FYI, the reason that the post title doesn't say "In Theaters" or "On DVD" is because the production company behind the film, Yari Film Group, filed for Chapter 11 last month. "Nothing But The Truth" was playing in NYC in late December just to qualify for awards season, and has now been showing up at a few awards festivals, but its future is pretty unsure.
Anyway.
“Nothing But The Truth” is a fictionalized account of the Valerie Plame case. Kate Beckinsale plays Rachel Armstrong, a Sun-Times reporter that reveals that an ambassador’s wife is a CIA operative (Vera Farmiga), who went on a mission to Venezuela an wrote a report that the president disregarded concerning the war or something like that…..
That’s the first fault of the film – they don’t spend enough time with Farmiga’s character, even though she is the best and most fascinating person in the entire film. Some flashbacks would’ve been just what it needed.
When Rachel publishes the piece, Erica (Vera Farmiga) is exposed and though she was assured there would be no repercussions, Rachel gets imprisoned. This is because she refuses to reveal her source, who the prosecution wants to jail for releasing the information. For the rest of the film we follow Rachel as she slowly rots in prison, and her life begins to fall apart.
The film begins very strong and remains so up until Rachel’s imprisonment. Noah Wyle and Angela Bassett are also good as her editor and the newspaper’s attorney. But once Rachel is in jail, it focuses more on her seriously stupid husband (David Schwimmer) and her even more idiotic lawyer (Alan Alda). Beckinsale is pretty good, but after all these AP stories about how she’s being “robbed” of an oscar nom because the Yari Film Group went bankrupt, she doesn’t live up to the hype. She’s a fine actress, but the problem is that anyone could have done this role, and I have yet to see what is special about her. Vera Farmiga on the other hand is so so so so soooo great as Erica Van Doren, and I really wish she had gotten more screen time. She is the only one here that I’m really excited to see what she’ll do in the future.
In the end I think it falls flat due to the poor directing. It’s a good movie, enjoyable enough with a few twist without, but it seems that It easily could’ve been great.
VERDICT: Wait for the (If it ever gets released) DVD.
-- Ari S.
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
CineramaTrauma Podcast #1: "Doubt
We finally have the much anticipated, long awaited premire episode of the CineramaTrauma Podcast!
To listen, click here.
On CineramaTrauma #1, we will be reviewing "Doubt".
If you have any feedback, please send us an e-mail at cineramatrauma@gmail.com
Enjoy
To listen, click here.
On CineramaTrauma #1, we will be reviewing "Doubt".
If you have any feedback, please send us an e-mail at cineramatrauma@gmail.com
Enjoy
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Review #8 (SPECIAL): A Comprehensive Analysis of "Paranoid Park" (SPOILERS)
(Do Not Read If You Do Not Want "Paranoid Park" or "Mullholland Dr." Ruined)
This is the latest in the line of Gus Van Sant's "experimental" indie films -- others include 2003's Elephant, about a Columbine-like shooting, and 2005's Last Daysa fictionalized account of Kurt Cobain's death.
However, Paranoid Park doesn't parallel a real event. It's about a teen skateboarder, Alex, that tries to fit in with another crowd of boarders that hang out by the east side stake park known as Paranoid Park. Alex is journaling an account of events that lead up to his possible involvement in the murder of a cop. Now, I say possible because even though we do see accidental push an officer onto a railroad track (in gruesome detail), we discover that once or twice, a scene he wrote down is played back and there are a few minuet differences. This leads us to conclude that Alex is an unreliable narrator. He is so lost in the world with no real self-identity and desperately wants to not only fit in with the boarders at Paranoid Park, but also expresses deep desires to experience the unknown. He is similar to Naomi Watts in Mullholland Dr., in the way that he wants to make a reality in which his life has this element that changes him so he doesn't have to face the fact that he is just pain old Alex. Alex wants so desperately to believe that he did it, so he isn't just another figure fading into the background -- and he never tells anyone, because he doesn't need to convince anyone other than himself.
Paranoid Park, much like Van Sant's most recent project, Milk, is almost too modest. There is great "in depth" camera work here, but there are no classic twist and turns. This is a really stuck-up comment to make, but its too bland, too original maybe. If feel is as though there is so many new idea's and characters, but simultaneously think that you take the kids from "Brick", dumb them down, give 1/200th the amount of dialogue and allusions to noir, and you would have Paranoid Park. We spend the film in Alex's head, but it never feels like a true portrayal of the guilt that one might have after committing such a riveting and irrevocable crime. He is the same solemn quiet teenage boy from begining to end, which causes me to ask, what really happend?
-- Ari S.
What do you think? Comment Below
This is the latest in the line of Gus Van Sant's "experimental" indie films -- others include 2003's Elephant, about a Columbine-like shooting, and 2005's Last Daysa fictionalized account of Kurt Cobain's death.
However, Paranoid Park doesn't parallel a real event. It's about a teen skateboarder, Alex, that tries to fit in with another crowd of boarders that hang out by the east side stake park known as Paranoid Park. Alex is journaling an account of events that lead up to his possible involvement in the murder of a cop. Now, I say possible because even though we do see accidental push an officer onto a railroad track (in gruesome detail), we discover that once or twice, a scene he wrote down is played back and there are a few minuet differences. This leads us to conclude that Alex is an unreliable narrator. He is so lost in the world with no real self-identity and desperately wants to not only fit in with the boarders at Paranoid Park, but also expresses deep desires to experience the unknown. He is similar to Naomi Watts in Mullholland Dr., in the way that he wants to make a reality in which his life has this element that changes him so he doesn't have to face the fact that he is just pain old Alex. Alex wants so desperately to believe that he did it, so he isn't just another figure fading into the background -- and he never tells anyone, because he doesn't need to convince anyone other than himself.
Paranoid Park, much like Van Sant's most recent project, Milk, is almost too modest. There is great "in depth" camera work here, but there are no classic twist and turns. This is a really stuck-up comment to make, but its too bland, too original maybe. If feel is as though there is so many new idea's and characters, but simultaneously think that you take the kids from "Brick", dumb them down, give 1/200th the amount of dialogue and allusions to noir, and you would have Paranoid Park. We spend the film in Alex's head, but it never feels like a true portrayal of the guilt that one might have after committing such a riveting and irrevocable crime. He is the same solemn quiet teenage boy from begining to end, which causes me to ask, what really happend?
-- Ari S.
What do you think? Comment Below
Monday, January 12, 2009
Review #7: In Theaters Now - DEFIANCE
If I could describe this film in four words……..These Jews fight back…
“Another sunny day in LA, (I love LA) what a great day for a movie at the Grove (I love the grove),” I thought to myself. And so went my day…I met my mom for a refreshing iced blended caramel at the Grove’s coffee bean and felt excited and in the mood to see this romantic comedy called “Defiance,” My mom had recommended it and had already seen it the day before. Don’t ask me why I thought this movie was a romantic comedy because it is the exact opposite of that. The fact that I am a college-student, who has stopped watching T.V. and never sees movie trailers or posters, probably had something to do with my misconception. The point is: I certainly was not prepared to see what was about to ensue on the screen for the next two and a half hours.
The story (which is a true one by the way) goes like this: The Bielski brothers escape into the Belarussian Forest in order to survive the Nazi occupied Poland. More and more Jews find their way in to the forest and build a community where they must all work and fight to survive.
Man, do I HATE war movies. You could pick a war scene from Forest Gump and drop it in any other war movie and I probably wouldn’t notice. Fight scenes always look so generic to me. They seem to be shot in the same way: lots of ammo, lots of men down, lots of shouting, lots of forest…blah blah blah. Okay, okay okay, so here’s the thing…when you are watching a Holocaust movie these complaints kinda have to be thrown out the window since the fighting is necessary and not gratuitous or excessive. I know that you could say that about a lot of war movies but the thing that really made me forgive this one for being in a genre that I semi-despise was that the scenes of the brothers building the forest camp were much more important than the fight scenes.
Being a Jew, I have been exposed to an extensive amount of films and literature about the Holocaust and was not expecting this movie to be much different from the things I have seen and read. I was pleasantly surprised to finally see a new type of Holocaust survival tale, however. You guessed it; this was the story of the “defiance” of the Jews. Never do we hear of Jews fighting back like they do in this film. The movie did an excellent job of humanizing the killers on both sides, which made the movie all the more interesting, realistic and heart wrenching.
(SPOILER ALERT) You would think that watching Jews kill a Nazi would be sickeningly pleasurable, but this was not the case. In the first scene of Jewish revenge, Tuvia (the eldest Bielski brother) goes in to town to kill the police officer that murdered his father. Although Tuvia’s revenge killing is totally justified the audience is shown the face of the trembling Nazi begging for his life with his wife beside him screaming for mercy. This gives us no chance to revel in the violence. Instead, it puts the audience in a strange position where we relate to that human face of the Nazi, but also know that this terrified face has killed a father, a mother, a son, a daughter…In this way the scenes of violence in “Defiance” are really different than your average war movie.
The images of the helpless human body in the face of death reminded me of David Cronenberg’s “A History of Violence” where Cronenberg meticulously creates a scene in which the audience can revel in violence because the victim is deserving of it, but after the fact a close-up shot of the dead body makes us immediately feel disgusted and remember that the villain is still human like us. Even though “Defiance” puts a face to the Nazi, it in no way attempts to make the audience sympathize with the Germans. It is clear that the Jews fight to survive, and the Germans fight to kill…for this reason, Nazis are always the animal regardless of how “human” they are portrayed.
The stories of survival, the fighting, the relationships between the brothers, the loves that blossom in the forest camp, and the community that is built are all naturally woven in to each other and nothing seems forced or over the top.
Overall this movie was worth seeing. SEE IT. Even if you don’t like war movies, or Holocaust movies SEE IT. It’s a true story and an important one that should be told and spread.
-Sarah B.
“Another sunny day in LA, (I love LA) what a great day for a movie at the Grove (I love the grove),” I thought to myself. And so went my day…I met my mom for a refreshing iced blended caramel at the Grove’s coffee bean and felt excited and in the mood to see this romantic comedy called “Defiance,” My mom had recommended it and had already seen it the day before. Don’t ask me why I thought this movie was a romantic comedy because it is the exact opposite of that. The fact that I am a college-student, who has stopped watching T.V. and never sees movie trailers or posters, probably had something to do with my misconception. The point is: I certainly was not prepared to see what was about to ensue on the screen for the next two and a half hours.
The story (which is a true one by the way) goes like this: The Bielski brothers escape into the Belarussian Forest in order to survive the Nazi occupied Poland. More and more Jews find their way in to the forest and build a community where they must all work and fight to survive.
Man, do I HATE war movies. You could pick a war scene from Forest Gump and drop it in any other war movie and I probably wouldn’t notice. Fight scenes always look so generic to me. They seem to be shot in the same way: lots of ammo, lots of men down, lots of shouting, lots of forest…blah blah blah. Okay, okay okay, so here’s the thing…when you are watching a Holocaust movie these complaints kinda have to be thrown out the window since the fighting is necessary and not gratuitous or excessive. I know that you could say that about a lot of war movies but the thing that really made me forgive this one for being in a genre that I semi-despise was that the scenes of the brothers building the forest camp were much more important than the fight scenes.
Being a Jew, I have been exposed to an extensive amount of films and literature about the Holocaust and was not expecting this movie to be much different from the things I have seen and read. I was pleasantly surprised to finally see a new type of Holocaust survival tale, however. You guessed it; this was the story of the “defiance” of the Jews. Never do we hear of Jews fighting back like they do in this film. The movie did an excellent job of humanizing the killers on both sides, which made the movie all the more interesting, realistic and heart wrenching.
(SPOILER ALERT) You would think that watching Jews kill a Nazi would be sickeningly pleasurable, but this was not the case. In the first scene of Jewish revenge, Tuvia (the eldest Bielski brother) goes in to town to kill the police officer that murdered his father. Although Tuvia’s revenge killing is totally justified the audience is shown the face of the trembling Nazi begging for his life with his wife beside him screaming for mercy. This gives us no chance to revel in the violence. Instead, it puts the audience in a strange position where we relate to that human face of the Nazi, but also know that this terrified face has killed a father, a mother, a son, a daughter…In this way the scenes of violence in “Defiance” are really different than your average war movie.
The images of the helpless human body in the face of death reminded me of David Cronenberg’s “A History of Violence” where Cronenberg meticulously creates a scene in which the audience can revel in violence because the victim is deserving of it, but after the fact a close-up shot of the dead body makes us immediately feel disgusted and remember that the villain is still human like us. Even though “Defiance” puts a face to the Nazi, it in no way attempts to make the audience sympathize with the Germans. It is clear that the Jews fight to survive, and the Germans fight to kill…for this reason, Nazis are always the animal regardless of how “human” they are portrayed.
The stories of survival, the fighting, the relationships between the brothers, the loves that blossom in the forest camp, and the community that is built are all naturally woven in to each other and nothing seems forced or over the top.
Overall this movie was worth seeing. SEE IT. Even if you don’t like war movies, or Holocaust movies SEE IT. It’s a true story and an important one that should be told and spread.
-Sarah B.
Review #6: In Theatres Now - The Wrestler
A month ago, my friend asked me, "have you heard about this little indie movie with Mickey Rourke about an underdog washed up wrestler?" "No -- is it any good?" "Yeah, it was great, he might even win an oscar for this." "Oh cool. I'll definately check it out. Who directs it?" "Darren Arnofsky."
At this point all I said was "Oh", and then we dropped the subject. Its not that I don't like Arnofsky's films because "Requim for a Dream" was distrubingly brilliant and "The Fountain" was visually stunning, but I knew that I was going to have to strap in for an intense emotional rollarcoster, and considering the last three films I had seen -- Muholland Dr., Eastern Promises, 21 Grams (all crazily coincidentally starring Naomi Watts, who weird is that?) -- and I really didn't want to go see another one of those kinds of movies.
This weekend, after being getting dozens of "Why haven't you seen it yet?" from all different people, I check it out. Talk about a comeback; this is a truely amazing one.
Mickey Rourke so naturally becomes this broken down Wrestler that has to figure out how to keep going once he finds out that due his heart (I know, a pretty cliche metaphor) he can no longer Wrestle. He tries to replace the love he recieved from fans with that of a stripper with a heart of gold (Marisa Tomei), and by rekindling his relationship with the daughter he abandoned years ago (Evan Rachel Wood). The way he wrestles (no pun intended) with trying to live a "normal" life is so moving and truely heart-breaking, you can't help but love this underdog that can't ever seem to make things right. All he does is exist in a somewhat broken life where he can never find his way. In a lot of ways, wrestling is a lot like acting: The film depicts it as being entirely staged, and the men are just actors in play, going onto the same stage every night, using their facial expression, body language, voice and some very disturbing props in these dramatic one acts.
You have to give it to Rourke, who truely deserved to win last night and is even better here than Sean Penn in "Milk". He also shares a lot in common with another brave haunting performance, Melissa Leo in "Frozen River": Both are simultaneously a force-of-nature you don't want to reckon with, and lost souls that desperately needs others in order to even go on.
The Verdict: Run, do not walk, to go see one of the best performances in years.
- Ari S.
At this point all I said was "Oh", and then we dropped the subject. Its not that I don't like Arnofsky's films because "Requim for a Dream" was distrubingly brilliant and "The Fountain" was visually stunning, but I knew that I was going to have to strap in for an intense emotional rollarcoster, and considering the last three films I had seen -- Muholland Dr., Eastern Promises, 21 Grams (all crazily coincidentally starring Naomi Watts, who weird is that?) -- and I really didn't want to go see another one of those kinds of movies.
This weekend, after being getting dozens of "Why haven't you seen it yet?" from all different people, I check it out. Talk about a comeback; this is a truely amazing one.
Mickey Rourke so naturally becomes this broken down Wrestler that has to figure out how to keep going once he finds out that due his heart (I know, a pretty cliche metaphor) he can no longer Wrestle. He tries to replace the love he recieved from fans with that of a stripper with a heart of gold (Marisa Tomei), and by rekindling his relationship with the daughter he abandoned years ago (Evan Rachel Wood). The way he wrestles (no pun intended) with trying to live a "normal" life is so moving and truely heart-breaking, you can't help but love this underdog that can't ever seem to make things right. All he does is exist in a somewhat broken life where he can never find his way. In a lot of ways, wrestling is a lot like acting: The film depicts it as being entirely staged, and the men are just actors in play, going onto the same stage every night, using their facial expression, body language, voice and some very disturbing props in these dramatic one acts.
You have to give it to Rourke, who truely deserved to win last night and is even better here than Sean Penn in "Milk". He also shares a lot in common with another brave haunting performance, Melissa Leo in "Frozen River": Both are simultaneously a force-of-nature you don't want to reckon with, and lost souls that desperately needs others in order to even go on.
The Verdict: Run, do not walk, to go see one of the best performances in years.
- Ari S.
Sunday, January 11, 2009
Golden Globe Winners
Can I just say, WHOA!
Boy, I am very pleasently suprised here. Some major upsets here, and whats shocking is that they're in two of the biggest catagories.
Well let's start with Mickey Rourke winning for The Wrestler. I just saw this movie last night and thought to myself that he was just as good as Sean Penn, the major Frontrunner. This probably means the most for the Oscars, since they've both been running neck and neck for the past few weeks. Now the ball is really up in the air.
And Kate Winslet! Not one, but two awards! And can I just say, good for her -- its about time. Well I loved her in "Revolutionary Road" and think she is definately deserving of this award. In all honesty, I don't think that this will repeat at the oscars (though a win for "The Reader" might), but this means a lot for the film itself. It could easily go along for the ride and get noms for quite a few catagories -- now it has a shot at Best Picture, Actor, Supporting Actor, Director, Screenplay, and of course Best Actress.
And on the matter, Sally Hawkins' win will definately get her a nom.
Tina Fey's made me laugh so hard I think I almost cried. For those of you who didn't see it, she told every celebrity gossip site that has said shit about her for the past year to suck it. It was just brilliant.
All in all, a pretty good night, though my biggest complaint was that none of the speeches (other than Tina's) were very good.
What did you think?
-Ari S.
Friday, January 9, 2009
Golden Globes Predictions
Golden Globe Predictions
BEST FILM - DRAMA
I have mixed feelings about the films in this Catagory. I’m not sure I care who wins since my two favorite films -- “Rachel Getting Married” and “WALL-E” -- are not included here. “The Reader” is probably the biggest shocker here, but not too suprising. I didn’t go as ape-shit over “Slumdog Millionaire” as everyone else, but thats definately the forerunner here. I have a feeling, though, that “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” could win, considering the Globes have been known to love big “epic” films.
Who Will Win: Slumdog Millionaire
Who Should Win: (tie) The Curious Case of Benjamin Button or Revolutionary Road
BEST ACTOR - DRAMA
At this point, it’s really Sean Penns award. I can’t really imagine an upset happening here, but in terms of nominations, DiCaprio really needed this to stay in the game, so this is a plus for him but unfortunately, not for Richard Jenkins (“The Visitor”).
Who Will Win: Sean Penn
Who Should Win: Sean Penn
BEST ACTRESS - DRAMA
As it has been the past few years, this race is incredibly tight, but I would count out Jolie who will (hopefully) be replaced by either Sally Hawkins or Melissa Leo (“Frozen River”) come Oscar time. It’s clear that Anne Hathaway and Meryl Streep are the favorites, but Winslet and Scott Thomas have just as good of a chance at winning. The worst part is that everyone deserves to win -- I’ll just have to hope for a five-way tie.
Who Will Win: Anne Hathaway or Meryl Streep
Who Should Win: (tie) Anne Hathaway, Kristen Scott Thomas, Kate Winslet.... I’d be fin with anyone, really.
BEST FILM - COMEDY
No shockers other than “Sex and the City” missing from this catagory (and from Best Actress - Comedy). I am tempted to say that “Happy-Go-Lucky” is the dominent player, but “Vicky Christina Barcelona” and “Burn After Reading” could eaisly take this.
Who Should Win: Burn After Reading
Who Should Win: Happy-Go-Lucky
BEST ACTOR - COMEDY
I’m suprised that the HPFA even remembered “In Bruges” at all, let only these two performances. This catagory doesn’t matter too much since none of these men are going to the Oscars, but I suppose its probably between Javier Barden and Dustin Hoffman.
Who Will Win: Dustin Hoffman (?)
Who Should Win: I couldn’t care less.....
BEST ACTRESS - COMEDY
Sally Hawkins hands down. No one else even has a chance (though McDormand’s nom could help “Burn After Reading” win.)
Who Will Win: Sally Hawkins
Who Should Win: Sally Hawkins
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
You look at the Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Film nominees and wonder why the Golden Globes and HFPA get so much shit for their nominations -- and then we get a nominee like Tom Cruise in “Tropic Thunder”. The couldn’t nominate Michael Shannon, Emile Hirsch, Eddie Marsen, Bill Irwin or... just about anyone else other than Tom Cruise. Just so absurd...
I guess thats so irrelevant since we’re all 110% about who’ll win.
Who Will Win: Heath Ledger
Who Should Win: Heath Ledger
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Another hard-to-predict catagory, along with the Actress/Drama nominees. Its probably between Davis, Cruz and Winslet. Tomei will make it to the Oscars with them, and theres that open spot left open for either Amy Adams, RoseMarie Dewitt or Taraji P. Henson.
Who Will Win: Kate Winslet
Who Should Win: Penelope Cruz
BEST DIRECTOR
Who Will Win: Danny Boyle
Who Should Win: (tie) David Fincher or Danny Boyle
----------
Look at the full list of Nominees here
What do you think the outcome will be?
- Ari S.
BEST FILM - DRAMA
I have mixed feelings about the films in this Catagory. I’m not sure I care who wins since my two favorite films -- “Rachel Getting Married” and “WALL-E” -- are not included here. “The Reader” is probably the biggest shocker here, but not too suprising. I didn’t go as ape-shit over “Slumdog Millionaire” as everyone else, but thats definately the forerunner here. I have a feeling, though, that “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” could win, considering the Globes have been known to love big “epic” films.
Who Will Win: Slumdog Millionaire
Who Should Win: (tie) The Curious Case of Benjamin Button or Revolutionary Road
BEST ACTOR - DRAMA
At this point, it’s really Sean Penns award. I can’t really imagine an upset happening here, but in terms of nominations, DiCaprio really needed this to stay in the game, so this is a plus for him but unfortunately, not for Richard Jenkins (“The Visitor”).
Who Will Win: Sean Penn
Who Should Win: Sean Penn
BEST ACTRESS - DRAMA
As it has been the past few years, this race is incredibly tight, but I would count out Jolie who will (hopefully) be replaced by either Sally Hawkins or Melissa Leo (“Frozen River”) come Oscar time. It’s clear that Anne Hathaway and Meryl Streep are the favorites, but Winslet and Scott Thomas have just as good of a chance at winning. The worst part is that everyone deserves to win -- I’ll just have to hope for a five-way tie.
Who Will Win: Anne Hathaway or Meryl Streep
Who Should Win: (tie) Anne Hathaway, Kristen Scott Thomas, Kate Winslet.... I’d be fin with anyone, really.
BEST FILM - COMEDY
No shockers other than “Sex and the City” missing from this catagory (and from Best Actress - Comedy). I am tempted to say that “Happy-Go-Lucky” is the dominent player, but “Vicky Christina Barcelona” and “Burn After Reading” could eaisly take this.
Who Should Win: Burn After Reading
Who Should Win: Happy-Go-Lucky
BEST ACTOR - COMEDY
I’m suprised that the HPFA even remembered “In Bruges” at all, let only these two performances. This catagory doesn’t matter too much since none of these men are going to the Oscars, but I suppose its probably between Javier Barden and Dustin Hoffman.
Who Will Win: Dustin Hoffman (?)
Who Should Win: I couldn’t care less.....
BEST ACTRESS - COMEDY
Sally Hawkins hands down. No one else even has a chance (though McDormand’s nom could help “Burn After Reading” win.)
Who Will Win: Sally Hawkins
Who Should Win: Sally Hawkins
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
You look at the Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Film nominees and wonder why the Golden Globes and HFPA get so much shit for their nominations -- and then we get a nominee like Tom Cruise in “Tropic Thunder”. The couldn’t nominate Michael Shannon, Emile Hirsch, Eddie Marsen, Bill Irwin or... just about anyone else other than Tom Cruise. Just so absurd...
I guess thats so irrelevant since we’re all 110% about who’ll win.
Who Will Win: Heath Ledger
Who Should Win: Heath Ledger
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Another hard-to-predict catagory, along with the Actress/Drama nominees. Its probably between Davis, Cruz and Winslet. Tomei will make it to the Oscars with them, and theres that open spot left open for either Amy Adams, RoseMarie Dewitt or Taraji P. Henson.
Who Will Win: Kate Winslet
Who Should Win: Penelope Cruz
BEST DIRECTOR
Who Will Win: Danny Boyle
Who Should Win: (tie) David Fincher or Danny Boyle
----------
Look at the full list of Nominees here
What do you think the outcome will be?
- Ari S.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Review #5: Happy-Go-Lucky
A major goal amongst philosophers is to discern what the most important value in life is. Some say love, others say family or respect, but one thirty-year-old elementary school teacher says happiness.
We find an unlikely philosopher in Poppy, the eternally happy protagonist of “Happy-Go Lucky”, who refuses to be sad or waste time lamenting. The opening scene of “Happy-Go-Lucky” perfectly showcases Poppy’s…. well, “poppy-ness” if you will: She daydreams while gliding down a hill on her bicycle towards a market. She parks, and after dawdling in a bookshop, returns to see that her bike has been stolen. Her reaction? “I didn’t even get to say goodbye”, then continues on with her life. There is something that is simultaneously insightful and joyous about seeing the world through Poppy’s eyes, and the whole experience ends up feeling more like you’re spending time with Poppy rather than seeing her life play out.
Poppy lives in London with her flatmate/best friend Zoë and we see nothing more than an average few weeks of Poppy’s life. It’s a nice relief to not see her inheriting forty billion dollars or falling in love with her sister’s fiancée, but just observing what is essentially a character study and slice into Poppy’s life. Other than the pursuit of happiness, an arching theme is teaching. Poppy is currently dealing with a student with violent tendencies tats too young to know how to talk or channel his anger. Poppy herself has just started taking flamenco lessons with a harsh, obdurate, but caring instructor. She is also taking driving lessons (post-bike theft) with a driving instructor, Scott, who is a miserable man that could use some “poppy-ness” in his life, an is a foreshadow to what the angry boy in Poppy’s class might become.
And for those of you who might assume she grew up influenced like this, we see her antonym-like younger sister, pregnant, insecure and one who dwells on the bad, and Poppy’s even younger sister, who is just your average exhausted college student before exams. The possibility of danger or conflict is always lurking in the background, but that’s why this movie is about Poppy interacting and dealing with those who maybe aren’t as fortunate with finding happiness in their lives, and not the other way around.
Sally Hawkins is completely and utterly delightful and brilliant as Poppy. Because Hawkins is completely invested in the character, and creating such a welcoming and natural environment, you wouldn’t mind running to do dry cleaning with Poppy, because that’s how well and engrossing she plays her. Its impossible, and a little sad, to think that Hawkins doesn’t have a little “poppy-ness” in her.
Writer-Director Mike Leigh, thankfully, doesn’t send the message that we should all just be happy, and then all our problems will just disappear – we see Poppy’s faith in people, kindness and humanity challenged all throughout the movie. And after seeing her struggle through all in her way, it’s almost impossible to do anything other than love her, and only wish the best.
The movie ends with Poppy and Zoë in a rowboat on a small lake together. When reminiscing about the recent changes and events in her life, Zoë is there for her. And even though the two a rowing in circles, Leigh leaves the movie on a nice note that sums up the movie: Its ok to go in circles, as long as you have someone go in circles with.
- Ari S.
Saturday, January 3, 2009
REVIEW #4: In Theaters Now - THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON
Ari S
----
Just off the bat, I'm going to say that I recommend this movie, but you have to see it in theaters. I can’t imagine this being nearly as enjoyable if you’re pausing it to take a phone call every 2 minutes. And if you do choose to see it, be ready to be forgiving of its faults, and be ready to enjoy the nuance of Pitt’s long narrative storytelling accompained with beautiful cinematography and score.
In short, don't go in with any expectations, other than to be intruiged and suprised.
Ok, now the actual review:
"Benjamin Button" is about a man that is born old and dying and ages backwords as everyone and everything around him gets older. The film opens in present day, with a dying Daisy (Cate Blanchett) on her deathbed and her daughter, who is reading Benjamin's diary to her in Daisy's last hours. Brad Pitt plays the title character. We see him raised by Queenie (Tajari P. Henson) who runs and old age home where Benjamin fits in just fine. There he meets the granddaughter of one the residents, Daisy, who grows up to be Cate Blanchett (more on that later). Benjamin spends his adult years traveling the world, though never really in the right place at the right time.
I would have never expected David Fincher, known for crime-dramas such as SE7EN and ZODIAC to be the director of this "epic" -- being the operative word -- /romance. Its hard not to draw similarities between the movie and "Forrest Gump" -- two men who don't fit in with society, both join the navy, have tragic life long loves and have mothers that tell them a variation on the "Life is like a box of chocolates; You never know what you're gonna get" quote. And, if that wasn't enough, both screenplays are by the same man, Eric Roth. Its the end product and the film as a whole that makes "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" quite a different piece of work.
[MINOR SPOILERS IN THIS PARAGRAPH -- SKIP TO NEXT IF YOU CHOOSE]
To note the good: Every 20 minutes or so, you come across a scene, thats anywhere from thirty seconds to a minute or two that is so perfectly composed that its so heartbreakingly beautiful it makes you remember why the film works so well as a whole. To name a few -- A blind clockmaker unveils his backwards masterpiece, accompanied with a story of young men dying in war, but shot in reverse; Benjamin taking [SPOILER] his dying father to see the sunrise from the oceanfront porch on the family’s old summer home; Daisy [SPOILER] as an old woman, walking toddler-age Benjamin through a park, giving him a kiss; [SPOILER] The last shot of the movie showing the blind clockmakers piece being swept up in basement flood during Katrina -- I could go on for days about these type of moments.
[SPOILERS ARE OVER]
Pitt is able to hold the film together and to see him as an old man and a young boy, well lets just say the effects are visually stunning. Blanchett is fine, but its almost impossible to buy their relationship in the first half of the film, as they have almost no chemistry. There is one scene in which she tries to seduce him through a sensual ballet act, which would otherwise be utterly beautiful and engaging if she wasn't jammering her yap off about silly crap. Its like Eric Roth made her Poppy from "Happy-Go-Lucky" during the first hour and half of the movie. I think that where the movie seriously falls is that in the end, it tries (but THANKFULLY fails) to be Forrest Gump when it should try to be Big Fish. The one super HUGE issue I had with this movie was that they make no effort to make Cate Blanchett look young. In a scene in New York, she stars in “Carousal” and looks 38 when she is suppose to be 23. Just embarrassing on the filmmakers part, considering the spectacular effects making Pitt so organically old and young.
To sum it up, there is great story telling, beautiful visuals, decent acting and superb direction. The movie always feels like its 75% on the ball, missing one of the above, but as long as you can forgive that one fault it is a thoroughly enjoyable watching experience.
VERDICT: If you do see it, see it in Theaters. “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” is an aquired taste -- everyone will get something different out of this movie, though maybe some more than others.
Friday, January 2, 2009
Update: "Doubt", "Caché", "Happy-Go-Lucky" and More!
So since Sarah and I just saw Doub (at the grove), we'll probably put up I review sometime this week or next, which'll be either two reviews, or a joint review, or something that we're too lazy to figure out the legistics of yet....
I'm going to try to put up a review of "Caché" and "Happy-Go-Lucky", and maybe we'll try to do some not-figured-out-the-legistics-of joint review comparing "Night of the Living Dead" and "Dawn of the Dead" (2004) in a little while.
Plus, at the end of the month or so, we'll probably have our Top Ten of 08 and our Oscar Predictions, so start thinking about yours.
- Ari S.
[Sally Hawkins, depicted above, as the relentlessly optomistic elemtary school teacher in Mike Leigh's "Happy-Go-Lucky".]"
REVIEW #3: Quick Review - MILK
Ari S.
---
MILK, about the life and times of Harvey Milk (wink) is a great piece of art by the original indie-king, Gus Van Sant, about the first openly gay man elected to office. Sean Penn gives an Oscar worthy performance as the title character, and proves his never-ending range of acting. Josh Brolin is superb as Dan White, and would be a serious contender in awards season any other year (if not for Heath Ledger). Contrary to what most critics are saying, I think that it’s not James Franco who stands out after the two men above, but Emile Hirsch, who is the perfectly flamboyant “protégée”, Cleve Jones.
As a whole, the film works really well and it doesn’t feel like what you would expect from Van Sant, nor from a first-time screenwriter.
My only complaint is that I wish they’d have focused on Alison Pill’s character, Anne Kronenberg, someone that they only began to delve into the surface about.
Verdict: Must see
---
MILK, about the life and times of Harvey Milk (wink) is a great piece of art by the original indie-king, Gus Van Sant, about the first openly gay man elected to office. Sean Penn gives an Oscar worthy performance as the title character, and proves his never-ending range of acting. Josh Brolin is superb as Dan White, and would be a serious contender in awards season any other year (if not for Heath Ledger). Contrary to what most critics are saying, I think that it’s not James Franco who stands out after the two men above, but Emile Hirsch, who is the perfectly flamboyant “protégée”, Cleve Jones.
As a whole, the film works really well and it doesn’t feel like what you would expect from Van Sant, nor from a first-time screenwriter.
My only complaint is that I wish they’d have focused on Alison Pill’s character, Anne Kronenberg, someone that they only began to delve into the surface about.
Verdict: Must see
Thursday, January 1, 2009
REVIEW #2 - In Theatres Now: "Frost/Nixon"
Ari S.
---
For those of you expecting to see two brilliant actors reprising their iconic roles from the Tony Award winning play Frost/Nixon in a heart-pounding suspenseful film, with direction by Ron Howard that makes you feel like you are in the room with David Frost and Richard Nixon in the four-part series of interviews, all leading up to a show-stopping conclusion where Nixon admits to a grand sin -- well, mmm…. Not quite. Or at all.
Michael Sheen, who gave a pitch-perfect performance as Tony
Blair in “The Queen”, plays David Frost, a talk show host that comes up with a "wild" idea, that is, to interview Nixon, the superb Frank Langella (above), on TV just months after resigning from office. After getting a crack team of Nixon/Political aficionados together (ie. two guys and his girlfriend) to prepare for the interview, he scourges to find the money to produce the segment and a network to air it. That’s not his only troubles – he has set the last of the four interviews aside to talk with Nixon singularaly about Watergate, hoping to “give him the trial he never had”.
“Frost/Nixon” aspires to be great, a classic even, but falls very, very short. It takes an event that if frankly much less grand that what one would hope. If you ask anyone around the time of the interviews if they remember the world tuning in to see Nixon “confess” his crime, they’ll most likely tell you they have some vague recelection of reading about a blurb about it in that week’s paper. Now, set aside the fact that the event itself is not nearly the extravaganza it sets out to be, but it even fails at trying to be what its not, which maybe by far its biggest letdown.
The only bright light in the entire film is not just a small glimmer, but more like a blinding star --- Frank Langella as Richard Nixon. Langella is magnificent, just magnificent as Nixon, never going into impression-territory, nor adding any fiction to his manner. Langella will surely get an Oscar nomination (though an unlikely win) for his dead-on portrayal of not simple a former president, but as a version of his behind closed doors.
To sum it up, not a terrible movie, but I went in with absolutely no expectations and somehow I left feeling that “Frost/Nixon” didn’t meet my expectations.
Maybe I should set the bar lower next time.
Verdict: Wait till DVD.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
