Capsule Reviews of Olderish Films I've Recently Watched

Welcome back to my blog. I typically take a two-three month hiatus after the New Year and now I'm back with some new content. 

Here are some films that I've recently watched that are at least a couple or more years old:

The Reader (2008)-It's difficult to separate this from the knowledge that it's inclusion as a best picture nominee got everyone in a tizzy and led to the expanded Best Picture field. I had a friend in film school in 2008 who said on Facebook "guys, Reader is the best film of the year!" so I know it had at least one educated fan and I tried to like this film and not think about how it bumped out other films for BP (I didn't even love Dark Knight anyway), but the film just didn't do itself any favors. I love a good courtroom drama as much as the next guy but the film tried to combine three or four Oscar baity genres in one. I still love Ralph Fiennes and Kate Winslet in anything.

The Kids are All Right (2010)-The high expectations of knowing it was a best picture nominee made me feel a little disappointed. Other character-based dramedies that have gotten BP noms like Lost in Translation or Juno have richer and more defined characters whereas Annette Bening and the younger kid was a bit stereotypical as characters. On the other hand, there was something admirable in the script about being unapologetic about the characters. Bening's character on the outside was a bit unpleasant and phony but Julianne Moore's character loved her for who she was.

Certain character relations weren't developed enough to be impactful. Did the overachieving daughter over achieve because of her family conditions? Because of a nature vs. nurture thing. Moore's attraction to Ruffalo's character wasn't delved into much either. She was confronted and had an explanation for it, but I would have liked to be shown more than told. Julianne Moore's speech at the end tied up loose plot threads extremely well.

A Dangerous Method (2011)-My favorite of this recent batch of films. The film centers around the life of psychiatrist Carl Jung (Michael Fassbender) and his relationship to two foils during a make-or-break-it phase of his career (as well as the future of psychiatry, supposedly): Kiera Knightley plays the trifecta of lover, patient and intellectual peer Sabina Spielman and Viggo Mortensen plays mentor Sigmund Freud (who you might know from Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventures as well as, you know, actual history). The film is tightly-scripted, demonstrates a clear interest in its subjects, and has some character work that puts nearly everything else on this list to shame.

Black Snake Moan (2008)-A bit of a bizarre film and one that probably is lightyears away from today's standards of political correctness. As long as it's interesting and can keep the mood and tone engaging, I don't mind a film that's a bit outside the norm and this film certainly qualified. Christina Ricci gives one of those "I didn't know she can act" performances for me. The film is made by film maker Craig Brewer who established himself as a distinctive new voice in 2005 with Hustle and Flow and some of that vision is still there, but his career (which has yet to flourish as far as the general public is concerned) could have used a better sophomore effort.

Cocoon (1985)-A reminder that in the 1980s, comedies had an easier time getting greenlit. I doubt you could get any bizarre idea you want greenlit today if your name isn't Todd Phillips, Judd Apatow, Edgar Wright, or Adam McKay. It was pleasant enough, some of it was very weird in a way that's specific to the 80s: Extraterrestrial fascination and subsequent extraterrestrial kissing/sex, a strong desire for a happy ending, clueless protagonist characters moddled after Ted McGinley, etc. The idea of Wilford Brimley acting rather than being an internet meme of geriatric humor is pretty funny in retrospect. Even funnier, Don Ameche won a freaking Academy Aawrd for best supporting actor. His screen time in this film is close to nil.

Bridges of Madison County (1995)-Very emotional and moving film. Romantic films aren't necessarily my genre, but Clint Eastwood gives the film a sort of masculine touch. Meryl Streep kills it and half the reason I watched it was to see her play an alluring Italian ingenue. Clint Eastwood said that this role was the closest to his real-life self, but I have a feeling "Play Misty for Me" hits the mark better. In that film, he sleeps with Jessica Walters then tries to get rid of her so he can move onto a cuter woman and well, I imagine Sandra Locke would agree that that's what Clint Eastwood did to her.

Battle of Shaker Heights (2003)-From the point of view of someone who never watched the season of Project Greenlight that resulted in this film, it seems like a fine film with good front-loading of the action. Shia LaBeouf plays an interesting kind of antihero and there's a certain Wes Anderson theme underlying the film where this is just an outkast trying to belong. The reviews were hard on this because they watched the Project Greenlight Season and felt the director messed up or was arrogant or probably had too noble a vision. Watching it in a vacuum has its advantages

Waitress (2007)-A very sweet film. This and another 2007 film, August Rush, was Keri Russell's big one-two punch to try to get her back on the acting scene to reinvent herself post-Felicity. Tragically the director Adrienne Shelly (one of the few female directors in Hollywood, too) was murdered. Maybe Phillip and Elizabeth Jennings can avenge her.

The Apt Pupil (1998)-One of the rare instances in which I've seen Ian McKellen act not as a superhero or gay pride icon and he doesn't disappoint (not that he was any less impressive in Gods and Monsters which came out the same year). McKellen plays an ex-Nazi riddled with the preoccupations of being super-old and Brad Renfro plays his neighbor Todd. Todd is struggling in school and full of adolescent angst and blackmails his Nazi neighbor into a variety of activities that can best be described as weird. The two form a makeshift relationship marked by a foreboding tension that you can easily identify because it's backed by the same kind of orchestral swelling that marked late 90's young adult films like Cruel Intentions, Teaching Mrs Tingle, and I Know What You Did Last Summer. Because it's adapted from a Stephen King book, this is a film that feels more adult and the best thing I can say about this failure of a film is that at least it treats its central character as an adult rather than a high school stereotype. Other than that it's not something that's particularly well-translated to screen.

What I've seen so far and what I'm expecting to see...

The Brothers Bloom, dir. Rian Johnson-The film had some very good elements:
It's hard to cover this film without spoiling much of it
-The visual look was terrific. I wasn't sure if it was a period piece or it was set in the late 2000's, because there was a definite lack of cell phones and other modern day apparatuses in the frame. It was very retro, yet very much in the present
-Rachel Weicz was such a fascinating character. How could a woman that beautiful and rich be so lonely? Weicz manages to pull it off. An absolutely amazing performance and kudos to her for learning all those talents (apparently she had to learn all those talents)
-Some of the dialogue was exceptional. Penelope's speech about reinventing her life and refusing to see her loneliness as a weakness was definitely thought-provoking.

At the same time, the film on the whole didn't make any sense. It was too many twists to the point where you just didn't care what was going on screen because none of it was real and there wasn't much suspense to convince you that the film might have been heading in any other direction.


Wolverine, dir. Gavin Hood
Simply put, I've never seen such a promising franchise be squandered so poorly. The story, before being put to screen, had a lot of potential. Here's what I grasped from what the film was really about: Wolverine had some sort of internal ying and yang battle between his animalistic urges and his sense of humanity. Whenever something happened, his immediate reaction was to go berserk (full disclaimer: Wolverine goes berserk a lot) because that was his animistic nature. When he was able to control himself more, Wolverine showed empathy towards others and did the right thing. Sabretooth, on the other hand, was just purely irrational. Wolverine's journey is partially what's in the plot but it's also from differentiating himself with Sabretooth.

Anyway, because I'm an X-Men fan that I would have seen the film anyway, but it was a massive disappointment. It was overly Ramboish and the special effects were distractingly excessive. I wrote more here


Angels and Demons, directed by Ron Howard:
I know that the original had a hard time pleasing people, so if I liked the original a lot and I also liked A&D, I know that's not going to count as a highly-touted recommendation. What I can say is that A&D is similar in tone to the first film but with quicker pacing. It's much more of a thriller although it doesn't have as much of the buzz and controversy that the first one carried with it. That takes away some of the gravity. As someone who has read the book, I think the adaptation made some very smart decisions as to where the film should depart from the book and there is enough to be surprised in that department. You also have to hand it to the film for really showing Rome in all its glory and there's a lot of great scenery to like in the film as well.

Land of the Lost, directed by Brad Silberling:
It wasn't the absolute worst film I have ever seen but it was close to it. I am someone who tend to think anything starring Will Ferrell, including Step Brothers and Blades of Glory, were good films. This, however, was a major misstep on Ferrell's part that will definitely make me second-guess going to a film just because Ferrell is on the marquis. The film just wandered without much of a plot and didn't have enough laughs to keep us invested along the way. I know it was a homage to a TV show with notoriously low production values, but that was a kid's film.

Star Trek, directed by J.J. Abrahams:
Most of what's already been said about Star Trek are my sentiments. It's a truly exciting film that does a flawless job of walking the fine line between reinventing characters and altering them to fit a new generation or storyline. The actors and forces behind them did a great job of interpreting these iconic roles and that's what made the film tick so well. The special effects and visuals were amazing as well. It's hard to truly awe in audience when one out of every films released in the summer boasts a $100 million budget for special effects, but Star Trek was out there. One little complaint: The plot was somewhat confusing and ultimately, meaningless. It wouldn't have hurt to give us a plot worth caring about.

Frost/Nixon Review

Frost/Nixon is one of the five movies this year that got nominated for best picture which means that comic book geeks and Pixar fans (I wouldn't call a Pixar fan a geek) hate it, regardless of whether they've seen it or not, because it was one of the five films that was nominated for best picture over the Dark Knight and Wall-E. Well, I've seen Wall-E and loved it and I've seen Dark Knight and can see an argument that it transcends the comic book genre and deserves recognition (although that's been happening for years now), but at the same time, neither of these films are as innovative as Frost/Nixon. Yes, it's true that Frost/Nixon is just a period piece and there have been a million of those honored by the academy whereas there have been very few action films honored by the academy and zero comic book adaptations, but just as the comic book geeks claim that the Academy has a bias towards period pieces, is it possible that the comic book geeks have a bias against period pieces?

Either way, Frost/Nixon is quite a film and stands alongside Gran Torino and Slumdog Millionaire as the three masterpieces I've seen this year. It stands alongside the most insightful of political films and even stands alongside Rudi, Rocky, and the greatest of sports films even though it isn't about a sport in the athletic sense. Like a great sports film, it is about the intensity of competition against a worthy adversary, the thrill of victory and the agony of defeat and the price of the risk for entering into the arena (sorry if that last sentence sounded like Bob Costas at commentating about the Olympics).

The arena of competition in this case is public perception as an ex-president and a b-level talk show host are trying to earn critical respectability by making themselves look good throughout the interviews at the expense of the opponent. The way we are glued to our tv screens during the three presidential debates adds merit to the film's theme that public perception is everything. Is Frost/Nixon commenting on whether this our democracy is imperfect, or simply unapologetically stating that politics is a zero-sum game. Nixon calls Frost up on the phone at one point and says something like, "me and you are very much alike, we both want respect, we both are going to take this next interview and get that respect," and Frost responds back "I completely agree, but only one of us can win." It's one of those aha moments, because it's the unstated truth that neither of the two men who have been cordial to each other have acknowledged up to this point.

In one sense, the film is a commentary on the evils of capitalism and that resonates in this time when there are less jobs to go around and we have to compete against our friends and enemies alike for the few jobs that are out there. Both the men are putting on smiles for each other but they both desperately need to sway political opinion in their favor for capitalistic purposes: David Frost is trying to become respected as a journalist and earn bigger endorsement deals and Richard Nixon is trying to elevate his speaking fees as well as earn himself a place back among the Washington elite.

Under the surface, however, there's the suggestion that Nixon (and Frank Langella's characterization leads to this) was just a needy child who just wanted respect. But at the same time, David Frost is a person who needs that level of respect from his peers. Why? I think this was because of the way he responded to being bullied from the drunk phone call. If he didn't have some kind of inferiority complex he wouldn't have pulled an all-nighter to nail his opponent the next day. Again, the two men are mirror images of each other, and in the last line, one (I won't tell you who) suggests to the other that maybe they should have had each other's careers. So there's that duality theme that the Batman series has.

Lastly, I think the film is also a backwards version of that great political story where the outsider comes from nowhere to be the President of the U.S. and lead the country to greatness. Barack Obama had that angle when he was campaigning but many presidents campaign that way. Frost/Nixon is the exact opposite, and I thought that was interesting. Frost/Nixon is the story of a guy who's an outsider whose dream of saving democracy and leading the U.S. forward isn't to become president but to take down an illegitimate US President, which is harder to do, don't you think?

Anyway, an absolutely great picture. I saw this film about 6 weeks after it came out, so I'm sure that those who wanted to see it have already seen it, but it deserves whatever nominations it has, I'll say that.

Best picture predictions

My best picture predictions are the result of what I'd like to see and what I think will get the nominations. This is because I will get double the enjoyment out of seeing the films I want to get the nominations be rewarded and enjoy the fact that I called it. I am going to try not to base this on historic trends because I have protested the other movie writers getting so obsessive about forecasting the oscars

Here is my list:
Picture: Slumdiog Millionaire, Milk, Curious Case of Benjamin Buttons, Dark Knight, Frost/Nixon
Slumdog Millionaire, Milk, Buttons, and Frost/Nixon are all in and Dark Knight and Wall-E are fighting for the fifth slot is my understanding. Both films are unconventional choices but so well-loved that they could potentially both get in. I at first wanted Wall-E to get in. It was on so many critics' number one lists, but later I felt that Dark Knight was somewhat unstoppable (at least for the nomination) and that I've seen an animated film nominated for best picture in my lifetime (Beauty and the Beast) but I've never seen a superhero film nominated in my lifetime. I disagree that Dark Knight was an effective film thematically and I'll cover that in a different post, but in the meantime, because I'm tired as hell and trying to get to sleep.....

Director: Sam Mendes, Revolutionary Road; Chris Nolan, Dark Knight; Ron Howard, Frost/Nixon; David Fincher, Curious Case of Benjamin Buttons; Danny Boyle, Slumdog Millionaire.

I hate to follow historic precedent but a very large percentage of the time, the best picture and best director line up in 4 of 5 cases. The tragedy of this is that because I believe it has only happened once out of 77 Oscar ceremonies that the film (it might have happened a few more times in the '30s or '40s) that didn't get the director nomination won best picture (Driving Miss Daisy, 1989), that fifth picture is immediately relegated to "not going to win, happy to be nominated status" so it becomes a race of four films. I was tempted to go five for five, but because I am a fan of Sam Mendes' work and the other films that got the next 5 sports for best pictures have directors that are less comparable:
-Andrew Staunton for Wall-E directed an animated film which takes significantly less effort
-David Stanley Hare for the Reader has a very thin resume
-Darren Aranofsky might have a chance for the Wrestler but he's a bit more of a cult director and David Cronenberg wasn't rewarded for going mainstream in 2005
-Stephen Daldry for Doubt (his first name is Stephen, right? if it isn't i don't care) already has more than enough noms for films that have since been forgotten (i.e. how many people even remember a film named "Billy Elliot" 8 years later?)
As for the four other directors, the two frontrunners, Boyle and Fincher have been cult directors with cult hits like Fight Club and Seven for Fincher and Trainspottin for Danny Boyle. Chris Nolan has been also somewhat of a cult director with American Psycho, Momento, Insomnia before getting mainstream recognition with the Batman series and Prestige. Neither of the three have been anywhere near this kind of recognition before this year. The fourth guy is your average Joe with commercial tastes, Ron Howard, who's had two best picture nominations before but only one nom with Beatiful Mind.


Actor: Pitt, Buttons; Eastwood, Gran Torino; O'Rourke, Wrestler; Penn, Milk; Langella, Frost/Nixon

I haven't seen Jenkins but I know that the other two borderline performances, Eastwood and Pitt are truly outstanding. Brad Pitt has been gathering goodwill and is slowly becoming the most loved Hollywood star on the planet and he's been waiting for a lead actor nomination for close to 20 years now, so I'm having trouble beleiving Richard Jenkins can compare to that at this point. Clint Eastwood is a former cowboy star who just won't quit making quality films and expanding his boundaries. This is clearly superior as a performance to Million Dollar Baby or Unforgiven, and it deserves to be recognized on behalf of all aging actors who deserve one last shot at creating a great iconic character on screen.

Actress: Kristin Scott Thomas, I've Loved You So Long, Meryl Streep, Doubt; Kate Winslet, Revolutionary Road; Melissa Leo, Frozen River; Anne Hathaway, Rachel Getting Married
Hathaway, Winslet, and Streep are locks. I DO want Angelina Jolie on here and I DON'T want Sally Hawkins on here (mostly because I dislike Mike Leigh who directed the film), so I'll split the difference and put two actresses with equally good chances. As for Kristin Scott Thomas, a French woman got nominated last year and won, so I'm getting the feeling that good performances in French films don't go unnoticed.

Original Screenplay: Rachel Getting Married, Wall-E, Wrestler, Milk, Gran Torino
If people are as gaga as they say they are over Wall-E, then I have a feeling it's going to get a few more nominations than it deserves. I don't think Wall-E is a remarkable screenplay (the first 15 pages or so must consist of "Wall-E: beep, Eve: beep beep" over and over again with stage cues) but rather a remarkable story and a remarkable job on animation, but because I don't believe (someone correct me if I'm wrong) that Wall-E is eligible for art direction or cinametography, It will get rewarded here. The Wrestler and Milk are favorites for the picture. Rachel Getting Married has been one of the most highly praised films of the year by the critics. For the fifth slot, there are a lot of quirky films like In Bruges, Happy-Go-Lucky, Syndechone New York and I was thinking Burn After Reading. I thought if the academy members love Gran Torino to half the extent that some of the critics are (including myself), it could get slot #5. My alternate is Burn After Reading. Vicky Christina Barcelona is a possibility but I will not bet on it. Woody Allen has more screenplay noms than anyone else in history at this point and it's already been known that he won't show up for the ceremony.

Adapted Screenplay: Frost/Nixon, Doubt, Revolutionary Road, Slumdog Millionaire, Buttons
I think people are ready to give some love to Eric Roth (who wrote Forrest Gump) again and Slumdog is a clear front-runner. Patrick Marber adapted a rather static stage play with only one set into a lively film so that takes guts. I've just seen on the other oscar prediction sites that Doubt will get nominated, and I'll go for Revolutionary Road to be consistent. If the voters are voting RR as the spoiler, they'll like it enough to put here. Dark Knight will get left out, because it's just a comic book and not even a specific issue from which the film is adapted from. I know it's impressive to make a comic book THAT good, but quality comic book adaptations have been going on since the X-Men and Spiderman series and it's the technical awards that made Spiderman good.

Supporting Actor: James Franco, Milk, Ralph Feinnes, The Reader, Heath Ledger, The Dark Knight, Josh Brolin, Milk, PS Hoffman, Doubt
See previous entry

Supporting Actress: Viola Davis, Doubt; Penelope Cruz, Vickey Kristina Barcelona; Amy Adams, Doubt; Taraji P Henson, Curious Case of Benjamin Buttons; Rosemarie DeWitt, Rachel Getting Married
I think there's too much wishful thinking on my part to think that Rosemarie DeWitt, Amy Adams, and Taraji will all get noms. I think The Reader has enough category fraud that voters might not go for it, especially since they're nominating her for lead in Revolutionary Road. Unless it's incredibly clear, actors and actresses normally don't get two noms in the same awards ceremony. Holly Hunter, Al Pacino, Cate Blanchett and Jamie Foxx were pretty clear-cut in their definitions. No one put Al Pacino for lead on Glengarry Glenn Ross or Jamie Foxx on Collateral for example. Julianne Moore in 2002 was a different story, however, and provides a good counter example. I also just think Kate Winselt didn't have a lot of precursor love aside form the Globes and since the Globes is 80-something reporters, I can't imagine that they're not impervious to their choices being snubbed for the Oscars. Amy Adams was nominated once but she was considered being denied a win and she has been slowly building good and frequent roles (i.e. Charlie Wilson's War, Talladega Nights, Enchanted) to merit another nom 3 years later. Henson played a diverse range of ages.

Best editing: Wall-E, Buttons, Slumdog Millionaire, Dark Knight, Frost/Nixon
Frost/Nixon, Dark Knight and Slumdog would be the front-runners. I'm not even sure if Wall-E is eligible for cinametography or art direction since it's animated, but I think it might be eligible in animation since I've seen that predicted on an Oscar predicted site. Milk is also an option here but I don't see it getting any other technicals.

Best cinametography: Dark Knight, Australia, Buttons, Slumdog Millionaire, Revolutionary Road
Australia is sure to grab a few technical nods plus the same old powerhorses of DK, Buttons and Slumdog. Sam Mendes' films usually grab art direction and cinametography nods.

Art Direction:
Indiana Jones, Australia, Revolutionary Road, Benjamin Buttons, Duchess
Indiana Jones should get at least 2 or three nods. Even if the story faltered, it's respected technical work. Australia and Revolutionary Road are still in. Slumdog Millionaire is a close call.

Score:
Reader, Slumdog Millionaire, Defiance, Frost/Nixon, Wall-E
Wall-E's score was the only thing that kept it going for quite some time. Slumdog Millionaire looks positioned for a win. Frost/Nixon has a good score as well.

Song:
Slumdog Millionaire, Gran Torino, Wall-E, Cadillac Records, Wrestler
This means I have to discard Cadillac Records, but I think Wall-E will get nominations all over the place, and I just think it would be fun to see Clint Eastwood sing. Wrestler has Bruce Springstein who's hard to vote against. Slumdog Millionaire's entry is more like a dance track than it is a song with lyrics.

Costumes:
Australia, Benjamin Buttons, Duchess, Valkyrie, Iron Man
Tom Cruise's film I'll predict will get it's only nom here as a consolation for being well-made technically. Duchess is a period piece and Indiana Jones should have a place here

Visual Effects:
Iron Man, Benjamin Buttons, Dark Knight
Honrestly, I would have picked Indiana Jones and the Day the Earth Stood Still if I could. I don't think Dark Knight had much to offer in terms of effects

Sound:
Indiana Jones, Frost/Nixon, Iron Man, Slumdog Millionaire, Frost/Nixon

Sound Ediitng:
Frost/Nixon, Dark Knight, Iron Man

Make-Up:
Benjamin Buttons, Tropic Thunder, The Reader
Tropic Thunder could potentially sneak in, who knows.

Buy the films:

Da Vinci Code

Critics so far are giving Da Vinci code mixed reviews but when you're making a film based on a book that apparently has sold more copies than any book since the Bible (as Roger Ebert notes: "good thing it had a different ending") the expectations are going to be hard to live up to. The other mistake critics are making is that they're judging the film along the lines of how controversial it is, and are lampooning the usually middle-of-the-road Ron Howard for once again playing it too safe. That makes no sense to me: a movie has to have picketers at its premiere to be considered successful? The fact is that Howard is in a damned-if-you-do damned-if-you-don't situation with the material and he skirted the controversy smartly by just focusing on making a good movie and even if by sticking to the book he won't get the credit for the great story, that's still exactly what he did.

For those of you that didn't read the book, The Da Vinci Code is an intelligent thriller that starts out with a murder at an art museum in France, and a Harvard professor of symbology, Robert Langdon (Hanks) is called upon to help decipher the victim's dying message. Making their way into the story at intersecting points and building up the suspense level are a French cryptologist and granddaughter of the victim, a police chief with a vendetta (Reno), a bishop who heads a controversial sect of Christianity (Molina), a murderous albino monk (Bettany) and an obsessive British aristocrat (McKellan). The story is filled with cliffhangers and surprises at every turn and the film pretty much follows that same pace, being careful not to cut out too much of the interesting tidbits that made the book so interesting in the first place. The story's genius, after all, comes from playing with familiar historical events suggesting they didn't happen exactly the way we thought they did.

For those of you who have read the book, don't worry, it's not by any means an exact copy of the book. Things are cut and moved around and at least a couple of key elements are changed for the better. For example, Bezu Fache, the policeman, is a member of Opus Dei in the film, which makes for more sensible character motives, and Robert Langdon is a religious man which makes for a slightly more open-ended approach to the religious controvoursey. What really makes the movie work, however, is the casting. Audrey Tatou, Paul Bettany, and Ian McKellan are all vastly underrated actors who give Tom Hanks great support and enhance the movie. McKellan's devious scholar seems to comes straight out of an Indiana Jones movie, and Paul Bettany makes Silas the albino monk sufficiently scary but surprisingly human at the same time.

My friend has a review at:
http://zerogrizzly.blogspot.com/