Mister Tee wrote:But I really don't see who else the fifth nominee could be aside from Mirren.
If, as referenced in the other thread, Julia isn't even eligible (and I'm still iffy on that one), then yes, there is really very little to choose from for that fifth slot.
I realize he hasn't updated in a few weeks, but if Marion Cotillard's barely serviceable supporting performance in Nine is really in 6th among the contenders, any female performance is game.
The question would be, if not Mirren, who? The best actress category is already stretching to include Sandra Bullock, thanks to a shortage of qualified candidates. Lovely Bones is mostly getting slapped, hurting Ronan. It's not there's nobody outstanding; it's that there's vrtually NOBODY. It'd be nice to think a Board favorite like Swinton could slip in -- just like it'd be nice to be able to eat ice cream every day and not gain weight. But I really don't see who else the fifth nominee could be aside from Mirren.
I caught The Last Station this week in its LA Oscar-qualifying run, and I can't say I was much impressed. (Side note: can I just carp about how much I HATE these one-week qualifying runs? I hated them when I didn't live in LA and couldn't see these movies in February, and now I hate them because I'm rushing to see something I barely have much interest in like The Last Station over PLENTY of movies I'd rather see just so I don't have to wait weeks or months to be in the know.)
I didn't much mind the first twenty minutes or so. The cast is appealing and game, and the film seemed witty enough that we wouldn't be in for Another Stuffy Period Bio ™. But as the film went on, I thought it got a bit duller, and then I realized what I was really watching was Something That Should Just Be on TV ™.
I think part of the problem is that, as with a lot of uninteresting bios of writers, we don't see enough about what made the writer, in this case Tolstoy, notable. Certainly we don't really understand why McAvoy's character, and other Tolstoyans would worship the man to the extent they do in this film. And then I guess we're supposed to understand that McAvoy's character changes due to his experience with the Tolstoys, but these filmmakers apparently didn't learn the "show, not tell" rule in film school.
To top it off, the narrative seems really lacking in meat, though not for the performers' lack of trying in amping up the histrionics. I've liked Paul Giamatti and Helen Mirren a lot this decade, but here they just lay on the ham. (Mirren's suicide attempt is particularly laughable, and she's got a plate smashing scene that seems a lame attempt to out-Oscar-clip Sissy Spacek.) Christopher Plummer fares a bit better, as the gruff, wise old man, but I don't think the role is very challenging; it's certainly not complex work. And James McAvoy is a total cipher.
As for its Oscar chances, I have no idea how this one will go. If I had my way, it would be completely DOA. But there's definitely a chance that those elements which completely turned me off would appeal to say, the tradition of quality crowd. I also wonder about the acting campaigns -- Mirren is being pushed for lead but Plummer supporting? It seems to me their roles are about the same size. (I guess we should be thankful that McAvoy, in the Timothy Hutton spot, isn't being promoted in support.) Personally, I wouldn't nominate any of them, though I certainly wouldn't begrudge Plummer any kind of long-overdue recognition.
Mostly a dull film -- I didn't find much that was notable or compelling about this one at all.
PAUL BLART: MALL COP: I'm fairly shocked that this was such a huge hit, making almost $150 million domestically. Not only is it stupid, narratively lazy, and devoid of laughs, it's also the most depressing comedy since Fatso. I would have thought word of mouth (or, more accurately, word of texting) would have stopped this dead in its tracks. The one positive element: Shirley Knight has lost a lot of weight since As Good As It Gets.
3/10
Edited By Damien on 1260436672
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell
TWO LOVERS
Cast: Joaquin Phoenix, Gwyneth Paltrow, Vinessa Shaw, Isabella Rossellini, Elias Koteas, Moni Moshonov.
Dir: James Gray.
James Gray is emerging to be one of contemporary cinema's major filmmakers. Although I did not like this as much as his previous effort, We Own The Night, this is still an excellent film where he hits most of the right notes. I hope Joaquin Phoenix snaps out of his nutty rap artist fantasies and resume his acting career. The rest of the cast especially were great as well.
Oscar Prospects: None but it SHOULD be a contender for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Original Screenplay and Best Supporting Actress (Paltrow).
The reason that I think Up in the Air is going to win Best Picture is because Slumdog Millionaire last year, it has become more than the movie that it is. Very much so. It's worth noting that Jason Reitman opted for pathos instead of using those laid off as a source of humor. This was a good call, but one that could have just as easily been re-shot had he seen the error of his ways later. Along the way, he was reformed, so to speak. The online snark du jour re: Up in the Air is that it is its own Up in the Air. As Ryan Bingham learns (inevitably) to yearn for something shared in life, Jason Reitman fails to allow his characters to share honest moments on-screen. As with Thank You for Smoking, he cuts on the punchline. I found that film only occasionally enjoyable and Juno much of the same. If Juno is all Diablo Cody, then like Thank You for Smoking this is all Reitman. All his films refuse easy sentimentality, but someone needs to tell him that it doesn't make you Billy Wilder.
This is Jason Reitman's best script. It covers a swath of area in Ryan Bingham's life that is the rare balance of textbook, mechanical, and prodigious. The writer in me views this script like Vera Farmiga eyes up his miles. Reitman isn't just filming his script. He has sequences in mind, montages, jump-cuts. He's a strong "sequencian" but really all he's doing is finding ways around digging into the heart. This is a shame because there is a pulsing heart to dig into. Even though I don't think Clooney is ever going to do anything as vibrant as Jack Foley again, he's great in Up in the Air. Anyone else is inconceivable. I deeply enjoy what he exemplifies on-screen so already I'm mostly on board. Give him wonderful Vera Farmiga (relaxed for a change!) to spar with, and I'm halfway feeling that great Out of Sight-buzz. She makes his inevitable yearning for something else seem real. The buzz is around Kendrick but Vera Farmiga does for Clooney what Minnie Driver did for John Cusack: she makes the yearning seem worthwhile.
Anna Kendrick walks a tightrope in this film and she makes it look pretty easy. It's like the racing cursor in her mind is inexorably tied to how much her hair is pulled back. Her teary breakdown, her obstinate glares, her drunken abandon, they all work, but I don't think anybody involved is interested in looking past her facade too deeply. All her cards are basically on the table very quickly. There are no to-be-cherished moments between Clooney and Kendrick, and then all too quickly their game is over. I feel like the film is missing a beat or two more with Kendrick before she's shuffled off. I loved Kendrick in Rocket Science so for me this character felt a little bit like retread. Because she is counterbalance to Clooney, we're going to impulsively root against her ever so slightly, but her arc doesn't extend as far as I would like.
I'm struggling here. It's fine. It's all a little too calculated, which probably works better for Juno because that whole thing is so generic and yet unformed that a performance-capable technician really is for the best. But here, I would've appreciated something that took a little while to smell the roses. It zooms along a little too efficiently for my tastes. And for something so relevant, there's remarkably little too say. Ten years after American Beauty, Lester Burnham is fired by this guy. I like this guy more.
A CHRISTMAS CAROL
Cast: Jim Carrey, Gary Oldman, Colin Firth, Bob Hoskins, Carey Elwes, Robin Wright Penn, Fionnula Flanagan.
Dir: Robert Zemeckis
This is probably the best of Robert Zemeckis' motion-capture directorial work (It's way better than that ridiculous Beowulf). Mostly to the strength of the original story which is one of my personal favorites. Apart from a few show-offy CGI action scenes really does nothing too new with the story. It's still entertaining for what it is. I saw this on 3-D. It is my best experience with the format but I still don't see the big deal.
Oscar Prospects: An outside shot at Animated Feature. Maybe Sound Mixing, Sound Editing and Original Score. I'm not sure if the song "God Bless Us Everyone" is eligible because parts of it seem to sample a pre-existed Christmas song.
This film has received a lot of hype with people calling it "the scariest movie ever made". Well, not quite but it did spook me quite a bit and for someone who has seen a lot, that's saying quite a bit. It didn't blow me away but for what it is, it's quite entertaining.
Sonic Youth wrote:If you loved the opening credits music as much as I do, it's called "On the Rebound" by Floyd Cramer. Here it is.
So glad you mentioned this...I just viewed this last night and I know it's small and usually arbitrary or maybe even a negligible portion of a film, but the opening (title) sequence often times can heighten my excitement. This was the case with this film...pure joy. I found the last quarter to be very inconsistent and yes, overall, a slight film no doubt.
Ha! I just returned from a second viewing of An Education. I enjoyed it more the second time, and despite it's banal moments I appreciated Scherfig's care and sensitivity to the material. It's as diverting a film as one can expect from such well-trodden material. But I maintain that Sarsgaard is the weak link and considering how vital he is to the story, it's a huge problem. If you recall, [SPOILER]she wasn't the only one he conned. ("At least you're not in the family way.") But I think this should be discussed in the official "Education" thread so as not to spoil it for anyone.
If you loved the opening credits music as much as I do, it's called "On the Rebound" by Floyd Cramer. Here it is.
I think Sonic Youth was right to describe this film as a "wee thing." But I found it to be more than "moderately entertaining." And that was because of the performances of Carey Mulligan, Alfred Molina and Peter Sarsgaard. Carey Mulligan was absolutely delightful, completely convincing as a sixteen year old, completely convincing as a sixteen year old with a high level of intelligence, curiosity and confidence to go on the adventure she went on and with the emotional maturity to handle it and come out all right at the end. Mulligan and Molina are deserving of Oscar nominations. Sarsgaard is not but I thought he was very good. Sonic was right to describe him as "weak tea" but I do not think he was supposed to be extremely suave and clever. He is a low level con man and the people he snowed and bowled over with his charm were a sixteen year old and her unsophisticated family. I think it was perfectly appropriate that he ended up being an unimpressive jerk. Good work by Sarsgaard. But the story was pretty weak and unoriginal. The music was wonderful and set the mood perfectly.
7/10
Edited By kaytodd on 1258909056
The great thing in the world is not so much where we stand, as in what direction we are moving. It's faith in something and enthusiasm for something that makes a life worth living. Oliver Wendell Holmes
I don't have the energy to go back and search, but I don't remember anyone weighing in on Whatever Works.
This is, basically, an uninspired rehash for Woody. The Pygmallion plot is out of Annie Hall; the everybody-gets-a-partner ending recalls Hannah and Her Sisters. The Clarkson/Begley characters are treated insultingly (and you have to go some to offend me with portrayals of Bible-thumpers). Not only are they presented as morons -- they're morons who've been lying to themselves their whole lives, and shed their entire personas seemingly within moments of landing in NY to become Woody-approved libertines. (These transformations, and much else in the film starting with Wood's arrival, are wildly implausible) Oh, and there's also the usual "rock music is noise/swing and classical are the only acceptable genres" proseltyzing that's always annoyed me.
With all that...in among Larry David's rather non-stop insulting rants were some genuine laugh lines that brought to mind the Woodman in his heyday. Back then, they'd have shown up more regularly -- at a maybe .500 clip, rather than the 1-out-of-10 rate achieved here -- but I do have to acknowledge they were there and made me laugh out loud. Otherwise, a waste of time, especially for non Allen fans.
