Awards season is officially upon us! With the Golden Globes right around the corner, it's almost time for us to find out the nominees for this year's Academy Awards. It's been a wonderful year for movies, and the difficulty that comes along with trying to predict who and what is going to be nominated reflects that -- especially since, unlike the past few years, it's much harder to pinpoint a clear frontrunner. Of course there are some sure-fire locks at this point; I would be shocked out of my mind if Argo, Lincoln, and Zero Dark Thirty don't all get nominated. But hey, you never know, right? So being the awards show nut that I am, I decided to put together my predictions of what films are going to be fighting for those coveted gold statues on February 24th:
Best Picture:
Argo
Lincoln
Life of Pi
Les Miserables
Silver Linings Playbook
Zero Dark Thirty
Best Director:
Ben Affleck - Argo
Steven Spielberg - Lincoln
Ang Lee - Life of Pi
Tom Hooper - Les Miserables
Kathryn Bigelow - Zero Dark Thirty
Best Actor:
Daniel Day-Lewis - Lincoln
Hugh Jackman - Les Miserables
Joaquin Phoenix - The Master
Bradley Cooper - Silver Linings Playbook
John Hawkes - The Sessions
Best Actress:
Jessica Chastain - Zero Dark Thirty
Jennifer Lawrence - Silver Linings Playbook
Marion Cotillard - Rust and Bone
Naomi Watts - The Impossible
Emmanuelle Riva - Amour
Best Supporting Actor:
Alan Arkin - Argo
Tommy Lee Jones - Lincoln
Robert De Niro - Silver Linings Playbook
Javier Bardem - Skyfall
Phillip Seymour Hoffman - The Master
Best Supporting Actress:
Anne Hathaway - Les Miserables
Amy Adams - The Master
Helen Hunt - The Sessions
Sally Field - Lincoln
Helen Mirren - Hitchcock
Best Original Screenplay:
Zero Dark Thirty
Django Unchained
Moonrise Kingdom
The Master
Looper
Best Adapted Screenplay:
Argo
Lincoln
Silver Linings Playbook
The Perks of Being a Wallflower
Life of Pi
Read User's Comments(0)
“My dear Frodo, you asked me once if I told you everything there was to know about my adventures. While I can honestly say I’ve told you the truth, I may not have told you all of it.” And so begins The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, the first installment in director Peter Jackson’s Hobbit trilogy. It’s been 9 years since we’ve traveled to Middle-Earth, and fans of Tolkien and the Lord of the Rings have been dying for an excuse to go back. Whether or not this will entirely satisfy that craving though, I can’t say. We never want something we love to come to an end…but sometimes, it’s better to end on a good note rather than to milk something for all it’s worth. At nearly three hours long and covering only a mere six chapters of the book, The Hobbit proves that there is indeed such a thing as too much of a good thing after all.
Taking place 60 years before the events ofThe Fellowship of the Ring, The Hobbit follows young Bilbo Baggins (Martin Freeman), who joins the wizard Gandalf (Ian McKellen) and 13 dwarves on a quest to help them reclaim their homeland. The story is a simple one, and easily could have been told in a single film. But alas, we’re not so fortunate. Don’t get me wrong, there’s plenty here to admire; the film is a visual treat, one that is greatly enhanced by the 48 fps 3D. It may take some getting used to at first, but the higher frame rate (twice that of the regular 24 fps that film usually runs at), serves to create a crystal clear picture, letting no detail go by unnoticed. You’ve never seen Middle-Earth look quite like this before. Martin Freeman is a delight as Bilbo, exhibiting both charm and good humor. However it’s Andy Serkis as Gollum that makes the biggest impression. He only has one scene (if it were up to me, there would be a lot more), but it’s that one scene that catapults the film out of its bloated, dragging state and reminds us why these movies are so widely loved. The “riddles in the dark” scene, the one in which Bilbo obtains the infamous “one ring that rules them all” from Gollum, may very well be my single favorite movie scene of this year.
So let me ask you this: why, oh why, did this film need to be verging on three hours in length? Furthermore, why do we need three Hobbit films – which will no doubt add up to a total of nine hours to tell the story that the book told in just 300 pages? This is purely a set-up film, not terribly unlike Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (or what I like to call: Harry Potter and the Never-ending Camping Trip). The thing about a set-up film is, it needs to actually make you want to see the film it’s setting you up for -- something that Harry Potter still accomplished. The Hobbit? Not so much. Because let me tell you, no amount of technical wizardry can mask the mind-numbing boredom inspired by that middle portion. The Hobbit has moments of greatness, including an action-packed last half hour that seriously does that 48 fps 3D justice -- but in the end, there is nothing unexpected about Jackson’s refusal to err on the side of brevity.
Rating: C+
Joseph Gordon-Levitt is the man of the hour. Hot off his
hilarious gig hosting Saturday Night Live last week, it seems like
Gordon-Levitt is everywhere; he starred in this summer’s biggest blockbuster,
“The Dark Knight Rises,” the action-packed bicycle-chase movie “Premium Rush,”
and come November you’ll see him starring alongside Daniel Day-Lewis in Steven
Spielberg’s much-anticipated “Lincoln.” As if all that’s not enough, he’s also
currently working on his directorial debut, “Don Jon’s Addiction,” while always
making time for his company, “hitRECord” – an open-collaboration online production
company which has its members work together to produce everything from films
and music to short stories and photography. In his latest film, “Looper” (out
in theaters today), he plays a specialized hit man whose job is to eliminate
targets sent to him from the future. To play the daring role, Gordon-Levitt
teamed up with writer/director Rian Johnson, whom he previously worked with on
the acclaimed high school noir film “Brick” – which is precisely where my
conversation with the down-to-Earth young actor began.
What is it about Rian that makes you want to work with him?
JGL: Well first
of all I just love him, he’s a great friend of mine. We’ve been close ever
since we made “Brick” together. So it’s rare that you get to work with someone
you know personally and are close friends with. So that’s the first thing. And
I also just – even if I didn’t know him – I think I’d be an enormous fan of
his. He makes movies that are sincere and intriguing and unpredictable and fun,
and, you know, that’s what I want.
What kind of prep work did you do to play a younger version
of Bruce Willis?
JGL: Well, I
studied him. I studied his movies, I watched a lot of his movies. I would rip
the audio off of his movies, and put that on my iPod so I could listen to
him…Bruce even recorded himself doing some of my voiceover lines and sent that
to me so that I could listen to that. But the most important thing I think was
just getting to know him and spending time with him, hanging out, having lunch,
having dinner, talking…and letting it seep in.
In the movie you make a lot of decisions that are kind of
difficult for a human being to make, and you choose characters that kind of
have dark complexes -- I haven’t seen you play a role this dark since
“Mysterious Skin” -- so is it really difficult for you to put yourself in that
situation?
JGL: You’re
right, and that’s one of my favorite things about “Looper” and I’m glad you
brought that up…there’s a lot of moral ambiguity in it and I think that’s
realistic for the way the world is in real life. No one is black or white,
everyone is a shade of grey, and while it is a convenient and often crowd
pleasing device to have heroes and villains, that’s not really the way the
world is. And in “Looper” every character feels like they’re doing the right
thing, and there’s some horrible, atrocious things happening. And that’s
violence for you. And “Looper” is really the story about the source of violence
and how violence begets violence and whether you can solve any problems with
more violence.
Are we going to see a trailer for “Don Jon’s Addiction” any
time soon?
JGL: We finished
shooting about two months ago and we’re in the process of editing it
now…Scarlett [Johansson] did a really good job; she’s playing this character
that’s I think really different than anything she’s played before. Julianne
Moore is, I think, you know, one of the greatest actors alive; Tony Danza played
my dad, he’s also really different than you’re used to seeing him. And I had a
ball, man, I’m just having a great time.
What’s it like directing yourself?
JGL: Yeah it’s,
you know, it’s something that I’ve been working up to for a while and I do feel
that, like, the time I’ve spent with hitRECord was important in being able to
do that. Because I’ve practiced seeing myself on screen – and that can be a
disturbing or odd experience for many actors, and I remember it used to be for
me. It’s just really a matter of practice, to get used to it. If you’ve spent
enough time looking at yourself eventually you get used to it, and those
feelings of anxiety go away and you’re able to, you know, kind of be productive
and analyze it more objectively. So all these little videos that I’ve been
making for years on hitRECord I think really helped me be able to look at the
monitor, see myself, and not just be like ‘Oh god, I look so weird!’
Do you experience that in “Looper,” because of all of the
special effects make-up?
JGL: Well it’s
actually just the opposite, because I see someone else, which is, you know,
really reassuring, ‘cause that’s what I wanna see when I see a movie that I’m
in – I wanna see somebody else. I feel like if it’s reminding me of myself then
I’m not doing the job right, you know, so, the make-up certainly helps that.
And that’s my favorite thing as an actor, to become somebody else and so I
think “Looper” is really the most transformative role that I’ve gotten to do. And I love it for that.
Coming-of-age high school movies are a cliché in and of itself. So for a film to take that subject matter on without any real plot to back it up – and for it to feel like a movie we’ve never seen before – is quite a remarkable feat alone. But “The Perks of Being a Wallflower” isn’t just new and fresh; it’s filled with a zestful spirit that can’t help but fill you with sentimental longing for days and years gone by.
Based off of the incredibly popular 1999 novel of the same name, “Perks” is narrated by Charlie (Logan Lerman); he’s a shy and introverted high school freshman, and very much a loner. That is, until two eccentric seniors, Sam (Emma Watson) and Patrick (Ezra Miller), take him under their wing and invite him into their group of friends, helping Charlie navigate through the often tumultuous waves of high school.
The author of the novel, Stephen Chbosky, also wrote and directed the movie. It’s evident how much he loves these characters, and it’s a love that doesn’t get lost in translation. This is, by all means, a perfect book-to-film adaptation; nothing of importance is sacrificed, and in some cases things are even improved upon in their transition to the big screen. The movie deals with some pretty intense and controversial issues, such as mental illness, suicide, and sexual abuse, but in Chbosky’s hands, everything is handled gracefully, with tact, and just the right amount of emotion. Thankfully, the movie never veers into after school special mode, something it could have very easily done. Chbosky resists the urge to lecture us, or treat the audience like children – and it’s precisely that that makes both his novel, and the film version, something that easily connects with people of all ages.
This isn’t a teen movie, it’s not begging for the adoration of the “Twilight” young adult crowd – it’s a movie that takes its high school setting and uses it to appeal to your nostalgia. We watch Charlie go to his first party, get high for the first time, go on his first date, experience his first kiss. And it works so well because while it can’t help but take you back to the first time you yourself experienced all of those things, it’s more than that -- you just really want to tirelessly root for Charlie every single step of the way.
In fact, the characters – and how much we grow to love and care about those characters – is the heart and soul of “The Perks of Being a Wallflower.” Logan Lerman’s Charlie is incredibly awkward and innocent, but that’s part of what makes him such a sweet, endearing character right from the get-go. Lerman has this sort of face, his eyes in particular, that pull you in because they’re just so filled with emotion. Throughout the movie, I constantly found myself going “awww” out loud…a verbal slip I can only attribute to the fact that I was just so damn invested in the growing relationship between Charlie, Sam, and Patrick that I couldn’t help myself. I wanted – needed – these characters to be happy in the end.
As Charlie’s new best friends, Watson and Miller shine. Miller proves just how much range he has, making the huge jump from playing a murderous teenager in last year’s “We Need to Talk About Kevin” to the flamboyant, lovable, and hilarious Patrick. Playing his stepsister Sam, Emma Watson takes on her first big post-Potter role with maturity, proving she’s more than just the clever witch we all know her as. This is Watson like you’ve never seen her before; she radiates confidence and sex appeal (in one scene, we see her decked out in lingerie, playing Janet in “The Rocky Horror Picture Show”), and she showcases a sort of loose, free-spirit vibe that makes it entirely evident why Charlie is so drawn to her.
Set in the early 90s, one of the most memorable aspects of the film is the wonderfully hip soundtrack, filled with tracks from artists such as The Smiths and Sonic Youth. In what is surely predestined to become the film’s most iconic scene, Patrick races his pick-up truck through a tunnel while Sam stands up on the truck bed, screaming with her arms in the air while David Bowie’s “Heroes” so fittingly plays in the background. And it’s that very scene that captures the true essence of “The Perks of Being a Wallflower.” It’s a film that’s tender, heartfelt, and even a little sad…but more than anything, it’ll make you feel infinite.
Rating: A
Usually you sit through a movie, and by time the credits start to roll, you’ve made up your mind about what you just watched. Sure, you may need to let it marinate in your mind a bit before making any firm proclamations -- but you usually know, at the very least, whether you liked it or not. I’m not so sure The Master operates in such simple terms. As people shuffled out of the theater, I remained seated, with one thought running through my head: what did I just watch?
The Master acts as writer-director Paul Thomas Anderson’s most challenging and perplexing work to date. While many have pinned the film “the Scientology movie,” more than anything, it’s an in-depth character study. And in that aspect, The Master succeeds brilliantly. Joaquin Phoenix plays Freddie Quell, a disturbed WWII vet who, while in a drunken stupor, sneaks aboard a party yacht that belongs to a beguiling man named Lancaster Dodd (Philip Seymour Hoffman). Bearing striking similarities to the Church of Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard, Dodd is the leader of a cult-like, faith-based organization called “The Cause.” Soon thereafter, Freddie becomes both Dodd’s right-hand man and guinea pig – forming a conundrum of a relationship that is just as fascinating to watch as the individual characters themselves.
As Freddie, Phoenix is nothing short of astounding. Freddie isn’t likable, not by a long shot; he’s crass, ill mannered, erratic and at times downright violent. Phoenix plays Freddie with a constant air of unpredictability and foreboding. When he was on screen, it’s nearly impossible to be fully at ease. More than that though, Phoenix brings these odd mannerisms and little idiosyncrasies to Freddie that make him not just a fully realized character, but a living, breathing portrait of a disturbed man. From his lopsided snarl to his slightly unhinged laugh, this performance is the true essence of what the best actor Academy Award is all about – and you can be sure that no one deserves that title this year more than Joaquin Phoenix.
Being the visual artist that he is, Anderson creates a distinct tone that is more telling of the film’s overall meaning than any one scene. This is a movie that operates best when you commit to it, take it all in and appreciate its many individual merits without the need to know what overall purpose it attempts to serve – the type of film that proves to be both rewarding, and at times even frustrating, with its deliberate disconnect. While it very well may be a bit too slow for some viewers (at 137 minutes long, it can’t help but drag), the vibrant cinematography, powerhouse performances by Hoffman and Phoenix, and Jonny Greenwood’s haunting score win out in the end. Even so, the question still remains: what is The Master really about? Like the devoted members of The Cause, are we, the viewers, searching for meaning where there is none? As for the followers of The Cause – almost certainly. As for us – only another viewing could tell for sure.
Rating: B+
Where do I begin? I went into “Prometheus” fresh, with no knowledge of the universe director Ridley Scott created in 1979’s “Alien”, and as a result, no idea what to really expect from this sci-fi prequel-of-sorts. My lack of substantial expectations resulted in a fascinating movie-going experience, one in which I found myself simultaneously intrigued and horrified.
Filled with existential themes, “Prometheus” is set in 2093, where a group of explorers strive to discover the origin of human life on Earth. Most passionate about unlocking these answers are archaeologists Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green), a couple who discover a series of ancient cave drawings that lead them on mission funded by Weyland Industries to a distant galaxy where they believe they can meet their makers. Also aboard the Prometheus (the name of the ship) are mission director Meredith Vickers (Charlize Theron), captain Janek (Idris Elba) and android David (Michael Fassbender), among others.
While the crew is out exploring, taking their helmets off and messing with foreign objects and extraterrestrial life (does that seem like a good idea to you?), even before things turn sour, the feeling of impending doom is palpable. And things progress in what feels like the blink of an eye. At one moment a philosophical debate, and the next a gut-wrenching monster-horror movie, “Prometheus” is all over the place—which isn’t necessarily a negative thing. There are plot holes and moments that feel somewhat out of place, but if anything, I attribute it to the sheer ambition of an immensely talented filmmaker. The plot shift doesn’t come off as a way to derail the initial path the film embarked on; it comes off as an exercise in foreboding and warning, making sure the viewer is never in a complete state of peace. What happens when the answers you’ve been looking for aren’t the ones you wanted? They just bring more deep, impossible-to-answer questions, of course. Which in turn just gives us more to chew over while immersed in this chaotic story.
Between the fantastic 3D and the astonishing visual effects, this is a film to behold. Even when the action is at a standstill, its visual spectacle and the magnificent set pieces are enough to mesmerize you alone. Then throw in Michael Fassbender’s beguiling, winning performance as robot David, with his chillingly monotone voice and vacant expressions, and there’s plenty to keep you engaged.
Beware -- “Prometheus” is not for the squeamish. There’s one scene in particular that made my usually tough stomach start to churn. When the intensity is kicked into high gear, I’d be surprised if anyone left the theater mentally unscathed. This is the kind of movie that’ll have a very specific effect on you---you may come out of it feeling like your mind was just blown, or you may find yourself incredibly disappointed by the direction it took. No matter what though, pretty strong reactions to this film come with the territory.
The movie asks a lot of questions that it can’t answer, and that may feel like a cop-out to some viewers. For this viewer though, those questions were the thought-provoking catalyst for a striking, genuinely WTF movie – and I mean that in the best way possible.
Rating: B+
“What to Expect When You’re Expecting” is the new star-studded ensemble comedy based on the best-selling self-help book of the same name. And by that I mean, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the book apart from the fact that they share the same central topic: pregnancy. The movie follows five different couples as they go through the trials and tribulations that come along with pregnancy: weight gain, surprises, bickering, complications, overactive hormones, and of course, the bread and butter of pregnancy jokes, morning sickness, gas, and lack of bladder control.
These fun side effects don’t afflict anyone more than Wendy (Elizabeth Banks), a pregnancy expert who is going through a far less pleasant experience than she expected. Her husband Gary’s (Ben Falcone) competitive father (Dennis Quaid) and perfect-looking wife (Brooklyn Decker) are expecting, too. The other couples include Jules (Cameron Diaz), a famous trainer, and her dance partner on a “Dancing With the Stars” type show, Evan (Glee’s Matthew Morrison); Holly (Jennifer Lopez) and Alex (Rodrigo Santoro), a couple looking to adopt; and Marco (Chace Crawford) and Rosie (Anna Kendrick), the requisite cute young couple who are in for a surprise.
Rounding out the supporting cast are Chris Rock, Rob Huebel, and Thomas Lennon as part of the group of fathers who teach Alex the ropes of fatherhood, and (thankfully) provide most of the few real laughs. It’s not that What to Expect isn’t amusing. It’s just not funny enough, interesting enough, or enlightening enough to make the slightest dent in the rom-com genre. It feels and plays out like a bunch of pieces of Play-Doh haphazardly clumped together. We’ve seen pregnancy comedies that were smart and hilarious – movies that, for the most part, held the subject to a higher standard than just an outlet for constant bodily functions jokes. Even the raunchy “Knocked Up” managed to balance the crude and the heart of the subject with care.
In the end, this simple and harmless flick proved to also be vacant and spineless. These ensemble comedies (Valentine’s Day, New Year’s Eve, etc) are getting old fast, simply because they don’t have anything to justify or back them up. More couples then necessary are squeezed into the picture (like Quaid and Decker) as a means to 1) add in an extra splash of star power, and 2) avoid having to spend any actually quality time with any of the couples – and that’s because none of them are memorable or substantial enough to hold their own. Then you have Chace Crawford and Anna Kendrick, who have next to no reason to be in the film other than to showcase those key moments of artificial movie flirtation – and the scenes, which feel like they were plucked from a different movie, work exactly as they were meant to; they make us smile and swoon, even while we acknowledge how misplaced they really are.
The movie of course ends with the women giving birth to the precious little babies, which will warm even the coldest of hearts – but that doesn’t change the fact that “What to Expect When You’re Expecting” is exactly what you would expect…and that’s not an enthusiastic endorsement.
Rating: C
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)