I believe there's such a thing as too much George Clooney

I don't know about anyone else but I am so sick and tired of hearing about George Clooney. Don't get me wrong, I don't really have anything against him: he has been in some good movies lately. I think very highly of Syriana and Michael Clayton, and he seems like a nice guy, but there have been a constant stream of articles coming at me for 3 years, all virtually saying the same thing: George Clooney is great, he's selfless, he does charity work, as if he's the only actor in Hollywood ever to be good-looking AND promote good causes.


Time Magazine recently had an entire cover story on Clooney with teases like "what are his secrets to success?" "how does he do it?" I already know the answers to these questions:

He does it because he doesn't take himself too seriously, he owns a lot of money and a condo in Italy, is friends with Brad Pitt, he has a famous show business aunt, he likes movies from the 1960s and feels passionate about how movies can carry political messages blah, blah, blah.


It's the same interview over and over again.

Here's the way Hollywood stars generally work: Sometimes, a star does something really great and breaks out (i.e. Jamie Foxx in Ray, Jonny Depp in Pirates of the Caribbean, Helen Mirren in The Queen, Jake Gyllenhall and Heath Ledger in Brokeback Mountain) and they're the focus of a lot of attention for a while and then the buzz generally dies out while newspapers and magazines write about other people. A way to really break out is if you have two movies close to each other or within the same calender year: Seth Rogen had Knocked Up and Superbad pretty close to each other, Jamie Foxx had Ray and Collateral, Michael Caine had a "career resurrection" with Weatherman, Bewitched AND Batman Begins; Leo DiCaprio had Blood Diamond and Departed.

This enables a magazine writer to not just conclude that the breakout star had a good performance but that he's on a roll.

Back to business: George Clooney had a breakout period in 2005 when he released Syriana and Good Night and Good Luck: Two movies that were message pictures. The themes of Good Night and Good Luck which Clooney directed, wrote, and everything else was: 1) the Red Scare was bad 2) Edward Murrow was good and 3) All journalists suck today. Syriana's theme which Clooney didn't write was that oil was a big and complicated issue.

Anyway, this period where the press becomes infatuated with a star usually lasts for a short while (it culminates into orgasmic proportions around the end of the calender year when magazines and newspapers do entertainers of the year-themed issues), but the press has been infatuated with George Cooney since 2005 and it's become a love affair that has to stop.


I know that Clooney is a charming and nice guy, but this is not news after constantly telling us this for 3 years. Unless he's done something new, like develop superpowers, I do not want to hear it. And Clooney, you're not helping either. Stop hogging the spotlight, and dominating press interviews for films like Ocean's 13 and Michael Clayton when you're clearly not the best actor in the film.


But back to the press: If you still insist on covering George Clooney, how about talking about Darfur. That's this region of Sudan that your boy George is apparently doing something to help make peace or facilitate, or something like that. I don't really know because you never really tell me that: all you tell me is that George Clooney is such a dreamy and great guy because he helps with Darfur, yet I haven't learnt a single thing about what's going on in Darfur from any of these articles since George-mania has struck. Off the top of my head, didn't Jane Goodall do a lot of charity work in Africa for her foundation. Do articles about Jane Goodall talk about how great of a person she is or do they just cut right to the chase and talk about the charity work.




Other examples of Clooney overkill:


The Washington Post wrote an article after the Oscars that reported "George Clooney, who has recently replaced Jack Nicholson as the big man in Hollywood, was on hand at the Oscars....." I'm sorry, how is this objective reporting? By what standard has Clooney replaced Nicholson? Why does George Clooney even need to be mentioned in the article, if he didn't even win anything? George Clooney was nominated but seemed like a pretty poor sport throughout. He was probably the 4th or 5th most talented nominee in the field yet, he kept spouting off about he pissed off he was about how he was going to lose to Daniel Day-Lewis, as if Jonny Depp and the others wouldn't have also beaten him. George Clooney was also on a ridiculous special by Oprah at last year's Oscars, where 6 Oscars winners interview each other. Clooney had an interview with Julia Roberts. Don't Julia Roberts and George Clooney talk all the time since they've worked on films together? How is this a special occasion? This past week Time put Clooney on the top 100 most influential people AGAIN with a tribute that said the exact same things everyone else said before

Syrianna Review

Syrianna is a riveting political thriller about a very hot button issue, the oil crisis, that few people really know much about beyond the numbers that appear on gas station billboards. It was released at the right time of year so that its inevitable Oscar buzz considerations will give the material added weight which might have been what the exec producers (including the politically active George Clooney and producing partner Steven Sodebergh) were going for. Still, it's not an overtly political film.

It doesn't seek to point fingers at an administration although with our overly polarized political culture today, people are bound to dismiss it as left wing propaganda, and that's unfortunate because a work of art like this deserves to be treated as art rather than politics.The main criticism, as far as I can tell, is that the plot is too complex for the average viewer, but that's partially the point: that the oil crisis is a complex matter and that's why an easy solution isn't in the works. I'll concede that this wasn't necessarily a smart move on the filmmakers' behalf to clutter up the start of the film rather than provide an attention-grabbing opening, but the film gets easier to swallow as it goes along. Matt Damon deals with a strained marriage and the tragedy of his 6-year old son's death but sees an opportunity for an unlikely friendship and business pairing with an enlightened Arab prince. George Clooney plays a CIA operative with an estranged son and wife who treats covert operations and killing like any other 9-to-5 job until he gets betrayed by his government. Jeffery Wright plays a cold and methodical lobbyist hired to find and weed out the corrupt link in an oil merger and he's equally at ease playing a game of racquetball with his suspect as he is calling him out before the board on his corruption. And then there are the two Arab youths looking for jobs who befriend a shady man and eventually become suicide bombers. It's the human dimensions of these stories and the way Stephen Gaughan masterfully weaves them together that make the movie so engaging as the movie moves past a cluttered-up start.

Credit director Gaughan. Making his directorial debut after winning an Oscar as the screenwriter for Traffic, Gaughan appears to be a firm disciple of Stephen Sodebegh's school of film-making, as he copies some of Sodebergh's tricks: showing only parts of conversations to make it appear as though we're coming in midway, on-location shooting with an independent feel, bridging different places together illustrated by text, etc.

2006: The Year of the African Picture

10 Best Science Fiction Movies of All Time

This might just be me but I usually see a sort of pattern in each year’s slate of movies. The patterns aren’t entirely exclusive by the year but a case can be made that they are brought on by trends that ebb and flow:

2001 was the year of the dark storyline. Disjointed storylines were abound in Momento, Mullholland Drive, and Vanilla Sky. And In the Bedroom and Man Who Wasn’t There were both films with dark sides. In the Bedroom was nominated for best picture and Mullholland Drive received a best director nomination and Momento received attention for best screenplay. Dark films usually come in low-grossing thrillers but these five films were higher end products that at least all started out with potential for an oscar nomination.

2002 I really couldn’t find a pattern, other than the best picture win for Chicago solidified the Return of the Musical. There are no other films in that year that reflect that trend, however.

2003 was the year of the epic with Pirates of the Carribean, Master and Commander: Far Side of the World, Last Samurai, Cold Mountain and Lord of the Rings: Return of the King. Seabiscuit also had characteristics of an epic, in that it was a big budget period piece, but it didn’t involve any kind of fighting or battles. The number of big-budget blockbusters and tent poles per year has significantly increased in the ‘00s, but usually they’re constricted to the summer. Last Samurai, Master and Commander, Cold Mountain, and Lord of the Rings: Return of the King were all released in the Oscar Season and either received Oscar nominations or significant
Oscar buzz. One could argue that Lord of the Rings had been going on for three years but a) 2003 was the year in which Lord of the Rings won and b) Return of the King was the most action-packed. The epics that followed in the next year, Alexander and Troy, were far more poorly received.

2004 was the year of the biopic with Ray, The Aviator, Finding Neverland, Kinsey, Hotel Rwanda, Beyond the Sea and Vera Drake. Three of these were nominated for best picture, Hotel Rwanda was the perennial sixth candidate, and nine of the twenty acting nominations, with Kinsey’s Liam Niesson nearly making the lead actor category 5 for 5 in biographically-based roles for the first time in Oscar history. The trend continued to some extent the following with Walk the Line and Capote but Walk the Line was considered more of a love story than its 2004 counterpart, and Capote was more of a crime story than a biopic.

2005 was the year of the social statement film with four of the five best picture nominees in Good Night and Good Luck (the suppression of the press), Crash (interracial relations), Munich (the Palestinian-Israeli conflict), and Brokeback Mountain (homosexuality). In addition, among the other Oscar contenders, there was North Country (sexual harassment), Constant Gardener (corruption in the pharmaceutical industry) and Syrianna (the energy crisis/CIA corruption). Things were getting so ridiculous that political pundits were taking summer popcorn fare like Batman Begins and Star Wars III (whose storyline was conceived before either Bush got into office) and interpreting them as left-wing or right-wing statements about the Iraq war.

This brings us to 2006 which I might call the year of the Third World or more specifically the Year of the African picture with Last King of Scotland, Catch a Fire, Babel, and Blood Diamond. This might make sense considering the success of 2004’s Hotel Rwanda and 2005’s Constant Gardener and the fact that over the last couple years Africa has become a hot-button issue. One thing that comes to mind was the Worldwide 10-City Concert that preceded the G8 Summit Conference in the summer of 2005. Bono, the chief spokesman behind the movement, was named Man of the Year by Time Magazine. Increasingly, globalization and Internet 2.0 are taking storm and have surfaced on the National consciousness as of late.
Lastly, the popular thing for celebrities to do, as demonstrated by George Clooney and his dad, Brangelina, and Madonna, is to go visit Africa firsthand.

The four above-mentioned pictures all harbored serious Oscar ambitions and were shot on location, taking us first hand to the heart of the “Dark Continent.” Pictures have been set in Africa since the days of Beat the Devil, Out of Africa, Snows of Kiliminjaro and the African Queen but the African jungles served as nothing more than a background for stories about the Western colonizers. The latest wave of pictures that has surfaced since Hotel Rwanda has focused on problems facing the indigenous people of the continent which is a massive improvement.

What this means for the Oscars is that in such a close race Babel might have added weight for being part of the year’s movie trend. Voting for Babel would be a way of acknowledging this trend of shedding light on what has been commonly referred to as “The Dark Continent.”

Definitive top ten list part I: 2005

My take on a definitive list for 2005's top 10 films. This isn't my own personal opinion but what I believe the overall consensus was. Call it "10 Most Successful Films."

2005:

1. Brokeback Mountain, Ang Lee

Usually, in my system, the best picture Oscar gets a film an automatic number one spot, at least in the near future. However, it seems Brokeback Mountain which sparked an angry contingent of people insisting the film was robbed has more going for it. Like Saving Private Ryan, the last #1 on my lists to lose the best picture race, the closeness between Brokeback and Crash is reflected in the classic director/picture oscar split. More than that, however, Brokeback Mountain is ranked number one on both cream of the crop and all critics on the moviecritictop10.com. Unlike Crash, it was recognized by pretty much every major group (including the Golden Globes) as among the elite, and was one of three films to score an A- on EW’s sampling of entertainment reporters. It also swept the LA and NYC film critic awards, where Crash didn’t win any critics’ groups. It also made it big on the pop culture phenomenon and was one of the highest grossing pictures in the month of December. Brokeback also garnered oscar buzz and came closer to winning Oscars for more of its actors. Crash won the SAG award for best ensemble but it’s a better indication of the film in my opinion if it got more buzz for its Oscars, and Heath Ledger and Michelle Williams were contenders to win their categories.

2. Crash, Paul Haggis

Crash did win best picture and had an intense following, that included nation’s top film critic Roger Ebert who ranked it #1. It did win the best picture and secured its place in history and while people refer back to Crash’s “upset” as a debate between what should’ve won between “Crash” or “Brokeback Mountain,” so history is placing it in the top 2, at least.

3. Good Night and Good Luck, George Clooney

The debate over rankings 3-5 of the best picture nominees is tough, but Good Night and Good Luck was considered a lock for best picture early on and was recognized by more groups including National Board of Review which gave it the top award, the Golden Globes. It also placed 3^rd on movie critic’s top 10.

4. Munich, Stephen Spielberg

The debate between Munich and Capote might be decided by more people thinking that Munich was #1 oscar-winner potential, whereas Capote was just thought of to be #1. Directing Guild and Producing guild noms were also awarded to Munich. The main argument to be made, is that it had critics such as Boston Globe, Rolling Stone and Newsweek calling it either his best film ever or best film in years, and you have to make the film pretty damn good to top Saving Private Ryan and Schindler’s List. It was thought of by some to be comparable, at least. Munich was also a better all around production than Capote scoring more oscar nods total in categories such as editing and score.

5. Capote, Bennett Miller

Capote had an incredibly high rottentomato rating going for it, and it was a frontrunner for the SAG ensemble award, but just because it was garnering praise for an ensemble shouldn’t be equated with best picture buzz, and it appealed to writers like Stephen King who put it high on his top ten list. Was a possible upset contender for screenplay nominee. Its top 5 status was solidified with a directors guild award and Oscar nomination for its director in addition to its picture nomination, considering its director is an unknown.

6. Walk the Line, James Mangold

Walk the Line was considered the just-missed the nomination category. It won best musical/comedy and acting prizes for both of its leads. It’s box office returns and word-of-mouth popularity was stronger than any other also-ran. This might have been in part due to it being comparable in quality to last year’s nominee Ray. Slight indications like the hosts of Good Morning America asking “Why not Walk the Line?” and winning “EW’s who got snubbed” poll. It also appeared in place of Munich on the Producers Guild of America poll.

7. Constant Gardener, Fernando Meirelles

Seven is a tight race between History of Violence and Constant Gardener. Between the two, Constant Gardener was received just a little better based on the more popular reputation of Meirelles (although Cronenberg is going more mainstream, his fan base is very much a small niche). The marriage of Meirelles and novelist La Carre led to a screenplay nom. Constant Gardener was an almost universally liked film with powerful performances that garnered more oscar buzz and better results (including walking away with an Oscar for the film) than History of Violence. It also garnered more total noms than some of the other films with editing and score noms. Its golden globe nom and director nom at the golden globes help its case as well. Also on Rolling Stone’s top 10.

8. History of Violence, David Cronenberg

History of Violence didn’t do as well at the Oscars as Constant Gardener squeaking a best supporting actor and screenplay nod. It also didn’t have as much word of mouth, hype, or box office draw as any other top ten contender but those who saw it liked it plenty. It was ranked 2nd on moviecritictop10.com for the year and finished a top one of the entertainment weekly top ten lists. It was just one of three films to get an A- on Entertainment Weekly’s newspaper sampling, made the top ten on Rolling Stone and Premiere’s top 10. It also appeared on 2 of the 3 New York Critic’s top 10. It was also EW’s pick in their oscar preview for the 6^th director slot.

9. Syrianna, Stephen Gaughan

The general critical response was the film was good but a little confusing. Looking at it in more detail, Syrianna did quite well and got a lot of top ten nods. It was Roeper’s top film of the year and Ebert’s 2nd, it placed 10^th on moviecritictop10.com, 3^rd on Peter Traver’s list and it was on both NBR and AFI’s top 10 nods with NBR’s screenplay award. It also was one of a handful of films to walk away with an award on oscar night and it merited an ensemble nod at the SGA’s and a WGA nod

10. King Kong, Peter Jackson/Match Point, Woody Allen

This is a virtual tie between the two. The main arguments for Woody Allen’s inclusion are its high number of 4 star reviews and overall satisfaction of viewers, the fact that that it’s considered a return to form for Woody Allen and its golden globe nod.

King Kong did walk away with 3 Oscars and transcended the blockbuster genre to get oscar buzz. With the saturatuation of big-budget blockbusters as of late, that is an increasingly hard task to pull off. It’s rotten tomato rating was very high and it placed 5^th on moviecritictop10.com’s top 10 list. It’s box office take was pretty high and fitting for a blockbuster.