I Am DB

March 14, 2010

Oscars 2009: What Went Down

Filed under: Movies,Oscars — DB @ 4:49 pm
Tags: , ,

Complete List of Winners

It’s been a week since Oscar night, and I’ve finally had a chance to put my thoughts down in writing…just in time for nobody to give a shit anymore. But so be it. I need to get it out of my system. As usual, I needed to watch the whole thing again during the week so I could pick up on all the stuff I missed entirely or just didn’t take in fully amidst the commotion and distractions of an Oscar party. I know the idea of watching the entire three-and-a-half hour show a second time right away probably seems like torture to most of you, but I like going through it and hearing all the speeches and whatnot. Yes, my movie and Oscar geekhood runs that deep…deeper than the Tree of Souls that Avatar‘s Na’vi worship and revere. So with that, a final dip into the 2009 Oscar pool…

BEST PICTURE
All season long it shaped up as an Avatar vs. Hurt Locker showdown. In the end, the Iraq drama took the big two prizes, proving that when it comes to winning Best Picture, nobody cares about how much a movie made at the box office. It irritated me that in the first few days after the show, articles kept popping up trying to explain why Avatar lost, as if it had been universally deemed the heavy favorite and suffered a stunning upset. Why do people feel a need to justify the loss? This wasn’t a Crash/Brokeback Mountain scenario. I’ll tell you right now why Avatar lost: because The Hurt Locker won. Why didn’t I see articles last year asking why Frost/Nixon or Benjamin Button lost to Slumdog Millionaire? Everyone has a theory about Avatar, and I’ll bet if you asked enough Academy members who didn’t place the movie high in their list, each theory would be heard. There’s no big mystery here, so stop trying to prolong the drama. The majority of Academy members felt The Hurt Locker was a better movie than Avatar. The end.

THE ACTING AWARDS
The opening of the show, with the lead acting nominees paraded out onstage and forced to stand there like beauty pageant contestants while the announcer said their names, was awkward and unnecessary. And why were only the lead actors singled out?

The presentation of Best Actor and Best Actress borrowed from last year’s show by having someone directly address each of the nominees. It’s still a good idea, but it didn’t work nearly as well this time. Last year, a former winner in each category spoke to a current nominee. This year, friends and co-stars of each nominee did the talking. So far so good, except that whereas last year’s presentations were short and sweet, this year’s rambled on as the speakers tried to cover not just the performances, but what wonderful people the nominees all are. Again, nice idea…but it went on too long. Producers Adam Shankman and Bill Mechanic said they took the idea from what Robert DeNiro said last year about Sean Penn. In that instance, the former winner was also speaking to a personal friend. But DeNiro’s speech covered Penn the man and his  performance more succinctly than the speeches this time. The highlight was Tim Robbins’ salute to Morgan Freeman, and it was nice to see Michelle Pfeiffer there for Jeff Bridges 20 years after The Fabulous Baker Boys, but overall the execution was not great. One improvement was that clips of the nominated work was shown, which I always think is an important part of the acting awards. And seriously, what was with the bitchslap to the supporting acting nominees this year? They didn’t get included in the opening (yeah, I said the idea was stupid, but I didn’t like seeing the supporting actors given second-class treatment), they didn’t get the friend/co-star tribute…the supporting actors got treated with the lack of respect that actors are supposed to reserve for the winners in the technical categories!
x
As for the winners themselves? No surprises in Waltz, Mo’Nique or Bridges. I know some have criticized Mo’Nique’s speech, but I thought hers was one of the best of the night, beginning with her thanking the Academy for “showing that it can be about the performance and not the politics.” After all the flak she took for not campaigning, not showing up at every press or promotional event, etc. I cheered her for calling out all the idiots who thought she should be denied for not playing the game. By the way, does her husband ever smile? I’ve seen her win four different awards, and each time he sits there blankfaced, not looking moved, happy, proud or anything. Your wife just won an Oscar, dude. Look alive! (Okay, a Google Image search has revealed lots of pictures of him smiling. Apparently he just doesn’t do it when she wins anything.)
And then there’s Sandra Bullock. Her win will go down in Oscar history as one of the Academy’s more ill-advised selections (see Roberto Benigni), but as I have made my feelings clear, I’ll finish the season on a positive note. Over the years, there’s been a pattern in which winners who I didn’t think deserved their gold managed to soften the blow by giving great acceptance speeches (I’m thinking Michael Caine for The Cider House Rules, Russell Crowe for Gladiator and Adrien Brody for The Pianist). Bullock, at least, continued that tradition. She was funny, humble and classy – it was an A+ speech all the way (her moment comes at about the 8:25 mark). And if there’s an upside to her win, maybe it’s that she will now have access to better material – and will make better choices – that match the talent I do think she has, even if it wasn’t on display in The Blind Side to the degree that should merit an Academy Award nomination and win.

Also, in the spirit of really praising Bullock, I have to say that her showing up at the Golden Razzies ceremony the night before the Oscars to personally pick up her Worst Actress prize for All About Steve was pretty damn cool, and further showed why people love her so much. She really is about as down to earth as a movie star can be. Her Razzie speech is definitely worth checking out (skip ahead to the 1:26 point for her entrance).

THE WRITING AWARDS
The biggest surprise of the night was the Best Adapted Screenplay win for Precious, which made Geoffrey Fletcher the first African-American to win a writing Oscar. I loved Precious, so I can’t complain about this win, but I think Up in the Air deserved that prize. I was disappointed to see it go home empty-handed. But Jason Reitman seemed to be enjoying himself all night, and hey: the guy is 32 years old and is coming off his second Best Picture/Best Director nomination in three years. He’ll be back.

The Hurt Locker‘s win for Original Screenplay was a mild surprise. While everything starts with the script obviously, I think that Hurt Locker‘s biggest strengths came in other areas, whereas Inglourious Basterds was, in my mind, a stronger achievement in screenwriting. Still, Tarantino’s got one writing Oscar on the shelf, and Waltz’s Supporting Actor win kept Basterds from going 0 for 8.

THE SPEECHES
-Costume design winner Sandy Powell didn’t come off so well, beginning her speech by saying in a rather blasé way that this was her third win. Here’s a hint to future award winners: don’t get up on stage and highlight that you’ve won the award before. It doesn’t exactly endear you to anyone, particularly your fellow nominees watching from their seats. Powell went on to try and pay tribute to the talented, hardworking costume designers on low-budget and contemporary films who don’t get the award recognition they deserve because these categories favor period pieces. It was a nice sentiment, but she somehow made it come off like an insult. Let’s hope she does a little better if and when she wins Oscar #4.

-One of the things that happens when I go back through and watch the show a second time is I can hear all the speeches that get drowned out by the din at the party. Sometimes those speeches have some of the funniest or most touching tributes of the ceremony, like Hurt Locker screenwriter Mark Boal thanking his father, who died a month ago. Or one of Avatar‘s art directors, who said that fifteen years ago he was diagnosed with a fatal condition that he obviously beat. I liked that Avatar‘s visual effects winner Joe Letteri thanked the actors for trusting the VFX artists with their performances. “I know that couldn’t have been easy,” he said. Original Score winner Michael Giacchino eschewed reading a list of names and instead spoke about the importance of supporting children’s creativity, thanking his parents for doing so with him. Nice moments, all.

-And then there was the WTF moment of the night, which came when Documentary Short winner Roger Ross Williams was interrupted by a crazy lady who turned out to be his fellow recipient, Elinor Burkett. There have been numerous accounts of the personal drama that was playing out in front of the world at that moment, but this short article from Salon is the most complete one I’ve seen. Obviously Williams and Burkett each have a different take on what happened – both in the making of their film and on the Kodak stage – but from what the video shows (the clip is embedded in the article) they both could have handled the situation a little more professionally. Still, it made for a great Oscar moment!

THE HOSTS
Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin did well, but I feel like they could have done more. The monologue was funny, but the entire thing consisted of acknowledging members of the audience and having fun with them. Nothing wrong with that; it’s always a component of the host’s monologue. But this year it wasn’t a component; it was all they did. Still, it generated some great jokes. The best of the night may have been when Martin said, “In Inglourious Basterds, Christoph Waltz plays a Nazi obsessed with finding Jews.” Then, spreading his arms wide to indicate the entire room, “Well Christoph? The motherload!”

It would have been great to see these two guys do more bits. The Paranormal Activity moment was funny, and I liked that they parodied that movie at the Oscars, but think about how much funnier it could have been. As it was, the camera caught the two hosts moving into awkward positions in their sleep, with Martin eventually getting up, standing over Baldwin and punching him in the head. But why not have Martin wake up in the middle of the night and start marching across the room playing a trombone? Then he gets back into bed and a little while later Baldwin gets up and starts trying to assemble an IKEA bookcase. They could have aired snippets all throughout the show, with each gag becoming progressively more elaborate.

That’s pretty much how it went for the whole show. They were good, they were funny, but I can’t help thinking there were a lot of missed opportunities.

THE SHOW
Good show or bad, I always love the Oscars. That said, I think Shankman and Mechanic’s production was lacking in a lot of areas, especially after the great show put on last year.

-The ongoing belief that Oscar ceremonies must have dance numbers resulted in a decent by time-wasting opening number featuring Neil Patrick Harris. It’s hard not to like him, so he saved the number. Unfortunately, the second dance-a-thon of the evening fared less well. Pairing up dancers and excerpts from the nominated film scores wasn’t a first, but the mix was awkward. The dancers were talented, but the numbers just didn’t fit with the music. To be fair, it’s a challenge trying to do a meaningful dance to The Hurt Locker‘s score. But it was a challenge that, in terms of the choreography, they were unable to meet.

-There were also some odd things happening with the set. It looked good enough at the beginning and end of the show, but there were head-scratching sections in the middle where the backdrop was a big rack of miscellaneous lampshades. I thought I was looking at the back wall of a Pottery Barn. When that disappeared, it was replaced by what looked like a giant empty, bookcase. Or maybe it was a honeycomb. All I know is that it was bizarre and ugly. Not sure what the designers were thinking…

-The tribute to horror films was a good idea, but as it was the only such piece in the show, it felt out of place and didn’t connect to anything else that was going on. Introducing the clip, Kristen Stewart said, “It’s been 37 years since horror had a place on this show, when The Exorcist picked up two Academy Awards.” That’s great…except the montage that followed began with footage from Jaws, which was nominated for Best Picture and won three Oscars two years after The Exorcist. The reel went on to include plenty of horror films that have earned Oscars since The Exorcist, including Aliens, Misery, Bram Stoker’s Dracula, The Silence of the Lambs (which won Picture, Director, Actor, Actress and Adapted Screenplay) and The Sixth Sense, which won nothing but garnered six nominations. And in what universe are Beetlejuice and Edward Scissorhands considered horror films?

-The “37 years” bit was just one piece of misinformation delivered throughout the night. Some may have just been bad teleprompter reading, but I suspect they were the result of sloppy writing. Alec Baldwin introduced Robert Downey Jr. as an Oscar winning actor, but in fact Downey has never won the award. Samuel L. Jackson said that Up was only the second film to be nominated for Best Picture and Best Animated Film…but that’s not really true, since there was no Best Animated Film category when Beauty and the Beast was nominated for Best Picture. And when Charlize Theron introduced Best Picture nominee Precious, she said that it had earned four nominations when it actually earned six. Note to the Academy: You need to get your friggin’ facts straight, and I’m happy to offer my services next year to make sure you do.

-The John Hughes tribute fared much better than the Horror presentation, and was a wonderful gesture on the part of the Academy given that while Hughes’ films had a strong impact on a generation of filmgoers, they were never the kind of movies embraced by the Academy. For them to single him out for special tribute was damn cool, and the montage did his career justice, working in footage not just from the teen angst films that we immediately associate with Hughes, but also comedy gems like Planes, Trains and Automobiles, Mr. Mom and Vacation. Having so many of his stars there added to the presentation, even if Jon Cryer, Anthony Michael Hall, Ally Sheedy, Judd Nelson and Macaulay Culkin got trotted out only to say one sentence each.

-For the second year in a row, the In Memoriam montage was accompanied by a live song performance rather than a piece of canned score, and it was once again a nice way to go. There was plenty of talk afterwards about the omission of Farrah Fawcett, which Academy executive director Bruce Davis attributed to her career consisting primarily of television, rather than feature films. I actually think it’s a fair point, until people rightly point out that Michael Jackson was included. Davis’ justification for that is pretty weak in my opinion, and his last comment is flat out insulting.

-It jumped out at me that presenters were all saying, “And the winner is” instead of the more traditional, “And the Oscar goes to.” Shankman told Entertainment Weekly, “I always thought it was overly polite. I wanted a sense of tension in the show. We thought of [the Oscars] as the most well-dressed reality competition show in the world.” Well, it didn’t add any tension, and Shankman’s status as a reality show judge doesn’t make this Dancing with the Stars. It also struck me that in nearly every category, presenters read the names of the nominees awfully quickly, barely giving the audience time to applaud. Tom Hanks came out to present Best Picture and didn’t even read the list of films one last time. I know I’m in the minority, but I’d rather let the nominees savor their brief moment than sit through a pointless dance number. Sorry Doogie.

-The Best Animated Feature introduction was clever, as newly created animation featured each film’s main character talking about what winning an Oscar would mean to them.

-Oh, and while the explanation of the two sound awards was a nice, helpful touch, using The Dark Knight as the example doesn’t make up for not nominating it for Best Picture last year.

-This year’s ceremony turned out to be the highest rated in five years, since The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King swept the accolades. Avatar‘s presence was probably the biggest factor, and the expanded Best Picture category – which also allowed for hits like District 9 and The Blind Side – probably helped. I’d guess the pairing of Martin and Baldwin was a draw as well. If 2010 sees a box office phenomenon make the Best Picture list, then perhaps we’ll be able to draw more likely conclusions. But the ceremony itself hardly re-wrote the book or did anything likely to excite new viewers. Even with the removal of song performances and honorary awards, the show still clocked in at three-and-a-half hours. So while Shankman and Mechanic are surely taking pride in the ratings boost, I think they should be thanking James Cameron and the Academy before they pat themselves on the back.

-Finally, I was pretty shocked that there wasn’t a single mention of the earthquakes in Chile or Haiti. Usually the liberal Hollywood crowd is all about calling attention to those kinds of disasters, but nary a word was heard or a ribbon displayed.

THE PRESENTERS
-Best in Show, Part I: Tina Fey and Robert Downey, Jr. They made for one of the night’s high points as Fey the Writer and Downey Jr. the Actor offered dueling perspectives on the importance of the screenplay. Fey scores two years in a row!

-Best in Show, Part II: Ben Stiller. Some people seem to think this gag was a misfire, but those people need their sense of humor checked. Stiller’s suit-wearing Na’vi made for yet another of his classic Oscar moments, which have included dressing as a bearded, rambling Joaquin Phoenix and a Lord of the Rings dwarf. I especially enjoyed the portion of his alien speech that was actually a Passover prayer in Hebrew.

-Poor Taylor Lautner, of Twilight and countless girls’ fantasy lives, looked out of his element in that room and was stiff as a board introducing the horror tribute. And his co-presenter Kristen Stewart proved once again that she doesn’t perform nearly as well on live stage as she does on film. These two were not the best representation of young Hollywood…though maybe they were the most accurate. At least Zac Efron showed some charisma when he came out later on.

But do Taylor Lautner and Miley Cyrus really belong at the Oscars? Mechanic told The Los Angeles Times, “The younger side of the audience has been drifting for years, so we’re more conscious of trying to build a youth element into the show.” Oh brother. First of all, I think I can tell you why the youth audience has been drifting for years: because most kids couldn’t give a shit about the Academy Awards. Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t think No Country For Old Men, Million Dollar Baby, The Last Emperor and The English Patient are big draws for the 12-17 demographic, and you’re kidding yourself if you think hordes of them are going to tune into the telecast waiting around for some tween star’s minute-and-a-half in the spotlight. Even in the years when a popular film like Titanic, Lord of the Rings or Avatar is nominated, the youth crowd is still unlikely to be a significant part of the audience. Plus, the awards begin at 8:30 on the east coast, so a big chunk of the youth audience you’re courting could very well be in bed. So please, future producers: stop trying to win teenage viewers by throwing pretty faces with no real accomplishments onto Oscar’s stage. If you want to spotlight younger actors, try some like Dakota Fanning or Saoirse Ronan, who’ve actually done some real work (and to be fair, Kristen Stewart, Amanda Seyfried and arguably Zac Efron do fit that bill). But putting Cyrus and Lautner on the Oscars is just cheap pandering.

– I would like to suggest to the Academy that next time you invite Jennifer Lopez to be  presenter, go out on a limb and let her present in a category that doesn’t have anything to do with music. I’ll bet she can handle it.

-Sean Penn is one of our best actors, but he often finds it difficult to string together a coherent thought. A few nights before the Oscars, he was on Real Time with Bill Maher talking about his humanitarian work, and I’m pretty sure half of what he said didn’t really make any sense. His comments on Oscar night seemed headed for the same place, although upon second viewing I think he was trying to apologize to his ex-wife Robin Wright for not thanking her when he won last year, while also chiding the Academy for not nominating her this year for The Private Lives of Pippa Lee. Sean, you might be best sticking to the script.

-I liked that most of the Best Picture clips were presented by people who had an association with the filmmaker – Keanu Reeves, for example, saluting The Hurt Locker, which was helmed by his Point Break director Kathryn Bigelow (that’s right, the director of Point Break won an Oscar!), or Jeff “The Dude” Bridges introducing the Coen Brothers’ A Serious Man, etc. And it was kind of cool to have them do it on a raised platform in the middle of the auditorium, rather than on the main stage.

THE DRESSES
Being a fan of beautiful women, I’m as interested in the parade of dresses as any Sex and the City fan. I was largely underwhelmed by this year’s crop, but that’s not to say the ladies themselves weren’t looking good, so a shout-out to this year’s MVP’s: Penelope Cruz, Cameron Diaz, Tina Fey, Carey Mulligan, Zoe Saldana, Charlize Theron, Kristen Stewart, Demi Moore (still hot), Michelle Pfeiffer (also still hot, and really needing to make more movies), George Clooney’s date and of course, God love her, Kate Winslet.

THE HONORARY AWARDS
The switch to 10 Best Picture nominees was not the only big change the Academy instituted this year. In the past, honorary Oscars for lifetime achievement and such have been given out during the ceremony like any other, but this year a special, private ceremony was held to recognize those artists. I’m disappointed about this, since I enjoy seeing these presentations as much as any other, and I like that they get the high profile recognition that comes with appearing in the broadcast. On the other hand though, rather than having to be be squeezed into a 5-10 minute slot amidst the three-hour telecast, they can be feted more intimately and more time can be devoted to celebrating their careers. This year’s honorees were Lauren Bacall; Roger Corman, the king of low-budget B-movies, who launched the careers of Jack Nicholson, Ron Howard, Francis Ford Coppola, James Cameron and many others; and Gordon Willis, whose extraordinary cinematography was seen in such films as The Godfather trilogy, All The President’s Men and each of Woody Allen’s movies from Annie Hall to The Purple Rose of Cairo. The Irving G. Thalberg Award, which is given to producers with a lasting body of work, was presented to John Calley, whose credits include The Cincinnati Kid, Postcards from the Edge, The Remains of the Day and Closer. If you’re like me and like to see these presentations, click here for video clips, photos and more.

THE INDEPENDENT SPIRIT AWARDS
As usual, the Oscars tend to cast a shadow over the other award show that always takes place the same weekend, The Independent Spirit Awards. It’s always a fun show – certainly more casual and looser than the Oscars, and always good for some quality laughs. One of the things I always like about the Spirit Awards is that there’s a palpable sense of community. At the Oscars, the camera often catches stars in the front row looking bored or not bothering to applaud while the winner in a “lesser” category is heading to the stage or delivering a speech. The stars are just as big at the Spirit Awards, but the atmosphere feels much more embracing. Winners aren’t played off stage after 45 seconds, but are allowed to say what they want, as long as it takes. Once again I’m sure I’m in the minority here, but I like that.

Precious was the big winner, taking Best Feature, Director, Actress, Supporting Actress and First Screenplay. Jeff Bridges also won, and as he finished his speech, he held the award up to his wife and told her it was really gonna tie the room together. Nice, Dude. Very nice.

Ben Stiller was on hand as well, and once again was a highlight of the ceremony as he presented Best Feature…

And so another award season comes to and end. Though later than I would have hoped, I’m putting together a list of the movies I’m most looking forward to this year, so we’ll see how many of them show up in next year’s Oscar race. Now then…I think I have a Lost write-up to go work on. Farewell, sweet Kate.

March 5, 2010

For Your Consideration: My Absurdly Long Oscar Predictions Opus – 2009

Filed under: Movies,Oscars — DB @ 3:29 pm

 

Complete List of Nominees

Some years, you can go into the Oscar race feeling pretty confident that your predictions are largely safe bets, save for a few toss-of-the-coin categories like last year’s Penn vs. Rourke Best Actor race.

This is not one of those years. And don’t listen to anyone who claims otherwise (sorry Ebert).

Instead, we’re facing a year with a small batch of heavy favorites and a whole lot of races, down through the below-the-line categories, that could go a few different ways. So I’m not feeling as confident in my predictions this year as I often have in the past, but I am really looking forward to Sunday night and seeing how this topsy-turvy Oscar season comes to an end. I’m happy to sacrifice bragging rights for some genuine suspense…and I’m not really a bragger anyway. So here’s where my head is at as the big day rapidly approaches.

WARNING: My fondness for talking (and writing) about movies can lead to a lot of rambling, sometimes more than the category in question really justifies. My Best Picture commentary really goes off on some tangents, but I couldn’t keep it all in! Anyway, I tried to keep it shorter as I worked my way down the list, but proceed at your own risk.

ANOTHER WARNING: This is just some advice. If you’re planning to Tivo the show, be sure to set whatever is on after the Oscars to record as well, because you can bet that the show will run over the three-hour time that your DVR has allotted for it.

Now then….

BEST PICTURE/DIRECTOR
To those who’ve been paying attention since last November-ish (i.e. mega movie awards nerds like me), this year’s Best Picture race has been the most schizophrenic in recent history. Heading into December, I would have said that Up in the Air was going to be the movie to beat. A serious film that still has lots of laughs, plus effervescent performances and a sharp script that nailed the zeitgeist. But as the critics awards actually started to roll out, The Hurt Locker turned out to be the dominant film. Then came mid-December and the release of Avatar, which left everyone slack-jawed, Academy members far and wide included (or so it was reported). When the Golden Globes anointed Avatar, it officially became the frontrunner. Until the guilds came around, that is, and suddenly The Hurt Locker was back on top with wins from the producers, directors, writers, and editors.

And still there are many who think that with the new voting system, this isn’t just an AvatarHurt Locker race. To go along with the switch from five to ten Best Picture nominees, the Academy is also switching to the preferential ballot system for its top category. This is the system by which they’ve always determined the nominees, but the actual winners were voted by straight up popularity: the movie with the most votes wins.

Not anymore.

If you want to understand this game-changing element, read this article wherein the preferential system is clearly and thoroughly explained through a fantasy scenario that has Inglourious Basterds winning Best Picture.

Let’s start with Director though, because that race seems to have become more certain. At this point, I’d be surprised if Kathryn Bigelow doesn’t take it. Even her fellow nominees James Cameron and Quentin Tarantino have said they’re voting for her. She would be the first woman to ever win Best Director. She’s only the fourth to be nominated, and the only one who has come this close, thanks to wins from nearly every major critics group, plus the Director’s Guild and the British Academy.  And The Hurt Locker is a superbly directed movie.

But will it win Best Picture? This could definitely be one of those years when the two top prizes are split. The irony there, if we stick with the Hurt Locker vs. Avatar scenario, is that it would probably make more sense for the split to go the other way. I think more people look at The Hurt Locker as a better film overall than Avatar, but even those who take shots at Avatar‘s story have to admit that Cameron is a true visionary and a brilliant craftsman. Whether you’re bothered by his dialogue or not, there’s no arguing that the man can direct the shit out of a movie. Nonetheless, the opportunity to help Bigelow make history seems to be the overriding feeling, and it’s not like The Hurt Locker is undeserving of a directing Oscar.

So what about Avatar? Despite the staggering box office, I know many people were underwhelmed and disappointed in the story and can’t believe that the Academy would give the film its top honor. But think about this: most movie fans of my age group, if not beyond it as well, look at 1977 and still can’t believe that Annie Hall beat Star Wars for Best Picture. Star Wars, after all, defined a generation. Its box office success was unprecedented, its affect on culture was unparalleled, and its impact on visual effects was revolutionary. Star Wars changed movies forever. Yet it was a simple story, one whose detractors – and yes, it had plenty of them – dismissed as childish as they sneered at the dialogue and wrote it off as silly, faux-spiritual hokum. Those “serious” filmgoers and Academy Award watchers probably didn’t think Star Wars deserved it either. But I’ll bet that a lot of the people who decry Avatar as a Best Picture winner do think that Star Wars should have won. I’m not saying that Avatar is as good as Star Wars or that it will spawn the same degree of undying fervor, but its impact is similar…maybe not as much on the culture, but for better or worse it is seen as changing movies forever. Like it or not, Avatar is the movie of the year. Not necessarily the best movie of the year, but the one that more than any other defines 2009. Is it crazy to argue that the Best Picture Oscar should recognize exactly that?

Still, I really don’t know which way this is gonna go. For every article I find that says the preferential ballot system will favor Avatar, there’s another claiming it will help The Hurt Locker while yet another claims that Inglourious Bastards will actually be the beneficiary. And the stream of idiotic arguments for or against a given movie’s chances are laughable, as everyone spins whatever numbers or stats they want in order to bolster their film’s chances. Some say The Hurt Locker won’t win because it grossed so little money theatrically. Seriously? It’s not going to win because it only made $12 million? Who the fuck cares? Okay, fine – maybe producers and studio executives think that way. But does anybody really think that a composer, makeup artist or cinematographer is going to not vote for a movie because of how little money it made? That’s what they’ll ask themselves when they fill out their ballot? It’s absurd. The Hurt Locker will apparently be the lowest grossing Best Picture winner if it wins. So? No fantasy film had ever won Best Picture until The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King. And come to think of it, I don’t think any science-fiction film has ever won it either, so there’s Avatar‘s chance to make history. There’s a first time for everything. (Hear that, gay cowboys? Your day will come!)

Or then there’s Harvey Weinstein, who is convinced that Inglourious Basterds has Best Picture in the bag, citing the film’s win of Best Ensemble at the Screen Actors Guild awards as one of his chief reasons (actors being the largest branch of the Academy). Harvey, there are 1,205 actors in the Academy. There are nearly 120,000 in SAG, and they all get to vote. Do the math. Not to mention that every year, people try to draw a connection between the SAG Ensemble prize and Best Picture despite the fact that they’ve only matched up six times out of 14.

There are also the run of recent stories about various acts of dirty campaigning (The Hurt Locker incident being the most prominent), or accusations against the nominees ranging from anti-Semitism (shots ludicrously thrown at Basterds, An Education and A Serious Man) to story inaccuracies (real soldiers suddenly attacking The Hurt Locker months after its release). I hear that helium balloon vendors are incensed over Up‘s reckless suggestion that their product could allow a house to be safely navigated through the air. Unfortunately, this kind of behavior mars every Oscar season, even if the sordid depth of the shenanigans are not highly publicized. Really, when you hear how much manipulation and politicking goes on behind the scenes by studios and producers to win Oscars, it paints the whole thing in such a tawdry, disheartening light. There are so many reasons that the Oscars often have little to do with recognizing and celebrating the best in film, and yet despite being fully aware of that, I eat it up like candy. I can’t help it. Years later, fans like me – and some of you – are still muttering about the snubbed performer or the movie that should have won this or that award. But I suppose it’s all part of the fun.

God, have I stalled long enough? Okay, here goes. I’m practically throwing a dart here,  but I’m going with The Hurt Locker. It seems like a less polarizing film than Avatar, and so I’m thinking that with the preferential ballot system, people who choose another film as their favorite still might have Hurt Locker high on their list, which could help it in subsequent rounds of voting. But I can honestly say that I’ve never had such a hard time trying to predict a winner in any category about which I’m reasonably well informed, ever. I have absolutely no idea what’s going to happen.

Personal Choices: Picture – Precious;  Director – James Cameron (but I’ll be really happy for Bigelow)

BEST ACTOR
Morgan Freeman should have been a force to be reckoned with as Nelson Mandela, but unfortunately the film didn’t meet expectations and the role gave him little to work with. George Clooney, though he dominated the field of critics awards, doesn’t really have a chance either. Colin Firth picked up the BAFTA award, but he had a home field advantage. While he and his work in A Single Man are widely admired, this just isn’t his year. I’d say Jeremy Renner has a shot for an Adrien Brody-style upset, but Brody wasn’t going up against a heavy favorite who had never won before. Renner is.

This is a category where sentiment will rule the day. The industry hath deemed it time for Jeff Bridges to win an Oscar, and win an Oscar he shall. Does he deserve it? Sure. Bridges has long topped my list of actors overdue for an Oscar (a spot he shares with Ed Harris and Sigourney Weaver, so get crackin’ Academy…), and he does great work in Crazy Heart. Is it the best of his career? I wouldn’t say so. Is it even the best of the year? Debatable. But it’s good, and he’s universally respected and appreciated in the business. His time has come.

The possible irony here is that Bridges is about to re-team with the Coen Brothers, who directed him in The Big Lebowski (a film that, in hindsight, should totally have earned him a nod), for a remake of True Grit. John Wayne won a Best Actor Oscar for the original in 1969, and with the Coens at the helm, Bridges may well be back in the race next year.

As for my own pick, if I strip away all the external factors and just judge the performance alone (which is always how it should be and always how we want it to be but rarely how it is…even for purists like me), the nominee whose work left the strongest impression is Firth. But I’ll be thrilled to see Bridges finally win.

Personal Choice: Colin Firth

BEST ACTRESS
Way back in the fall, long before the race had fully taken shape, it already seemed like we were headed for a two-woman showdown: Meryl Streep and Carey Mulligan. At the time my feeling was that a Streep-Mulligan race was no race at all; the Academy was not going to overlook Meryl Streep again in favor of some fresh-faced ingénue with her whole career ahead of her. I actually thought that if anyone could beat Streep, it was Gabourey Sidibe. True, like Mulligan, she’s a new face at the start of her career, but she had a role and a movie that stirred people deep inside – much more so, I guessed, then Mulligan, whose performance was admired and engaging but not nearly as moving.

But then something happened. The film community collectively put their heads up their asses and somehow moved Sandra Bullock to the front of the queue for her entertaining-but-hardly-award-caliber work in The Blind Side. I talked about this when I commented on the nominees, so I won’t dwell again on how she even wound up in the race. But I will dwell on how she has turned into the frontrunner, because it continues to baffle me.

Bullock is extremely likable, and word on the street is that everyone who has worked with her, cast and crew, adores her. I like her too, but she has hardly given us a career full of great films and performances, so any argument that it’s “her time” is complete bullshit. It’s Jeff Bridges’ time. He’s someone who has been around for years, done consistently excellent work, been nominated multiple times but never won and this year found himself a role that perfectly suited his stage in life and his career. If this were the aforementioned Sigourney Weaver, or Julianne Moore or Laura Linney, then there might be some credence to the argument that “she’s due.” But we’re talking about Sandra Bullock, whose filmography has a smattering of good movies and a lot that are mediocre to bad. I could see likability factoring into things if the performance really dazzled, but I just can’t see how enough people could be more impressed by her performance than those of her fellow nominees.

I readily admit that numerous factors other than quality of performance enter into Oscar voting and that all kinds of political factors are taken into account, from how much a nominee works the campaign circuit to how good their speeches are throughout the season. Bullock has worked the circuit, and her speeches have been funny, humble and all around terrific. But despite all signs pointing her way for the win (including The Blind Side‘s shocking Best Picture nomination, which suggests reasonably broad support), I just can’t go there. My mind can’t wrap around it and my fingers can’t type it. While it may cost me in the pool, I’m holding onto the idea that enough Academy members pulled their heads out of their asses in time to actually watch these performances side by side and recognize that while Bullock does a good job, she doesn’t hold a candle to her competition.

Meryl Streep, on the other hand, is still defying expectations and proving why she is widely regarded as the greatest actress alive. There’s nothing this woman can’t do. She is a force of nature. Julia Child is such a recognizable and distinct personality that any actress would be daunted trying to portray her. Streep not only does it, but deepens our understanding and appreciation of someone we knew only as a TV personality. It may not be the biggest stretch of her career, but this was hardly an easy or throwaway performance. The film marks her 16th nomination, and her 12th since the last time she won. She’s due…and there’s nobody else but Meryl Streep who could already have two Oscars and still be called overdue.

I also want to throw this out there: Streep and Bullock tied at the Critics Choice Awards; they both won Golden Globes (Bullock for Drama, Streep for Musical/Comedy); and although Bullock took the SAG, that group tends to spread the wealth around rather than awarding people multiple times, and Streep won last year for Doubt. I’m just saying. So despite the prevalent opinion – and probably the accurate one – I’m predicting Meryl for the win.

That said, if Gabourey Sidibe pulls an upset, I’ll be on my feet cheering.

Personal Choice: Streep or Sidibe

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Sorry guys. You did good work, but this category is owned by Inglourious Basterds‘ Christoph Waltz, who will become the third performer in a row – after Heath Ledger and Javier Bardem – to win Supporting Actor by giving us an antagonist for the ages.

Personal Choice: Christoph Waltz

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Anybody who thought that Mo’Nique’s behavior during the awards season was controversial – oh my God, she didn’t run around kissing Academy members’ asses! – has been silenced by her moving, grateful acceptance speeches at the Critics Choice Awards, Golden Globes and Screen Actors Guild awards (where her graciousness extended to acknowledging some of the actors from Precious who were not included in the film’s nominated ensemble cast). With all respect to her fellow nominees, especially the ladies of Up in the Air, Mo’Nique can not be stopped. Nor should she be.

Personal Choice: Mo’Nique

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
While Oscar voters sometimes want to keep the Best Picture space relatively serious, the writing awards are where they’re more likely to vote for something fun. Movies like Little Miss Sunshine, Juno, Fargo and Ghost have all triumphed here rather than in Best Picture, so I think Inglourious Basterds stands its best chance at a major non-acting award here. Some will point to The Hurt Locker‘s Writer’s Guild Award win as a sign in its favor, but keep in mind that Basterds was ineligible for a WGA nomination, clearing the way for The Hurt Locker. Not that Locker isn’t a good script and couldn’t pull through, but I think all the support for Inglourious Basterds – Christoph Waltz aside –  will be channeled here to Quentin Tarantino, giving him his second screenwriting Oscar.

Personal Choice: Inglourious Basterds

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
Up in the Air has earned gushing love for its writing and Jason Reitman has cemented his status as one of our finest young filmmakers. This category is full of great work, but Up in the Air is too smart, too “of the moment” and too appreciated to go home empty handed. I would be shocked if anything else wins. It’s kinda lame though that this dude Sheldon Turner gets to pretty much ride Reitman’s coattails to an Academy Award win, but what can you do?

Personal Choice: Up in the Air (with In the Loop nipping at its tail). Seriously, have you not seen In the Loop yet? WTF are you waiting for?

 

BEST ANIMATED FILM
It was such a good year for animated features that even this category could have had close to 10 worthy nominees. Fantastic Mr. Fox could pull an upset, but it’s hard to imagine that Up isn’t going to bring another Oscar to the halls of Pixar.

Personal Choice: Up…but I’d have no complaints about Mr. Fox

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY
The black and white imagery of The White Ribbon took the prize from the American Society of Cinematographers and won some notable critics awards as well, but I don’t think enough Academy members have seen it. And nice as it is to see Harry Potter here, Colin Creevey stands a better chance of killing Voldemort than this movie does of winning. Basterds will have a lot of support, but I think it will fall by the wayside. It could go either way with Hurt Locker and Avatar, and while I don’t necessarily think most voters understand the technical challenges involved in shooting Avatar, I think they understand enough – and admire the film’s prettiness enough – that I’m giving it the edge.

Personal Choice: Avatar

BEST FILM EDITING
I think Academy members tend to vote for editing they can notice or at least intuit, so I’m ruling out Precious and Basterds, finely edited though they may be. Even more so than its cinematography, The Hurt Locker‘s editing creates its powerful tension and helps the movie hold the viewer in a vice-grip. In Avatar‘s favor, it is the rare action movie that is edited so cleanly that even during the rapid cuts of big battle sequences you never lose your bearing or feel like you’re watching a blur. And District 9 actually bridges that gap as an action movie that is also dramatically intense.

I have a number of friends who are editors, and I have to think they’re laughing their asses off at my ignorant commentary. Hey, I admit I don’t really understand what makes editing great and that I too tend to be wowed by editing that I notice…even though any editor will tell you that the best editing is invisible. So knowing full well that I really know nothing, my gut tells me this one goes to The Hurt Locker.

Personal Choice: The Hurt Locker

BEST ART DIRECTION
This category often favors period pieces and historical recreations, which bodes decently for Sherlock Holmes and even better for The Young Victoria. But if there’s anything that can trump something from a history book, it’s something imagined and fantastical. So while Victoria could be crowned, I think the floating mountains, celestial skyscape and lush, eye-popping botany of Avatar‘s Pandora will take the gold.

Personal Choice: Avatar

BEST COSTUME DESIGN
Period frocks do even better with Oscar than period sets. Both Coco Before Chanel and Bright Star fit that bill (and I wouldn’t count out the latter), but The Young Victoria is the higher profile of the period films, and also required a greater number of costumes to dress all those royals at court. I expect it will rule the day.

Personal Choice: Bright Star

BEST ORIGINAL SONG
It’s not the strongest category this year, but then again, how often is this really a strong category? You usually find one or two good songs each year, and a few others – often cheesy ballads – that fill space. Perhaps that’s why this year, Oscar producers decided not to include performances of the nominated songs during the show.

The Princess and the Frog has two nominees and there was a time when a song from a Disney animated musical would have this sewn up, but while the movie is a welcome return to form for Disney animation, the songs by Randy Newman don’t live up to the Alan Menken/Howard Ashman tunes that scored wins for The Little Mermaid and Beauty and the Beast.

No one has heard of the movie Paris 36, let alone it’s nominated song, so we can safely discount that one. And the number from Nine? Ehh.

This year, justice will be served as the one great song in the category takes the prize:  “The Weary Kind,” from Crazy Heart, by T-Bone Burnett and Ryan Bingham. Since you won’t hear the song on the show, check out the video or just let the mp3 play in the background. I love the underlying percussion that enters in the second verse. It’s unobtrusive, yet gives the song an added depth. Whatever that means.

If you’re interested in hearing the competition, here are links to Quicktime mp3’s via In Contention:

“Almost There” (Princess and the Frog)
“Down in New Orleans” (Princess and the Frog)
“Loin de Paname” (Paris 36)
“Take It All” (Nine)

Personal Choice: The Weary Kind

BEST ORIGINAL SCORE
I suppose it’s possible that James Horner could get caught up in an Avatar sweep, but I think Michael Giacchino’s whimsical score for Up will float to the top.

Personal Choice: Up

BEST MAKEUP
There are three nominees. One is Il Divo. Ever heard of it? Neither has anyone in the Academy. One is The Young Victoria. I still can’t figure out how this got nominated. Even the artist admits there isn’t much in the way of makeup. Seriously. In a Variety article about the set design, costumes and makeup for the film, this is all hair and makeup artist Jenny Shircore could say:

But it’s especially in her dewy, makeup-free skin that Victoria’s youth shines through — although this is as much of an illusion as anything, Shircore reveals. “Emily did wear quite a lot of makeup, but that’s the skill of doing it, really, to make her look lovely.” The trick, she says, is “not to powder it into oblivion so that you get a dry, matte look. You’ve got to allow a little bit of sheen to come through.”

That leaves Star Trek, which features some fine makeup work, sure. Oscar worthy? In this weak field, I guess so.

Personal Choice: Can I still say The Road? Okay, then Star Trek.

BEST VISUAL EFFECTS
Star Trek and District 9 both feature excellent work, but when James Cameron movies are nominated for Best Visual Effects, they win Best Visual Effects. And how can this one not? It changed the rules. One of the night’s surest bets.

Personal Choice: Avatar

BEST SOUND MIXING/SOUND EDITING
As usual, I have no idea how to make a well-thought out prediction in these categories because not only do I not understand either of them, but that obviously means I don’t understand how they differ from each other. So as always, my guess is pretty blind. I’m picking Avatar for both, but who knows? The Hurt Locker could easily get one of them.

Personal Choice: None. As in, I don’t have a personal choice. Not “none” as in none of them deserve win. That would just make me a dick.

BEST FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM
Now we’re getting into the categories where I haven’t seen any or all of the nominees and can only go by what I hear, so I’m looking to professional journalists who’ve all been covering the Oscars for years to guide my choices.

The two highest profile films are A Prophet and The White Ribbon. From what I’ve heard, the former is the preferred choice, but few think it will win and neither do I. It’s a violent movie, and the thing to remember about this category is that only Academy members who have attended screenings of all five nominees can vote. That means the deciding members are likely older and retired, and they don’t like violence. My concern around The White Ribbon is that it almost seems too obvious. Being one of the most recognized and critically acclaimed of the bunch would appear to give it an edge, but this category seldom follows traditional logic. So while Ribbon may well be the victor, I’m going with what many in the field are predicting: El Secreto de Sos Ojos, or The Secret in Their Eyes.

BEST DOCUMENTARY FEATURE
The most well-known of the nominees are Food, Inc. and The Cove. The latter has collected the majority of pre-Oscar prizes and seems to be the favorite, so I’ll follow the pack.

BEST DOCUMENTARY SHORT
These documentary categories are often so hard to pick because each one tells a story more devastating and heartbreaking than the last. It almost comes down to which one moves people the most. It looks like the majority of pundits are predicting The Last Truck: Closing of a GM Plant. I’ll probably make up my mind at the last minute, but both Music By Prudence and China’s Unnatural Disaster: The Tears of Sichuan Province also sound like they could be winners.

BEST ANIMATED SHORT
Oscar history favors the Wallace and Gromit short A Matter of Loaf and Death. Wallace and Gromit have earned their creator Nick Park four Academy Awards (three for short animation, one for feature length). The only time he lost was in 1990 for A Grand Day Out. That year’s winner? Nick Park for Creature Comforts.

BEST LIVE ACTION SHORT
My friend Brantley recently saw these five films and posted a brief write-up on his blog, if you’re interested in seeing what they’re all about. The Door is the most widely expected to win. But every now and then this race favors something quirky and funny over something doomy and gloomy, so Instead of Abracadabra might pull it out of the hat.

And there it is. It will be fun to see how Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin handle co-hosting chores, and after last year’s really well-produced show, I’m curious to see how this year will go. Adam Shankman’s involvement has worried me from the beginning, but I read some interviews with him that led me to give him the benefit of the doubt. We’ll see. Enjoy the show, and we’ll meet back here one last time for a post-mortem…as soon as I can write it.

Is anyone still reading this, or have I pulled a Ted Striker?

February 20, 2010

Favorite Movies of 2009

Filed under: Movies — DB @ 1:24 pm
Tags: , ,

A traditional Top Ten list doesn’t make much sense to me. I can pick out my absolute favorite few movies in a given year, but beyond those, I’m not really sure what distinguishes my seventh favorite movie of the year from my eighth. By the same token, cutting the list off at ten seems equally pointless if the idea is to highlight the movies from the year that meant the most to me. Again, I’m not sure how to differentiate number ten on my list from number twelve. So what follows is a look at my favorite movies from the year, period…starting with the top of the top and working my way through the rest alphabetically rather than assigning arbitrary rankings.

And away we go…

#1:
PRECIOUS

If you’ve been afraid to see this movie, get over it. Yeah, it’s not exactly the feel-good movie of the year….but for my money, it was easily the best, so no excuses. You may think that the story of Claireece “Precious” Jones – an obese, illiterate 16 year-old, abused every which way by her monstrous mother and pregnant with her second child by her father – will be unbearably dark and depressing, but you couldn’t be more wrong. Remember last year’s crowd-pleasing indie (and winner of eight Academy Awards) Slumdog Millionaire? Precious is satisfying in much the same way. It doesn’t have the same stand-up-and-cheer momentum going for it, but like Slumdog‘s protagonist Jamal,  Precious refuses to be defined by her environment or background and will not allow others to set her limitations. From an audience’s perspective, the more important similarity between the two films is the emotional response they earn. As unforgiving as Precious’ circumstances are, she has the courage to fight against the forces that threaten to keep her down, and in her struggle is beauty and hope. She may still face a bleak future, but she’ll face it on her own terms, and not without a fight. Precious is not depressing; it’s inspired and inspirational.

As the producer of films like Monster’s Ball and The Woodsman, Lee Daniels has shone a light on dark, complex stories that ask more of us than another empty Mummy sequel or Katherine Heigl romantic comedy…and which give us more in return. Now he reveals himself as a director just as willing to tackle challenging material and find a way to make it accessible to a mainstream audience. With a script by Geoffrey Fletcher, adapted from the novel Push by Sapphire (the film’s full title cites its source material), Daniels strikes a delicate balance between the harsh realities of Precious’ life and the fantasies that provide her an escape, and he employs carefully measured cinematic flourishes to keep the gritty elements from becoming too overbearing. He is aided in this effort by the terrific, undersung cinematography of Andrew Dunn, who keeps dark the stifling apartment Precious shares with her cruel mother, but also bathes it in an orange glow as if the fires of hell are burning just offscreen. He contrasts this with brighter, more natural lighting for the classroom where Precious begins to come into her own.

In the title role, newcomer Gabourey Sidibe does more than just fulfill the highly specific physical requirements of the character. She nails the girl’s soul, and her performance is only more impressive once you see an interview with her and realize what a transformation she makes, holding every part of her physical self differently in order to become Precious. Lenny Kravitz and Mariah Carey shine in smaller roles as a nurse and social worker, respectively. Carey, especially is a wonderful surprise. Shedding her known persona entirely, she plays an average woman working a difficult job that takes its toll, and the strength of her performance is that in just a few scenes she shows us more about this woman than the movie has time to tell. She’s really excellent. At the alternative school where Precious begins her new journey, she finds a friend and supporter in the lovely Miss Rain, played by Paula Patton with an open heart and a tough edge lurking below the surface. The girls who play Precious’ classmates are also essential to the film’s success. Each brings a unique charm to the table and gives the sense that they could be the subject of their own compelling story.

Then of course, as Precious’ mother Mary Jones, there is Mo’Nique. Where did this woman come from? I don’t think I had seen her in anything prior to this, and only had marginal awareness of her as a comedic actress. Well there’s nothing comedic about her work here. Mo’Nique strikes with the fury of a hurricane, delivering a performance so powerful, so searing, so scary and riveting that for all of the character’s savagery, you just want more of her. You can’t take your eyes off her, and every single one of her scenes packs an unforgettable punch to the gut. The movie, and Mo’Nique’s performance, challenge the audience to understand that even a monster has its motivations. We aren’t asked to excuse or forgive anything Mary does, but in seeing what drives her, we are made to see that evil has roots. It doesn’t simply spring from nothing, and Mo’Nique drives that point home in the year’s best performance.

Don’t be afraid of Precious. You know it was showered with awards and accolades, you know you’re supposed to like it, but maybe it just sounds like so much work. Well listen to the words being typed by my fingers: this is a great, great film that will, in the best way possible, knock you on your ass. Vibrant characters, wonderful acting, humor, heart, drama…do not miss it.

The Rest:
(500) DAYS OF SUMMER

Writers Scott Neustadter and Michael H. Weber and director Marc Webb have pulled off one of the hardest types of films to do: a refreshing, original romantic comedy. Forgoing the gloss of such by-the-numbers studio efforts that have kept the likes of Kate Hudson and Matthew McConaughey busy over the last several years, (500) Days of Summer enjoys a breezy indie feel in its structure (jumping around through days in the relationship), its look (there’s a nice earthtone palette employed by cinematographer Eric Steelberg, and it actually makes Los Angeles look like a pleasant place to live) and certainly in its casting of Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Zooey Deschanel as the couple. As the romantic Tom and the cynical Summer, Gordon-Levitt and Deschanel embody a relationship that is sweet, sad and authentic in all its ups and downs. I’m not even sure it’s fair to label it a romantic comedy; that might be limiting. The more dramatic elements feel real, rather than tacked on in order to hit story beats. It reminded me of Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind in its capturing of a moving, believable relationship that evokes the yearning, excitement, joy, confusion, frustration and heartache that will be recognizable to anyone who’s ever been young and in love.

x

ADVENTURELAND
I’ve never worked at an amusement park; there wasn’t a lot of sex or drugs in my youth; and I was only 10 years old in 1987, the year in which this film is set. So I’m not quite sure what it was that I so personally connected with in the story of a college grad forced to take a summer job at a local, old-school fun park. Perhaps it was just the pleasure of watching a winsome story in an interesting setting with a colorful, appealing group of characters. Or maybe I’m just a sucker for movies where kinda nerdy guys get to hook up with hot girls. Whatever it was, the film slowly, warmly snuck up on me, just as the experience does on the protagonist James, played by Jesse Eisenberg. It’s evident that writer-director Greg Mottola (The Daytrippers, Superbad) has a lot of affection for this story and these people, and the cast – including Kristen Stewart, Martin Starr, Ryan Reynolds and Bill Hader – couldn’t be better. A few lesser-known actors also stand out: watch for Margarita Levieva as the park’s resident fantasy girl Lisa P. and Matt Bush as its resident bonehead, Frigo. Great movie for a warm summer night.

x

AVATAR
Despite its less-than-original story and simplistic characters, Avatar succeeded for me as a thrilling and transportive cinematic experience, introducing the beautiful but dangerous world of Pandora. Sure, I wish that James Cameron’s vivid imagination could have extended far enough to, say, create a less obvious name than Unobtanium for the planet’s elusive mineral sought by the humans as an energy source. (Seriously….Unobtanium?) It doesn’t hold up to Cameron’s past films, and its allure will probably fade over time, but right now in its recent wake I can say that the technical and creative achievements won me over. Plus, Sigourney Weaver makes everything better.

x

DISTRICT 9
The mysterious marketing campaign peaked people’s curiosity, and Peter Jackson’s name as producer didn’t hurt, but once we showed up it was co-writer and director Neill Blomkamp’s vision that carried the day. The film thrusts viewers immediately into the action, offering the minimal amount of history needed to set-up the story of an alien population in Johannesburg being forced out of the slum they’ve occupied for 20 years in favor of new, government-sponsored housing further outside the city, all while their massive, immobile mothership hovers overhead. How did the aliens and the humans learn to relate? How did they learn each others’ language? The answers may be interesting, but we don’t get them and we don’t need them. We accept the world as it is and dive into the story.

Using a combination of documentary-style footage with traditional narrative structure, Blomkamp and co-writer Terri Tatchell introduce us to Wikus Van De Merwe (impressive newcomer Sharlto Copley), a mid-level bureaucrat at Multi-National United, a global corporation which has been placed in charge of the massive alien evacuation operation. A seemingly minor incident in the field winds up having life-altering consequences for Wikus and puts him at odds with MNU, forcing him to seek help from the creatures he’s trying to displace.

It’s interesting to me that in this strong year for science-fiction, when genre god James Cameron returned to the game with a film huge in scope and budget, young filmmakers like Blomkamp and Duncan Jones (see Moon further down) are still carrying the torch of  ingenuity that Cameron displayed 25 years ago with The Terminator. With its simple but imaginative premise, low-tech style and adrenalizing tension, District 9 reminded me of Cameron’s 1984 breakthrough. If we’re lucky, this is the first step in a similarly awesome career.

x

FANTASTIC MR. FOX
Wes Anderson’s foray into stop-motion animation manages to be a completely original film even while sharing the now-familiar DNA that runs through all of the director’s work (including 1960’s rock and roll from artists like The Rolling Stones and The Beach Boys, appearances – vocally only, in this case – by Bill Murray, Jason Schwartzman and Owen Wilson, and camerawork that slides and glides over immaculately designed sets). The fact that the film fits so snugly into Anderson’s oeuvre reinforces what a singular talent he is. His charming take on Roald Dahl’s classic story perfectly casts George Clooney as the voice of the title character who, despite his effort for a normal, domestic life, can’t turn away from his natural hunting instincts. His brazen thievery from the local farmers Boggis, Bunce and Bean endanger the entire animal community as well as his marriage. Among the pleasures of the adaptation by Anderson and Noah Baumbach is one of my favorite characters of the year, and one not featured in Dahl’s source material: Mr. and Mrs. Fox’s outcast son Ash, voiced by Schwartzman. Ash is frustrated that he lacks his father’s suave style and athleticism, and it upsets him all the more when his seemingly perfect cousin Kristofferson comes to stay. Ash gives the film much of its humor, and much of its heart as well.

x

THE HANGOVER
The high-concept premise of this hilarious comedy is sort of brilliant in its cleverness and simplicity: three men wake up in their wrecked Vegas hotel suite the morning after a bachelor party, unable to find the groom or recall anything about the previous night’s activities. Going off what few clues they have – including a tiger in the bathroom and a baby in the closet – they try to piece together what happened in time to find their friend and get back to L.A. for the wedding. The journey is full of belly laughs, but the trio itself is the key to the movie’s magic. Bradley Cooper is the cool party boy, Ed Helms is the uptight straight-arrow and Zach Galifianakis is…well, words really can’t do justice to Galifianakis’ oddball man-child, but he’s nearly worth the price of admission alone. If you don’t have the taste for a little raunch in your comedy, this probably isn’t for you. But if movies like Old School and Wedding Crashers are up your alley, The Hangover will have you rolling.

x

HARRY POTTER AND THE HALF-BLOOD PRINCE
As a die-hard fan of the Potter books, I have (like many such fans, I suspect) a complicated relationship with their movie adaptations. This one was no exception, and my list of “why did they change that” and “it makes no sense to keep this if they didn’t include that” was long. Still, there’s a lot to enjoy about Half-Blood Prince. Director David Yates and screenwriter Steve Kloves manage some magic of their own in the balance they strike between the darkness encroaching on all the characters and the humor that comes as a result of the students’ raging hormones. To the latter point, two standout additions to the cast are Jessie Cave and Freddie Stroma as Ron’s girlfriend Lavender Brown and Hermione’s suitor Cormac McClaggen, respectively. Both are welcome and, at times, hilarious additions to an already amazing cast. Jim Broadbent, the latest British stalwart to join the series, shines in the key role of a professor from Hogwarts’ past. And as a teenage Voldemort in some too-brief flashbacks, Frank Dillane is frighteningly good, ever-so-subtly capturing the malice and menace that lurks just below the respectable prefect’s surface. Cinematographer Bruno Delbonnel casts a spell as well, with striking camerawork that moves furtively in and out of the shadows and helps conjure the feeling of dread that hangs over the story. Unfortunately the film oddly and frustratingly deflates in its last few scenes, when it should be hitting its emotional heights. But up until then it’s the moodiest, funniest and most beautiful film in the series so far.

x

THE HURT LOCKER
Director Kathryn Bigelow’s best film since Near Dark is an unrelentingly intense experience that places viewers alongside a three-man bomb squad in Iraq. Jeremy Renner plays the daredevil leader Will James, whose apparent lack of fear and casual discarding of protocol troubles his fellow soldiers, the cautious J.T. Sanborn (Anthony Mackie) and the nervous, struggling Owen Eldredge (Brian Geraghty). Even amidst the heart-pounding set-pieces, the film manages to be an intimate character study, drawing the audience close to the three men through simple glimpses into their days and nights, on duty and off. Working from a solid script by Mark Boal, a journalist who spent time with bomb squads in the field, Bigelow directs with restraint and a documentary-like unobtrusiveness, letting the natural tension of each situation do the work. She’s also not afraid to exercise the patience required to convey the men’s quieter challenges, demonstrated by a sequence in which they fall under attack in the middle of the desert by a sniper and must wait their enemy out for hours. This is a tight, compelling drama offering an unflinching look both at the broad experience of contemporary warfare and the personal experiences of the soldiers who fight it.

x

INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS
“Once upon a time in Nazi Occupied France…” is the kickoff to Quentin Tarantino’s long-gestating World War II tale. Over the course of five chapters, the writer-director tells two stories: one about a squad of Allied soldiers hunting and scalping Nazis across the French countryside; the other about a young Jewish woman, the sole survivor of her family’s murder at the hands of the SS. The two threads meet in a bravura, 40-minute final act that finds Tarantino audaciously and thrillingly re-writing world history. Along the way, he plays with tension like he never has before. He’s described his efforts as equivalent to stretching a rubber band as far as it can go before snapping. Scenes are often lengthy, and he wrings the maximum amount of suspense he can before delivering the payoff. The film’s ensemble – winner of the Screen Actor’s Guild award for Best Performance By a Cast – features Brad Pitt, hamming it up amusingly as the U.S. lieutenant in charge of the Basterds; Melanie Laurent as the Jewish girl; Michael Fassbender as an undercover British officer; Daniel Bruhl as a Nazi war hero; and Diane Kruger as a German movie star. But the standout performance belongs to Christoph Waltz as the cunning Nazi colonel Hans Landa, a simultaneously genial and sinister detective. It’s a great role, and in his American film debut, the veteran Austrian actor makes an unforgettable impression. He’s won nearly every acting prize available to him since the film premiered at last May’s Cannes Film Festival. All the hallmarks we expect from Tarantino are here: brilliant dialogue, shocking violence, great performances and an obvious love of films and filmmaking.

x

IN THE LOOP
This hilarious satire of diplomatic relations between the U.S. and the U.K. in the days leading up to a Middle East war flew under the radar last summer, but demands to be seen by anyone who likes their comedy whip-smart and their language extra-salty. The Oscar-nominated screenplay combines the rapid-fire wordplay of Aaron Sorkin with the precise and artful profanity of David Mamet. Few of the players are household names (James Gandolfini and Steve Coogan are the biggest stars on hand), but they are a sensational group of new and familiar faces who helped make this one of the best surprises I’ve had at the movies in recent memory. See it as soon as you can. And check out the lengthy collection of deleted scenes on the DVD – they’re every bit as good as what remained in the movie.

x

THE LOVELY BONES
I know that in offering praise on this film, I’m in the minority. Adapted from the 2002 best-seller by Alice Sebold, it received mixed to savage reviews, with Roger Ebert calling it “deplorable.” (Even if you weren’t a fan of the movie, I think a look a Ebert’s review shows that he’s way off base in his interpretation). Having not read the book – in fact, having the opinion that the story of a murdered teenage girl observing her family and her killer from heaven sounded kinda stupid – I came to the film only with the expectation that Lord of the Rings director Peter Jackson would create something interesting. As far as I’m concerned, he succeeded. Saoirse Ronan plays Susie Salmon, the murdered girl caught between earth and heaven in a place whose landscapes are constructed from her own memories and from where she watches her family (Mark Wahlberg and Rachel Weisz portray her parents) deal with her loss while her neighbor and killer (Stanley Tucci in a creepy, change-of-pace performance) covers his tracks.

The movie is not without problems. The role of Susie’s grandmother, played by Susan Sarandon, seems to exist mainly for comic relief, but I expect there was more to it in the book. Similarly, a plot thread involving a classmate of Susie’s who seems able to sense the dead girl’s presence is underdeveloped and probably had more significance on the page. From what I’ve seen, most of the negative reviews come from critics who’ve read the novel and feel that Jackson buried its beauty and soul in an orgy of CGI. (The “In-Between” that Susie occupies in death is aggressively art directed, no doubt.) Still, I think that overall Jackson created an engrossing and haunting movie that finds power in the depiction of a family torn apart, a killer trying to keep himself together and young victim trying to make sense of what happened to her and where she’s headed.

x

MOON
There’s something cool about Duncan Jones, the son of David Bowie, making his feature directorial debut with a science-fiction film whose haunting quality evokes his father’s classic song “Space Oddity.” The film centers on astronaut Sam Bell, the lone occupant of a lunar space station, as he enters the final two weeks of a three-year stretch running an operation in which the moon’s surface is mined for a substance that is sent back to Earth and converted to energy. As Sam’s departure looms, he has an accident which leads to a devastating discovery.

Among the smartest things that Jones does with his movie is casting the great Sam Rockwell in the lead role. The discovery that Bell makes and the situation he finds himself in as a result provide a great showcase for the actor, who deserves every opportunity to show off his stuff. Even with a setting as expansive as the moon and the emptiness of space around it, Jones keeps the film feeling intimate and Sam’s isolation palpable. And while, like many space stories, this one may seem a bit cold and cerebral, the director and his leading man offer something strangely moving and highly satisfying. This one really stayed with me.

x

THE ROAD
Director John Hillcoat and screenwriter Joe Penhall don’t mess with Cormac McCarthy’s Pulitzer Prize-winning source material in their adaptation. The story is so sparse, there’s not much messing that could be done. They faithfully tell the story of a father and son moving through the cold, dismal, ashen landscape that remains after an undefined natural disaster has destroyed the world. They search for food, they search for shelter, they try to avoid other survivors – many of whom have turned to cannibalism – and they try to reach the coast, where they hope to find warmer weather and perhaps hope itself. That’s it. Boring? Never. Viggo Mortensen is at his understated best as the protective father, striking a natural rapport with Kodi Smit-McPhee as his compassionate son. Watch for a brief but astounding performance by Robert Duvall, who digs deeper in five minutes of screen time than many actors can go in a whole film.

x

A SINGLE MAN
The impressive feature directorial debut of fashion designer Tom Ford looks as great as one would expect, but luckily Ford is concerned with something more than just the scenery. In the best performance of the year by a male lead, Colin Firth plays George Falconer, a college professor struggling and failing to deal with the sudden death of his partner. Taking place over the course of one day (with flashbacks illuminating the relationship between George and Jim, played by Matthew Goode), the film gives us a character perilously close to losing his way but still in possession of a desire for life, even if he doesn’t realize it. The journey of discovery that comes as George navigates his grief is one experienced by the audience as much as the character, for we get to see Firth dig into a role deeper than anything he’s done before. The scene where he receives the phone call about Jim’s death is a masterful example of restraint and internalization.

x

STAR TREK
An epic, imaginative reboot of the beloved but recently stalled-out Star Trek franchise that successfully introduces yet another new crew to follow, succeeding despite the challenge of having audiences accept this new team as younger versions of the original cast. Director J.J. Abrams pulls it off thanks to a smart script by Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman (how is it that these guys write so well for Abrams and so poorly for Michael Bay?) that takes the Trek continuity fans are familiar with and through that most wondrous and liberating storytelling device known as time travel, spins it into an alternate reality that paves the way for a new franchise. Some fans cried foul, accusing the filmmakers of using time travel as a cheat that would let them ignore the history of a universe already deeply established. Others heralded the bold choice as just what Star Trek needed, a creative jolt that shows respect to its roots but frees the filmmakers from the shackles that had begun to hold the series back. I agree with the latter, and the fact that Leonard Nimoy shows up to bridge the gap – just as William Shatner appeared alongside Patrick Stewart in Generations to help pass the baton to The Next Generation crew – helps smooth the transition.

Abrams and his technical crew have created a great looking film, one that revels in widescreen glory and fills the frame with icy blues and sunbright oranges. ILM’s gorgeous visual effects enhance the cinematography and art direction, and advances in technology have allowed Abrams to ramp up the intensity and speed of Trek’s space battles. (Even in the original spate of Trek movies, working with higher budgets and fewer limitations than the TV series, the battling ships didn’t move very fast or evasively. The climactic pursuit of the Enterprise by the Reliant in Wrath of Kahn was less cat and mouse than two blind mice). Credit also goes to the cast assembled to fill the shoes of the beloved original Trek crew. When Chris Pine’s casting was announced, I was skeptical. I hadn’t seen him in anything, but he looked like a dime-a-dozen pretty boy. Watching the movie, I was pleased to find he had charisma to spare and that, at moments, was able to almost capture that elusive Shatner magic. Zachary Quinto’s casting, on the other hand, seemed too good to be true from the get-go, and the story crafted by Abrams, Orci and Kurtzman allows him to add surprising new dimensions to Spock, a character we thought we knew so well. Quinto and Karl Urban, as Dr. McCoy, most successfully channel their predecessors, although Simon Pegg is full of promise as Scotty and Zoe Saldana is a smart, sexy Uhura.

Abrams does occasionally falter, most glaringly in a brief but distracting segment involving not one but two over-the-top CG creatures that serve no real purpose. He also has a tendency towards humor that goes a little too goofy, as when Kirk’s hands swell like balloons as the result of an injection he’s given by McCoy. Luckily these moments are brief and forgivable, overshadowed by a sense of fun and excitement that whets the appetite for continuing voyages.

x

UP
The Pixar formula might be getting boring if there was actually anything formulaic about what they do. But building a movie around a grumpy, 80-year old man isn’t exactly playing it safe. The fanciful adventure is set in motion when widower Carl Frederickson (voiced by the great Ed Asner) equips his house with enough helium balloons to carry him to Paradise Falls, an idyllic South American locale that he and his wife Ellie always dreamed of visiting but never managed to reach. The plan first goes awry when Carl discovers an inadvertent stowaway named Russell, a neighborhood boy trying to earn his latest Scout badge. Things continue to unravel from there, with talking dogs, an exotic bird and a mysterious figure from the past all standing between Carl and his dream. Among the movie’s many pleasures is an early montage depicting Carl and Ellie’s life together, and it is among the best and most moving scenes all year, a beautiful example of economic and emotional storytelling. It seems Pixar’s only formula is to come up with great stories and tell them superbly. If only they could share the secret, maybe all movies would be this imaginative and touching.

x

UP IN THE AIR
Avatar wasn’t the only movie released in December to feature wondrous three-dimensionality, and it wasn’t the best either. That honor belongs to this shimmering comedic drama from Jason Reitman, whose script (also credited to Sheldon Turner, who worked on earlier drafts, and based on a novel by Walter Kirn) provides three of the year’s richest roles, as well as a timely commentary on how the economic disaster affects the lives of everyday working folk. George Clooney, continuing to exhibit superb taste in material, plays Ryan, a consultant hired by companies to come in and handle layoffs. He loves the traveling-man life that goes along with the job, and has perfected the art of living simply and efficiently. Then the arrival of two women into his perfect world has unexpected effects. One is co-worker Natalie (Anna Kendrick), a recent Cornell grad with big ideas to redefine Ryan’s company; the other is Alex (Vera Farmiga), a fellow frequent flier with whom Ryan becomes romantically involved.

None of the three are quite what they appear to be, and Reitman’s generosity as a writer and understanding of great characters and relationships is beautifully displayed, particularly between Ryan and Natalie. They’re forced to go on the road together so Ryan can show her the ropes, and Reitman doesn’t just coast by throwing them into a constantly contentious relationship that finally thaws after one special moment finally brings them to a mutual understanding. Their relationship is more layered than that. There is tension, but Ryan doesn’t treat Natalie with total contempt or disrespect. He wants her to understand what he does and how her proposal would affect that. Though his goal is to stop her plans from going into practice, he’s supportive of her as she learns the job. She, in turn, is open to his guidance even as she wants to prove herself as more than the naive girl she feels he takes her for. As she watches him handle the challenge of firing someone, she knows that she has overlooked the nuance involved, and the more Natalie learns, the more Kendrick shines. None of this may sound like much, but many movies wouldn’t give its characters such shadings. Reitman doesn’t present us with archetypes; he presents us with realistic people…who admittedly, have perhaps unrealistically great dialogue to speak. There is so much to enjoy about this movie, from the Oscar-nominated performances of Clooney, Kendrick and Farmiga to the supporting players that include Danny McBride, Amy Morton and Reitman’s Juno alums Jason Bateman and J.K. Simmons; from the crisp editing and cinematography that visually convey the precision of Ryan’s lifestyle to the inspired stroke of weaving in scenes with non-actors who really were laid off from their jobs; from the blend of levity and thoughtfulness to the lack of a tidy resolution. With his third film, Jason Reitman cements his standing as one of contemporary cinema’s great storytellers.

x

WHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE
Director Spike Jonze and his co-screenwriter Dave Eggers accomplish a small miracle with their adaptation of the classic children’s book by Maurice Sendak, turning the story known as much for its brevity as its charm into a psychologically fascinating meditation on loneliness, love and family. It’s  the best, most honest and moving depiction of adolescent isolation and longing I’ve seen since E.T. Actor Max Records is a natural as the rambunctious, lonesome protagonist with whom he shares a name, but the wild things are the real stars. Beautifully realized by Jim Henson’s Creature Shop, enhanced by the visual effects team at Double Negative and voiced by James Gandolfini, Catherine O’Hara, Forest Whitaker, Lauren Ambrose, Chris Cooper and Paul Dano, they are a stunningly original group of characters. I could not get enough of them, and my only disappointment with the film is that at an hour and a half, I didn’t get to spend nearly as much time with them as I wanted. The movie got a bit lost in the crowded fall schedule, and has been disappointingly overlooked during the awards season. I hope that in time, it will be re-visited, re-evaluated and eventually appreciated far and wide for the work of art that it is.

x

ZOMBIELAND
Because a certain faction of my friends were going through a big zombie-phase – from video games like Left 4 Dead to graphic novels like The Walking Dead to regular novels like World War Z – I felt compelled to rally the troops for what looked like a fun little movie on a favorite subject. I had no idea just how much fun it would be. It was, in fact, the most fun I had at the movies all year. Opening night, a packed house – always a good way to see a comedy – and from the first moments to the last (a post-credits easter egg worth sticking around for), Zombieland delivered bigtime. The pairing of Jesse Eisenberg (who had the A to Z “land” spectrum covered in 2009) and Woody Harrelson is inspired, the former’s nervous, nebbish energy providing a great counterpoint to the latter’s cool, cavalier alpha male. Adding to the fun are Emma Stone and Abigail Breslin as too-cool-for-school (if-there-were-still-school-but-there-isn’t-because-all-the-teachers-and-classmates-are-zombies) sisters out for themselves. The movie’s aim is firmly to have fun, but it goes just deep enough to remind us what these four characters have endured and lost, which enriches the story in a small but meaningful way. It also boasts the best surprise celebrity cameo of the year; maybe the best ever. So avoid all spoilers, and remember: double-tap!

x

There we have it. I could list plenty of other movies from the year that I enjoyed a lot, but these are the ones that left the strongest initial impressions. The film lover in me feels bad leaving certain others out, but I’ll exercise some restraint and leave you with these montages posted to YouTube from other movie fans out there, honoring the year in film.

(Click here for the creator’s blog listing all the clips featured here)


February 11, 2010

Oscars 2009: And The Nominees Are…

Filed under: Movies,Oscars — DB @ 11:36 pm
Tags: , , , ,

 

Complete List of Nominees

It’s been over a week since the nominations were announced and I can’t believe it’s taken me this long to shoot off my reactions. I’ve been too busy writing about Lost. And running my meth lab. So for those who might care, here are my thoughts – where I have some – on what made the cut.

BEST PICTURE/BEST DIRECTOR
So the highly anticipated “10 Best Picture nominees” cat is out of the bag, and all in all I’d say it’s a good list. Like a lot of people – most people, probably – the nomination for The Blind Side caught me way off guard. When the trailers for this movie ran last fall, I thought it looked sentimental and cheesy, and even if it was a true story I was still turned off by a movie about rich white people coming to the rescue of a poor black boy. Which is weird, ’cause I loved me some Diff’rent Strokes back in the 80s. Anyway, it didn’t surprise me that people turned out in droves. When Sandra Bullock started winning awards, I finally broke down and saw it. And I’ll admit that it was better than I thought it would be. I give credit to writer/director John Lee Hancock for showing restraint with a story that could so easily have gone down the road I was expecting based on those trailers. But that said, there is no way this film should be singled out as one of the year’s best. It is a nice, “heartwarming” movie, but completely ordinary. With movies like Where the Wild Things Are, The Road, A Single Man, Fantastic Mr. Fox, The Messenger and In the Loop all in the mix, a nomination for The Blind Side is a joke.

Other than that, the list went pretty much as expected. Consensus is that Avatar, The Hurt Locker, Inglourious Basterds, Precious and Up in the Air would have been the five nominees if the category hadn’t been expanded, so it’s interesting that those films’ directors all earned nominations. Usually one or two of those people would have missed. But James Cameron, Kathryn Bigelow, Quentin Tarantino, Lee Daniels and Jason Reitman is a great list to represent 2009 (he had no chance, but I wish Spike Jonze had been recognized for Where the Wild Things Are).

My only other comment here is that as I’ve followed the award season since it began in early December, one of the most pleasant surprises has been how well Inglourious Basterds has done. Christoph Waltz was a shoo-in nominee from the moment the film’s first scene was over, and the screenplay was also a safe bet early on. But I honestly didn’t expect Tarantino’s gonzo revisionist take on World War II to fare so well across the board – critics’s awards, guild awards, ten best lists, etc. I would never have predicted it, but I’m happy that it came to pass, earning QT his second nominations for directing and screenwriting.  Bravo.

BEST ACTOR
No surprises here. Nice to see a young up-and-comer like Jeremy Renner hang in there with the big boys. He impressed me in North Country and The Assassination of Jesse James By the Coward Robert Ford, so I’m happy for him and the opportunities that are sure to come his way as a result of this film.

I also have to take a moment and ask of the people who saw Invictus: do you think Freeman deserved to be nominated? I suppose there are some minor spoilers ahead, so continue at your own risk…

I was so excited about him in this role. Freeman is one of my favorites, and the thought of him playing Nelson Mandela was full of such promise. It’s too bad he blew it on this movie. It’s not that Invictus is bad or that Freeman isn’t good in it. It’s just…this is basically a sports underdog movie. It’s Hoosiers. Remember the Titans. Hell, it’s Major League. It’s the familiar story of a sports team rising above low expectations to win big, and maybe learning some important life lessons along the way. There’s nothing wrong with that per se, but here you have one of the great actors of our time playing one of the great lives of our time, and this is the story he chooses to tell? Freeman does well, but the script doesn’t allow him to dig into the character at all. There are a few moments that hint at what he could have done and where he could have gone had he chosen to do a film that was really about Mandela. But this one – he’s hardly even in the second half/last third of the movie. There’s so little depth for him to play that the film wound up being a pretty big disappointment for me. Freeman delivers as best he can with what’s there, but when you think about how much more he could have done? It makes me sad to say so, but I don’t think he should have been nominated. Viggo Mortensen (The Road), Matt Damon (The Informant!), Ben Foster (The Messenger), Joaquin Phoenix (Two Lovers) and Sam Rockwell (Moon) all had the chance to do much more in their films than Freeman got to do in Invictus, and I wish that Academy members had recognized one of them instead of doing the obvious thing and nominating Freeman for a performance that, through no fault of his own, failed to meet expectations.


BEST ACTRESS
Sandra Bullock’s nomination was no surprise by this point in the season, but it shocks me that she has moved up to take frontrunner status alongside Meryl Streep. She just doesn’t belong here. I’ve always liked Sandra Bullock; she has great comedic timing and her small role in Crash was, for me, one of the film’s highlights. But she has chosen bad movies almost exclusively throughout her career; it’s almost like a gift she has. The Blind Side is better than most of the films on her resume, but there is nothing about this performance that calls for award talk. Bullock can do sassy, she can do tough, she can do sweet – these are not stretches for her, nor does this particular character leap off the screen. I enjoyed her, but at the end of the day it was Erin Brockovich Lite. So what is this nomination for? Is it for finally picking a decent movie? For having a good year? Okay, I get that between the huge box office success of this film and last summer’s The Proposal, Bullock is having a Moment (though everyone apparently chose to ignore that her third film – All About Steve – was widely considered one of the year’s worst). But does making two adequate movies that become commercial hits merit an Oscar nomination? No, especially not when Saoirse Ronan (The Lovely Bones), Emily Blunt (The Young Victoria), Abbie Cornish (Bright Star) and even Maya Rudolph (Away We Go) are sitting the race out. Does it merit a Golden Globe win over Precious‘ Gabourey Sidibe? No way. A SAG award over Sidibe and Meryl Streep? Seriously, no way. This performance isn’t in the same league as her competition. Sorry Sandra. I can only hope the voters come to their senses by the time they mark their ballots.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Matt Damon has proven to be a great and versatile actor, and it’s surprising that this nomination is his first since Good Will Hunting. But it’s like Academy members filled out their ballots on auto-pilot. “Hmm, Clint Eastwood movie, Morgan as Mandela, important subject matter, scene where he gives an inspirational speech…I think by some Academy bylaw we’re required to nominate this.” Snore. Like Freeman, Damon is good in the film, don’t get me wrong. But also like Freeman, the role doesn’t ask much of him. And like Bullock, Damon finds himself in this race without really doing anything that special. Matt Damon did give a nomination-worthy performance this year; it just wasn’t in this movie. I really don’t get it. There had to be a significant number of people who listed Damon as their first choice – their favorite Supporting Actor of the year – in order for him to score a nomination. I can’t fathom that, even in such an unusually weak year for this category.

The rest of it looks good. It’s nice to see Christopher Plummer earn his first nomination after so many years of excellent work, and Stanley Tucci too. He doesn’t have Plummer’s years under his belt, but he’s been playing the game well for a long time. And it’s great to see Harrelson back in the field. He’s done some terrific work these last several years.

Too bad they’re all gonna lose to Christoph Waltz.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Last year’s winner Penelope Cruz scored her second consecutive nomination, and while I would have singled out Marion Cotillard from Nine‘s ensemble, Cruz was good and probably caught voters’ attention with one of the film’s more comedic performances, as well as general hotness. I think Maggie Gyllenhaal benefitted from an all-around appreciation for Crazy Heart. There were stronger performances to choose from – I’d have gone with The Messenger‘s Samantha Morton – and Gyllenhaal’s been overlooked for performances more interesting than this one, but I can’t begrudge her finally getting some recognition. And seeing Up in the Air‘s ladies is no surprise; each is deserving.

Too bad they’re all gonna lose to Mo’Nique.

BEST ORIGINAL/ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
I was off by one in my predictions for both of these categories, but I was happy that in both cases the movie I failed to predict correctly was on my list of personal choices. I thought The Messenger‘s chances were slim given that the Writer’s Guild failed to nominate it even when other sure-thing contenders like Up and Basterds were ruled ineligible, so kudos to the Academy’s writer’s branch for acknowledging this small gem. And major kudos for including In the Loop in the adapted race. Without a doubt one of the best scripts of the year – smart, tight, topical and hilarious. I thought the movie might get overshadowed by something higher profile, but it totally deserves the nomination. Rent this movie NOW.


BEST ANIMATED FILM
What the hell is The Secret of Kells? Whatever it is, I was just glad that for the first time since 2002 there were enough eligible films to have five nominees instead of three. It’s a testament to how much great animation there is these days that any one of these would totally deserve the prize….this Kells thing notwithstanding, since I haven’t seen it.

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY
Once again, I scored with one of my personal picks even though I didn’t predict it would make the cut. The nomination for Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince took a lot of the pundits by surprise, but they must have forgotten how beautifully photographed the film is and how frequently the cinematography was mentioned in reviews. Great to see it recognized.

BEST MAKEUP
Another snub for The Road. Dirt, grime and muck may never have been so artfully applied as they were in this movie. I have no idea what Il Divo is, so no comment on that one, but The Young Victoria?! Over The Road?!? Are you kidding me?? For what? I can’t wait for this category to come up on the show so I can see exactly what sketches, behind the scenes footage and finished clip will highlight how this could possibly have taken a spot. Ed Helms’ missing tooth in The Hangover would have been more nomination-worthy than anything I can think of in The Young Victoria. And Star Trek was nominated? Maybe I’m forgetting something, but that seems to be a nomination for pointy ears and some tattoos on Eric Bana’s head. Big deal. I suppose someone else would look at The Road and say, “It’s just dirt. Big deal.” But of course, they would be wrong. How about something for Zombieland or District 9 in lieu of Trek and Victoria?

As there were no other huge surprises or snubs like last year’s Dark Knight/Bruce Springsteen omissions, that’s all I really have to say about the nominees until it’s time to predict the winners in a few weeks. Prepare to be schooled….in boredom and obsessive movie awards analysis.

February 1, 2010

Oscar ’09: Nomination Eve

Filed under: Movies,Oscars — DB @ 1:49 pm
Tags: , , , ,
x
Another year, another impending Oscar announcement. But his year’s about-to-begin race is made more interesting by the 10-slot Best Picture factor. Choosing the 10 films I think are most likely to get nominated is tricky; there are a handful of obvious choices (and I think it’s clear what the big five would be if the category hadn’t been expanded this year), but two or three slots are up for grabs. I’m less certain than I was a few months ago that something all-out popular like The Hangover or Star Trek won’t make it in (Avatar‘s spot is of course secured). Hangover and Trek aren’t included on my final list of guesses, but whatever happens, there is a unique curiosity attached to this year’s announcement.

I’ll have to see how it shakes out after a couple years worth of evidence, but for now I’m open to the 10 nominee race. If it brings recognition to a few more small films and helps some smart, well-crafted popular hits earn some respect, I’m all for it. I know one of the chief arguments against the change is that the expansion dilutes the significance, making a nomination less meaningful, but I really don’t buy that. We’ve always had a system in which critics celebrate the year’s best through top 10 lists, and I’ve never heard anyone complain about that, so why shouldn’t the same number apply to the Oscars?

And to those who say they can’t find 10 movies worth nominating? Obviously some years are stronger than others, but anyone who claims to be a movie fan yet can’t find 10 films a year that mean something to them and are worthy of honoring probably don’t deserve their Academy membership. 274 films are eligible for this year’s Best Picture Oscar. You really can’t pick 10? Out of 274? (And as this article about tabulating the nominations illustrates, filling out all 10 is important; your vote might not get counted if you don’t, and by completing all 10 lines you might just be helping one of your lower-ranked choices make the cut.)

Anyway, I’ll get on with it. Here are my predictions, along with occasional commentary and my personal picks for each category. Can’t wait to see how it all goes down early (so painfully early) Tuesday morning when Anne Hathaway and Academy president Tom Sherak announce the nominees…

BEST PICTURE
An Education
Avatar
District 9
The Hurt Locker
Inglourious Basterds
Invictus
Precious
A Serious Man
Up
Up in the Air

Personal: Avatar, District 9, The Hurt Locker, In the Loop, Inglourious Basterds, Precious, The Road, Up, Up in the Air, Where the Wild Things Are

BEST DIRECTOR
James Cameron – Avatar
Kathryn Bigelow – The Hurt Locker
Quentin Tarantino – Inglourious Basterds
Lee Daniels – Precious
Jason Reitman – Up in the Air

These five picks line-up exactly with the Director’s Guild nominees, and though there are usually differences between the DGA’s list and the Academy’s, I can’t really see it going any other way.

Personal: Cameron, Bigelow, Tarantino, Daniels, Spike Jonze (Where the Wild Things Are),

BEST ACTOR
Jeff Bridges – Crazy Heart
George Clooney – Up in the Air
Colin Firth – A Single Man
Morgan Freeman – Invictus
Jeremy Renner – The Hurt Locker

I’m still not sold 100% on Renner’s chances. He did get a SAG nomination, and some other high-profile nominations along the way, but I still wonder if the performance is too subtle or internalized for voters to appreciate it. He’ll probably make it, but if anyone here is vulnerable, I’d say it’s him.

Personal: Bridges, Clooney, Matt Damon (The Informant!), Firth, Viggo Mortensen (The Road)

BEST ACTRESS
Sandra Bullock – The Blind Side
Helen Mirren – The Last Station
Carey Mulligan – An Education
Gabourey Sidibe – Precious
Meryl Streep – Julie & Julia

Personal: Mirren, Mulligan, Saoirse Ronan (The Lovely Bones), Sidibe, Streep

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Matt Damon – Invictus
Woody Harrelson – The Messenger
Christian McKay – Me and Orson Welles
Stanley Tucci – The Lovely Bones
Christoph Waltz – Inglourious Basterds

I’m admittedly going out on a long limb with McKay. Christopher Plummer is probably the better bet; he received SAG and Golden Globe nominations, had a busy year with Doctor Parnassus, Up and 9, and has never been nominated despite a long career full of terrific work. But despite all that, did people really love this performance so much as to call it out as one of their five favorites?

The other common prediction out there is Alfred Molina for An Education. Some Oscar pundits have been talking him up since the movie came out in October, but he has been almost entirely overlooked by other organizations (the Broadcast Film Critics nominated him; Golden Globes and SAG didn’t). That doesn’t necessarily mean he’s out; Michael Shannon managed to sneak in last year for Revolutionary Road without having earned high-profile pre-recognition. And like Plummer, Molina is another respected veteran who has never been nominated (and should have been, for Frida). Still, I don’t feel the momentum.

Not that McKay exactly has momentum or has fared much better than Molina in the run-up, but he has earned a few notices here and there from some of the small, regional critics groups. And he gives a magnetic performance that dominates the film. The question is whether enough people saw it.

Whatever happens, the one certainty is that this year’s Supporting Actor field is one of the weakest I can recall. This is usually one of the most competitive categories; this time it’s a struggle to find five strong contenders.

Personal: Robert Duvall (The Road), Harrelson, McKay, Tucci, Waltz

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Vera Farmiga – Up in the Air
Anna Kendrick – Up in the Air
Mo’Nique – Precious
Julianne Moore – A Single Man
Samantha Morton – The Messenger

While I’d love to see Morton get nominated, I’m not confident in that guess. I almost went with Penelope Cruz or Marion Cotillard for Nine, but I’m deferring to what I keep reading from Oscar writers in the field, which is that Nine just hasn’t connected with voters and has faded from their radar (at least in terms of top categories; I’m still counting on several below-the-line nominations).

Personal: Farmiga, Kendrick, Melanie Laurent (Inglourious Basterds), Mo’Nique, Morton

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
(500) Days of Summer
The Hurt Locker
Inglourious Basterds
A Serious Man
Up

Personal: (500) Days, Hurt Locker, Basterds, The Messenger, Moon

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
An Education
District 9
Fantastic Mr. Fox
Precious
Up in the Air

Personal: In the Loop, Precious, The Road, Up in the Air, Where the Wild Things Are

BEST ANIMATED FILM
Coraline
Fantastic Mr. Fox
Ponyo
The Princess and the Frog
Up

Personal (w/o seeing Ponyo yet): 9, Coraline, Mr. Fox, Princess and the Frog, Up

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY
Avatar
The Hurt Locker
Inglourious Basterds
Nine
A Serious Man

Personal: Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, Basterds, The Lovely Bones, Nine, A Serious Man

BEST FILM EDITING
Avatar
District 9
The Hurt Locker
Nine
Up in the Air

Personal: Same

BEST ART DIRECTION
Avatar
District 9
The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus
Inglourious Basterds
A Serious Man

Personal: Avatar, Coraline, Fantastic Mr. Fox, Parnassus, The Road

BEST COSTUME DESIGN
Bright Star
The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus
Inglourious Basterds
Nine
The Young Victoria

Personal: Bright Star, The Brothers Bloom, Parnassus, Nine, A Single Man

BEST ORIGINAL SCORE
Avatar
The Informant!
A Serious Man
A Single Man
Up

Personal: The Brothers Bloom, Moon, The Road, A Serious Man, Up

BEST ORIGINAL SONG
Almost There – The Princess and the Frog*
Cinema Italiano – Nine*
I See You – Avatar
Somebody Else – Crazy Heart
The Weary Kind – Crazy Heart*

Last year, there were only three nominees, rather than the usual five. Not sure why that was, but my asteriks indicate the three I think will make it if that happens again.

Personal: Dove Of Peace (Bruno), Be Italian (Nine), Cinema Italiano, Friends on the Other Side (The Princess and the Frog), The Weary Kind

BEST MAKE-UP
District 9
The Road
The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus

Personal: Same

BEST VISUAL EFFECTS
Avatar
Star Trek
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

I’m uncertain on Transformers. I was really close to putting down District 9, which may well make it. I didn’t see the new Transformers, but I figure the effects are at least as good as in the first one, and those were great. Maybe there isn’t anything new and groundbreaking since the original, but that doesn’t make them any less impressive. The first film lost this award but should have won; even if this is more of the same, sequels get nominated all the time for building on the work of their predecessor.

On the other hand, nobody likes this movie except for 13 year-old boys and Michael Bay, so that might hurt its chances, paving the way for District 9.

Personal: Avatar, District 9, Where the Wild Things Are

BEST SOUND MIXING
Avatar
District 9
The Hurt Locker
Star Trek
Up

Personal: 9, Avatar, District 9, The Hurt Locker, Star Trek

BEST SOUND EFFECTS EDITING
Avatar
District 9
The Hurt Locker
Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
Up

Personal: 9, Avatar, District 9, The Hurt Locker, Star Trek (same as above, since I know nothing about sound to begin with)

xx xx

« Previous PageNext Page »

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.