually put any stake in such a silly popularity contest? This isn’t even the Oscars it’s the Golden freaking Globes!  I quickly checked to see if she’d ever won a Golden Globe before, I knew she hadn’t won on Oscar in 5 tries (another knock against them) but surely a Golden Globe?

Nope, not one.  Tom Cruise has 3!  I later learned that she’d won earlier in the evening for supporting actress, so that partly explained why she was so overwhelmed.  Still though, as she tearfully professed her love and admiration for an also misty Leonardo DiCaprio (whom I generally don’t even like) I felt all my hardened opposition melt away.  Most high paid performers claim it’s about the work, not the fame or money and to that I say “so why is your nose growing?”  But if anyone cares about their craft it’s Kate Winslet and it was clear this meant more to her than a step in the career ladder.  It made me smile and I daresay I was moved.  Before I knew it was thinking, “good for her, she really deserves it, I’m so glad she won.”  Curses!  I had been foiled by the Golden Globes within 5 minutes!

Not to say I don’t still think they are ridiculous, gaudy and indulgent, but I do concede that, in these fleeting moments of sincerity, awards shows can still bring the goods.  I guess.

Don’t believe the hype

With an overwhelming slate of good films being released this time of year the average movie goer needs a way to find some clarity.  What do you see out of a bunch of supposed must-sees?   In recent years it has become somewhat of a trend for a film to separate itself from the pack.  A perfect storm of reviews, word-of-mouth and platform releases will turn some lower profile film into a blockbuster.

Juno, Little Miss Sunshine, Sideways, Finding Neverland, Lost in Translation, are previous examples of this phenomenon.   But as word of mouth snowballs this, as it is often called, little film that could is branded with unreasonably high expectations. Over the course of the awards season the general public will, for once, abandon it’s reliance on sequels and remakes and flock to these, funny, touching, well-made films.  But after begin bludgeoned with superlatives from all aspects of the media (thanks Peter Travers) they will often leave disappointed.  Where was the transcendent masterpiece that was promised?  I’d feel cheated too.

In the end, sure, the movie makes money (Juno $143 mil!).  But it is remembered by many as not living up to the hype.  I’m sure the studios are happy to take the money and run and who can blame them.  But there is too much crap out there for a perfectly good movie to receive this kind of treatment.   Keep it in perspective people.  It’ll be February soon, enjoy quality while it’s still here.

127 Movies

in the theatre.  In 2008.  If you are doing the math don’t worry, a few were 2 for 1 at film forum.  But only a few.

127 is a lot, about 3 movies a week, not to mention what I watched at home.  I’ve been at this pace, or something close, for the last 4 years.  As you can imagine I’ve found sometimes films fall through the cracks.  I’d see some little indie no one’s talking about and really enjoy it, but before I can spread the word it’d get stuck way back in the Rolodex of my brain behind a catastrophe like X-Men 3, feeding on my repulsion and taking up all kinds of space.  Thus little indie is condemned to be reduced over the years into nothing more than a vague recollection of plot details.  So in 2008 I did what most people had already done in the age of the internets (thanks W.) and replaced my Rolodex with a computer.   At years end I found great reward scrolling through the excel spreadsheet of movies, theatres, years of release, dates and directors.  I admit partly due to the potential “in your face” factor, an indispensable weapon among NYC cinephiles.  But also as a chronicle of my obsession.  I can now look back to January and remember seeing Otto Preminger’s 1965 “Bunny Lake is Missing.”  A thrilling, British, child-knapping procedural complete with a twist ending, “spoiler alert” he has a split personality!!!!  Now I can use Bunny Lake to support my argument for why CSI and all it’s offspring are crap, “Preminger did it 10 times better with “Bunny Lake is Missing” back in 1965!”  Thanks movie log!

In 2009, I’ve decided to take it one step further.  My goal is to update this blog at the very least once a week with reviews, anecdotes, opinions, rants, complaints, and recommendations derived from my experiences as an obsessed NYC movie-goer.  This weekend I’m going start off by recapping 2008 and posting my top 10.

I will, as in most of my posts, attempt to be clever, but probably sound pretentious.  Happy watching!