You're not wrong, you're just stupid

Mother and Child: Touching, Loving, and Daring

2010-06-22T05:40:00.002-05:00

There is a time throughout the constant release of summer blockbusters in the months of May through August when a tiny, independent film makes its way (often slowly) into theaters across the nation. I experienced this pleasure earlier in the summer with the film Chloe starring Amanda Seyfried and Julianne Moore and have once again experienced it - to an even greater extent - with Rodrigo Garcia's film Mother and Child. With an appropriate rating of 82% over at Rotten Tomatoes, critics agree: this film is an honest portrayal of motherhood and adoption and an emotional roller coaster that will have you identifying with each character's struggle, joy, and heartbreak.

The film explores the topic of motherhood and adoption through three storylines that eventually intertwine, a narrative tool used by Garcia in in his previous works such as Nine Lives. Karen (Annette Bening) is a troubled, middle-aged woman who gave up her daughter (Naomi Watts) almost 40 years ago after giving birth at 14. Elizabeth (Naomi Watts) is a powerful, career-obsessed woman who eventually struggles with her own issues of adoption. Finally, Lucy (Kerry Washington) searches for the adoption of a daughter of her own with her husband.

One of the strongest aspects of the film, as many critics observe, are the performances. A.O. Scott with the New York Times says it best: "If you need reasons to see 'Mother and Child,' just read the names between the parentheses of this review (and add Jimmy Smits, as a goodhearted co-worker of Karen’s who gently tries to pierce her armor)." Our three leads supply incredible insights with characters that are complex yet recognizable, however Elizabeth's lines are sometimes stiff to remind us of her power and independence, yet the supporting roles are just as excellent and surprising. Samuel L. Jackson and Jimmy Smits play incredible, caring men who make the extra effort to care for the women they love. Shareeka Epps ()who deserved and received praise for her breakout role in Half Nelson) plays a tough, intelligent pregnant woman giving up her baby for adoption. Each character is full of realism and life, written incredible by Rodrigo Garcia's words. Another comfort with the characters in Mother and Child is the racial diversity: it's always nice to see a collection of color on-screen instead of the Hollywood white-wash effect.

Garcia's writing and direction help carry these characters throughout their three incredible plot lines, eventually intersecting at the film's end. What I try to find, when looking for great writing in a film, is the ability for a film to make comment on a number of issues throughout. This film, essentially, is concerned with motherhood and adoption, however, Garcia takes on many issues such as age, religion, and race. There is one scene where Elizabeth brings Paul (Samuel L. Jackson) to her apartment. She runs into her stereotypical, white, married neighbors and introduces him, comically stating "He's my father." She then remarks to Paul that it's only a matter of time until the couple speculates the hypothetical birth of their child: "Will it be white? Will it be black?" These quick interludes between these taboo topics are executed well within Garcia's intelligent writing.

What can really set a scene for emotional success isn't always dialogue. Very often, a scene is strongest when a character is doing what appears to be nothing: staring off-screen, laughing, or even putting on make-up. Michael Koresky with indieWIRE comments on Garcia's talent with this tool: "And though the film could never be called visually daring, Garcia here and there makes room for expertly crafted little grace notes..." There is one excellent scene where Elizabeth stands in an elevator, holding back a painful cry that she so excruciatingly longs to execute. These instances happen quite often throughout the film and caused this critic to swell up with tears, an action personally not often executed when watching a film. Garcia is at his best with his direction in this film, executing strong, emotional scenes with the smallest touches.

Ann Hornaday with The Washington Post is one of few critics who disliked the film, stating the film is "handled with restraint and insight -- at least until the film's maudlin, too-pat finale." Hornaday doesn't quite delve into the details of her dislike with the finale, but it is difficult to trust a review when Hornaday constantly misspells Garcia's last name. She either needs a spelling lesson or needs to escape her upper-class L.A. home.

But who should see the film? Ideally, everyone: no matter your age, sex, or gender, there is always an aspect of each character and storyline with which to identify. However, this film is meant for mothers and daughters. There is one scene in the film where Lucy struggles to calm her baby's cries. Ultimately defeated, she calls upon her mother who successfully puts the baby to sleep. Lucy herself continues crying, exclaiming "I don't love this baby. I can't do this." Her mother quickly reacts, scolding her: "What the fuck did you think being a mother was?" This is the central message of the film: to divulge the difficulties of motherhood, whether it is through nature or nurture, and identify the various struggles that each woman may face. After viewing the film I encouraged my own mother to buy a ticket, and I encourage all the rest of you as well.

Sex and the City 2: A Party without PC

2010-06-22T05:30:00.001-05:00

This was originally posted on May 31, 2010.

Sex and the City 2 begins like every day should: with glamor and gays. The first 20 or so minutes of the film are devoted to a gay wedding, making politically incorrect statements about marriage and homosexuals. But the lack of political correctness only worsens when the girls make it to the Middle East, ignoring one cultural tradition after another. If an anthropologist were to view this film, they would have a heart attack. Lucky for most SATC fans, we're not anthropologists.

In the sequel to the hugely successful film debut of the popular TV series, Sex and the City 2 carries the girls from one side of the world to another. Samantha Jones (Kim Cattrall) flies Carrie (Sarah Jessica Parker), Miranda (Cynthia Nixon), and Charlotte (Kristin Davis, who hosts some of the best one-liners of the film) to Abu Dhabi to take advantage of an all-expenses-paid PR trip. They're immediately immersed in glamorous, fashionable conquests in the Middle East, all accompanied with drama. Carrie runs into ex-boyfriend Aidan, Miranda struggles with unemployment, Charlotte fusses over motherhood, and Samantha deals with her sex drive at 52.

One critic after another agrees that Sex and the City 2 is a complete and utter dud. Cinematical's Eric Snider reviewed the film, dripping in sarcasm, primarily upset with (besides the entire thing) the running time, 146 minutes: "There's nothing wrong with Sex and the City 2 that couldn't be fixed by shaving 45 minutes off the running time and replacing Carrie Bradshaw with a character who isn't spoiled and unlikable." For many, this running time is of no importance. The first film, Sex and the City, also ran at a whopping two-and-a-half hours, but I feel that both films succeed in creating and engrossing the audience into a great story. Sure, it doesn't follow your standard screenplay development, but it will engross you into the world of New York and Abu Dhabi.

The Hollywood Reporter takes a less sarcastic approach to their review, citing creator/writer/producer/director Michael Patrick King's script as unbalanced: "Carrie's minor marital problems are given way too much attention, whereas the intriguing
dilemmas of Miranda and Charlotte are downplayed." One of the popular themes of SATC 2 is the idea that marriage isn't always conventional. Not only does the film start out with a gay marriage, but Carrie and Big begin to make their own rules, like Big's proposal of taking a two-day hiatus each week. The struggle between the simple, conventional ideas of marriage are something that make the film so interesting. Taking a scissor to the reel of this storyline would dilute the material to almost nothing. As for Miranda and Charlotte, I do agree that their storylines are downplayed, but this is perhaps due to the random outing to the Middle East, where occupations and children are nowhere to be found. There is one delightful, emotional scene between the two beauties that brings a familiar discussion to mother's ears everywhere.

Roger Ebert scathes the film in his review, spitting out one sarcastic sentence after another. His primary complaint seems to be the sexy fashion of the film: "Carrie and Samantha also display the maximum possible boobage, oblivious to Arab ideas about women's modesty. There's more cleavage in this film than at a pro wrestler's wedding." Indeed, much of the wardrobe in the film promotes "boobage" over modesty, but this isn't the issue. The issue is much to do with the conflicting lines in the script, where Miranda constantly badgers Samantha for showing her cleavage and legs. Yet, when the gang goes on a camel ride in the desert, Carrie seems to have more cleavage than dress.

My biggest complaint for this glamorous, cleavage-obsessed film is the lack of drama. The first film, I believed was successful in its dramatic moments and most rewarding during the times of tears and anger (specifically the Valentine's Day dinner between Carrie and Miranda). Sex and the City 2 has its drama but not to the same degree: we are blinded by the lavish surroundings of the girls in Abu Dhabi (although, little secret, these scenes were film in Morrocco) and flashed with one glittering jewel (or man's package) after another.

There are many statements from the girls that are so overtly politically incorrect one may pause to decide whether to laugh or cringe. But, if anybody has been paying attention to the advertisements, this is about having a ball. This is not the same film as the first Sex and the City or the same content as the HBO television show. This is supposed to be a party, and it is a flamboyant one at that. So enjoy it. This movie is for the gays and gals, not the heterosexual, middle-aged men who review it (note: I am nowhere near that category).

Still Lost with "LOST"

2010-05-24T11:54:00.001-05:00

The series finale of LOST finally premiered last night and guess what peeps - it was CRAY CRAY (as usual)! Everyone and their mom literally made an appearance on the series finale with some really intense, beautiful emotional scenes. My personal favorite was the appearance by Juliette as Jack's wife.

The entire episode was centered around the idea of love and trust. Each character has expressed love for someone or something: Jack and Kate, Sawyer and Juliette, Locke and the island, etc. Even more important is the love each character has had after the death one of the characters: again, Sawyer and Juliette.

There is a scene at the end of the finale where Jack meets his father once again, but this time not on the island. They have an incredibly ambiguous discussion that basically tells the audience and all LOST fans: this doesn't make sense and never will. Jack says: "How are you here right now?" and his father responds "How are you here?" And they pretty much say that you're alive and dead and have been.

In the final act, when on the island, Jack saved the island from beind destroyed and died doing so. Hurley and Ben were left on the island to take care of it. Kate, Sawyer, Claire and the rest of the gang made it off the island and back to "reality" (whatever that is).

My biggest problem with the finale was the religious undertone at the end. Someone said to me, after complaining about this randomness, that LOST has always been about faith but I disagree. LOST has always been about trust - characters constantly tell each other "You just have to trust me." I feel that this religious message at the end was quite random and inappropriate. What do you think? Did you enjoy the finale? Leave your comments so we can have a dicussion!

Chloe is Strong, Complex, and Mysterious

2010-04-10T17:05:00.002-05:00

Amanda Seyfried has become a household name since her lead role in Mamma Mia! Before, Seyfried starred as a supporting actress in the not-so-complicated (but hilarious) Mean Girls and then moved to more heated material with HBO's polygamist drama series Big Love. Now, Seyfried stars in her riskiest role to date as an erotic seductress in Chloe. In the film, Chloe (Seyfried) is hired by gynecologist Catherine Steward (Julianne Moore) to uncover her suspicion that her husband, David (Liam Neeson), is cheating.

The highest rating Chloe has received at Rotten Tomatoes is 69% (convenient, considering the explicit sexuality of the film), a rating with which I wholeheartedly disagree. The film has its scenes that just don't work (many of which consist of Catherine's son), a few cliches (as Ebert puts it, a house out of Architectural Digest), but the film has two incredible female lead performances from Seyfried and, of course, Moore.

One of Cinematical writer Monika Bartyzel's distinct complaints about the film is the performances, stating:

The perofrmances seem fine, but removed... this is an erotic thriller, and if you can't feel that attraction, that need, that at-all-odds desire, it won't unfold and grab you as it should.

Her definition of the performances need in an erotic thriller are accurate, however, her perception of these performances is something I disdain. Chloe is a character to which you must feel a certain ambiguity towards; her motives appear ambivalent. You believe, at first, that Chloe is simply doing her job. But you then begin to question her motives: is she trying to help Catherine? Is she interested in Catherine's husband? Catherine's son? Seyfried has stated in interviews that her research for this role consisted of lengthy discussions with its director, Atom Egoyan, and I believe these interviews created an incredible execution of the character. Every move, every word is spoken with accuracy and seduction because, as Chloe says in the opening lines of the film, she's always been good with words.

There is always at least one sentence (if not the whole article) in New York Times critic A.O. Scott's reviews that I find inaccurate. Scott's review can be summarized by one line near the end of his article:

The heavy-breathing soft-core action, accompanied by Mychael Danna’s engorged musical score, is not itself objectionable, but it lacks any real dramatic vitality or emotional charge.

Mr. Scott's ignorance pollutes my perception of the film. The "soft-core" action that Scott describes is always accompanied by Danna's score, both of which I found incredibly emotional. The intimacy between Chloe and David cannot just be described as sexual but incredibly emotional because it always refers back to Catherine. There are two scenes where Chloe and David are intimate, and the emotional charge is so effective because it is inter-cut with Catherine's reactions. Even when Chloe describes the intimate relationships between herself and David, the descriptions are jarring because of the effect they have on Catherine.

For me, the most important quality of a film are its performances. There are films, such as Precious or even Julie & Julia, where a screenplay is not as strong as it could be. But strong female performances (from Mo'Nique and Streep) can make a film so much stronger. With Chloe, we are met with the strongest performance by Amanda Seyfried to date. Her character is so complex and her perception and delivery are spot on. The conversations between Seyfried and Moore are so raw and effective - both actresses are on par and have an intense chemistry.

Other strong aspects of the film include its score and cinematography. A.O. Scott may describe Mychael Danna's score as "engorged," but I would say the opposite. Half of the score was appropriately subtle throughout the film. There is a constant theme of guitar strings that represent Chloe's intimate presence in a scene. For me, these pieces are the strongest of the entire score. The cinematography, Cinematical agrees, is stunning. Paul Sarossy creates a visual character throughout the film. In one scene, cross-cutting between Chloe's and David's erotic meet-up and Catherine in the shower, Sarossy presents his strongest abilities as cinematographer.The beauty of the camera movement and framing of the shots communicate incredible symbolism and foreshadowing.

The movie's storyline and subject matter is so complex and interesting; screenwriter Erin Cressida Wilson has done an incredible job handling such complicated material. Although there are some scenes where the dialogue is stiff, the film keeps you constantly questioning the motives of Chloe, even when the end credits begin to role. There is always a question of "Will this film be good?" as one takes their seat in the audience. Sometimes a movie that leaves you questioning is a movie that answers your first question. Yes, Chloe is strong in many aspects, and I cannot get it out of my head.

What does the "iSlate" mean for Hollywood?

2010-01-27T11:44:00.001-06:00

The Hollywood Reporter has an interesting article on what the new Apple tablet has in store for Hollywood. What has been rumored to be named "the iSlate," Apple will announce details of the product soon (less than an hour)! It is expected to be tight competition with Amazon Kindle, an electronic reader, and will [of course] be fully loaded with other multimedia options.

According to Whitney, Hollywood isn't taking the iSlate seriously:

"The whole game is changing, and this is just one play in the game," says Jared Tobman, executive vp digital and production at Reveille. "Apple has a great playbook for how the new game will be played, but I don't think one device or one company presents the salvation or the end of content distribution as we know it."

Whitney should realize that this quote doesn't at all represent all of Hollywood. This quote, in fact, is quite naive. To say that one device or company can present the end of distribution may be true, but does Tobman recognize Apple's presence? It has already chance the distribution of media. iTunes began as a device for the music industry but has developed into distribution for both television and film (Hollywood and independent media).

The article also acknowledges Apple's presence with consumers, stating the tablet "...is the most buzzed-about because of the company's high marks with consumer experience and because of the iPhone's popularity."

This is, of course, another important aspect. Apple's popularity with consumers has that much more affect on the changes of content distribution with multimedia. Apple has developed an incredible amount of devotion from eager consumers who will demand their media when they want it.

"The TV business model already is under enormous pressure as studios and networks look for ways to shave costs from scripted content. There are only so many ad dollars to go around, which is why devices that support and encourage paid models are alluring. That includes smartphones like those from Apple and Google."

Here, again, we see another inclination toward the gray areas of distribution. Along with new technology comes increased costs to share distribution in every format. When one new technology is introduced, such as the iSlate, distributors must gather the funding - and with this economy is no easy task - to supply consumers with what they want. We, as consumers, demand what we want. Apple gives us this opportunity and distribution companies in all forms of media must comply.

My Oscar Nominations Wish List

2010-01-25T23:20:00.001-06:00

The Academy Award nominations will be announced in about one week on Tuesday, February 2 at 5:30am PST. For now, I have compiled my own list of the major categories. Check them out and let me know what your nominations are! The bolded ones are my picks!

The Academy Awards will air Sunday, March 7, 2010.

Best Picture

(500) Days of Summer
An Education
A Single Man
- This film will certainly not receive the statue and it may not even receive the nomination it rightfully deserves. When I think Best Picture, I think Best Everything, and this film has it all. The performances are incredible and the adaptation from script to screen is extremely gratifying. What Isherwood completes in writing Tom Ford enhances in both the script and the visuals of the film. The range of emotions in the film is simple yet it holds such an incredible tone of beauty throughout its entirety.
Avatar
District 9
Inglorious Basterds
Los abrazos rotos
Nine
Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire
Up in the Air

Actor in a Leading Role

Colin Firth -- A Single Man
- You can bet he won't win it. Jeff Bridges will certainly take this statue home (I still have yet to see him in Crazy Heart), but I firmly believe Firth's turn as a single, lonely, recovering man is incredible. Firth accomplishes so much emotion without even opening his mouth, and when he does - to only mutter a simple sentence - it flows confidently and desperately.
Daniel Day-Lewis -- Nine
George Clooney -- Up in the Air
Jeff Bridges -- Crazy Heart
Willem Dafoe - Antichrist

Actress in a Leading Role

Carey Mulligan -- An Education
- Sandra Bullock has been taking home the awards lately. It seems to be that Bullock and Streep have been going head to head (and tying for the Critic's Choice Award). But the real star in this category is Mulligan. There is such confident in her character, but Mulligan places the ignorance and naivety of a teenager right alongside it. Mulligan has truly made a breakthrough with this performance but, unfortunately, she will not receive proper recognition. Sandra Bullock, if you even get a nomination... >.<
Charlotte Gainsbourg -- Antichrist
Emily Blunt -- The Young Victoria
Gabourey “Gabby” Sidibe -- Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire
Meryl Streep -- Julia & Julia

Actor in a Supporting Role

Christian McKay -- Me and Orson Welles
Christoph Waltz -- Inglorious Basterds
- He's been sweeping the awards and he deserves them all entirely. Waltz's turn as a Nazi killer in Tarantino's masterpiece is haunting and hilarious. There is so much joy watching this character unfold his cringing words with a smirk on his face. Waltz will get it, don't you fret.
Matt Damon -- Invictus
Stanley Tucci -- The Lovely Bones

Actress in a Supporting Role

Anna Kendrick -- Up in the Air
Julianne Moore -- A Single Man
Mo’Nique -- Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire
- As I've said before, Mo'Nique is really the only woman in this category who has blown me away. Her transition from comedy to drama is impeccable - she embraced this role more than almost any role I've seen on film (however, nothing can beat Marion Cotillard in La Vie En Rose). As I said in my review of the film in November: Mo' Nique will nab the Oscar.
Penelope Cruz -- Nine
Vera Farmiga -- Up in the Air

Directing

James Cameron -- Avatar
- Avatar, despite its incredibly lame and unoriginal script, is an original masterpiece of filmmaking. It's the future, and James Cameron carried it.
Jason Reitman -- Up in the Air
Lars von Trier - Antichrist
Lee Daniels - Precious: Based on the story Push by Sapphire
- I know I'm stretching it here, putting six nominees, but I would like to say that, out of respect for Mr. Daniels, we need more black men in cinema. And we need more gay men in cinema. And he did an outstanding job with Precious.
Quentin Tarantino -- Inglorious Basterds
Tom Ford – A Single Man

Writing (Original Screenplay)

(500) Days of Summer -- Scott Neustadter, Michael H. Weber
Antichrist – Lars von Trier
A Serious Man – Ethan Coen, Joel Coen
The Hurt Locker -- Mark Boal
Inglorious Basterds -- Quentin Tarantino
- He'll get it.

Writing (Adapted Screenplay)

An Education -- Nick Hornby
District 9 -- Neill Blomkamp, Terri Tachell
Julia & Julia -- Nora Ephron
Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire --
Up in the Air -- Jason Reitman, Sheldon Turner
- They'll get it.

Foreign Language Film

Los abrazos rotos
- Out of the films that have been nominated for past awards, this is the only one I have seen. The only other one I'm really looking forward to is The White Ribbon.

Music (Score)

Avatar -- James Horner
A Single Man --Abel Korzeniowski
- Screw you, Up. This score is impeccable!
Up – Michael Giacchino
Where the While Things Are -- Carter Burwell, Karen Orzolek

Music (Song)

Avatar -- James Horner, Simon Franglen, Kuk Harrel (“I See You”)
Nine -- Maury Yeston (“Cinema Italiano”)
Where the Wild Things Are -- Karen Orzolek, Nick Zinner (“All Is Love”)

Cinematography

Avatar
Inglorious Basterds
Nine
A Single Man

Makeup

Avatar
District 9
Fantastic Mr. Fox
Inglorious Basterds
Nine

Costume Design

Inglorious Basterds
Nine
A Single Man
The Young Victoria

Art Direction

Avatar
Fantastic Mr. Fox
Inglorious Basterds
A Single Man
The Young Victoria

Visual Effects

Avatar (duh)

Animated Feature Film

Coraline
Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs
Fantastic Mr. Fox
- This film is stunning with its animation. It's one-of-a-kind yet Up keeps taking this category, when it is absolutely nothing new for Pixar.
The Princess and the Frog
Up

A Single Man is One-Of-A-Kind

2010-01-16T17:00:00.002-06:00

There are times when a film is so anticipated that it can be a disappointment. When Little Children was receiving its Oscar buzz in 2006 I fled to my nearest bookstore and purchased the book. To my delight, I loved it. When I finally saw the film, however, I hated it. This also brings about the problem of adaptation where the book is often always better than the film. For A Single Man I did the same – I quickly read the novel by Christopher Isherwood and fell in love with it. The film adaptation directed by Tom Ford, I am happy to report, is just as attractive and touching – if not more so than the novel.

Deborah Young with The Hollywood Reporter says: “Most of the action takes place over the course of a single day in Los Angeles in the early '60s, when being gay was socially disapproved. The film brushes ever so lightly on the issue of discrimination…” This distinction is important for the film and filmgoers. Many audiences may be surprised and disappointed by the gay subject matter of the film (thanks to the Weinstein Company’s heterosexually overwrought trailer), but one must note that the homosexuality is almost unimportant. There is no preaching of the acceptance of homosexuality, but instead a certain modernism exists. In 1962 homosexuality was much different – and almost unapparent – compared to today. Like the novel, homosexuality is not an issue. The script depicts it as just there.

It seems the reviews do not have any singularity to them. As I shift from one review (from the New York Times) to another (Roger Ebert) they continually pick on the visual richness of the film. indieWIRE fully agrees, stating: “…viewers who are totally cool with the gay themes still may be turned off by an 105 minute hybrid of moving painting and perfume commercial.” This is an ignorant exaggeration. It seems - since last saw the film - that nearly half was made up of intense close-ups of various images: a beautiful, blooming flower; a Latino man exhaling his cigarette smoke; a pair of eyes staring into the camera. If this is agitating to an audience member, I would simply tell them that they do not understand the film. The depiction of beauty is the message of the film: something so little, like one’s eyes looking into yours, can be so effective and significant. George travels through his day silent, quiet, and perceptive. He is an observer and discoverer of the beauty in his life, no matter how small.

What each review collectively respects are the performances of the film, specifically Colin Firth, whom many of you only recognize as love interests in Bridget Jones’ Diary and Mamma Mia. From Manohla Darvis of NY Times: “…the director knows how to exploit his actor’s reserve to terrific effect, as when he sets the camera in front of Mr. Firth’s face in one critical scene and just lets the machine record the tremors of emotion cracking the facade.” Indeed, Firth is exceptional as George. He goes about his day with such reserve. When you look into his face you almost know what he’s thinking, but not quite. When he interacts with his student, Mr. Potter (Nicholas Hoult), George’s face comes alive. Julianne Moore is incredibly playful and dramatic with her role as George’s intimate best friend, and Matthew Goode’s role as George’s dead lover, Jim, brightens each flashback with a love one can only wish to have (and for those who have it, may not appreciate it as much as the camera).

“Fashion is very fleeting. Film lasts forever. And I think that a film should challenge you. I think a film should make you think. And if I can get the audience to leave the theater and think: ‘Wow. I need to pay more attention to my day…” then I think the film will have meant something.” And it means so much more than I believed it would. There has only been one “film” to churn my mind like A Single Man. I say “film” because it is the HBO miniseries Angels in America. Also set in the past, it raises so many questions for its audience through incredibly writing, acting, and cinematography. I have seen it so much that I know it word for word. Although I am familiar with each character’s words, I discover something new each time I watch: the symbolism, the setting, the tone, etc. A Single Man holds this magnificence as well.

Isherwood’s novel contains such immense beauty in every word, and Ford has brought these into a witty, handsome script. But Ford has also translated these words into images and created a masterpiece. When a film like this comes along it is impossible to become obsessed; there is such attention to detail that your eyes and mind wish to gain an understanding for it all. I can only hope this film will receive its appropriate Academy Award statues – Best Picture, Director, Actor, Cinematography – but I have a feeling it will only receive it in nominations.

Golden Globe Awards: MY PICKS!

2010-01-10T23:06:00.002-06:00

The Golden Globes are in exactly one week, so I've narrowed down my picks for the awards. It's somewhat disappointing - two years ago I was so blown away by Marion Cotillard in La Vie En Rose and also by Tilda Swinton in Michael Clayton. Last year, Amy Adams, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, and (of course) Meryl Streep all blew me away in Doubt.

Slumdog Millionaire was such a surprise of a film last year. This year I haven't had anything truly blow me away to the same degree - granted, I still haven't seen Avatar (I know, I know.. I will be seeing it tomorrow) - but it's mostly a good ol' drama that gets me. This year I've been very surprised by many films, but none of them have pleased so much as they have these past two years.

The awards will be presented Sunday, January 17 on NBC. The Globes will be hosted this year by Ricky Gervais (so it will be funny and offensive)!

Check out my list HERE: http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977987107

Nine plus one out of 10

2009-12-29T01:28:00.003-06:00

There is a scene at the beginning of Nine where Lilli (Judi Dench), a clothing designer (and confidante) for the famous film director Guido Contini (Daniel Day-Lewis) describes directing: "Directing a movie is a very overrated job, we all know it. You just have to say ‘yes’ and ‘no.’ What else do you do? Nothing. ‘Maestro should this be red?’ Yes. ‘Green?’ No. ‘More extras?’ Yes. More lipstick? No. Yes. No. Yes. No. Yes. No. That's directing.” One could say the same about critics – we say yes and we say no, and very often quite sternly.

Roger Ebert, a critic I often critique, gives Nine a very stern no. He begins his own critique stating: My problem may be that I know Fellini's "8½" (1963) too well. Indeed, this seems to be the case: Ebert, for the rest of his review, ignores the may in his beginning sentence, and goes on a rant of Nine’s ignorance of Fellini’s film. No, I haven’t seen it. And I have not seen the Broadway play either. I have a feeling that you haven’t seen either of them as well. So let’s throw out Roger Ebert because he’s a dinosaur.

A.O. Scott, the douchebag over at the New York Times, also seems confident in his no – and loudly. He screams: Ms. Ferguson stomp and gyrate through a number called “Be Italian,” which, like so much else in “Nine,” resembles a spread in a Victoria’s Secret catalog, only less tasteful. Ms. Hudson, for her part, struts through an embarrassing hymn to “Cinema Italiano” — with inane lyrics about “hip coffee bars” and Guido’s “neo-realism” — that recalls not Visconti or Antonioni (or even the Italian sex farces of the 1970s) but rather those lubricious Berlusconi-esque variety shows that baffle and titillate visitors from other countries who turn on their hotel-room television sets. Fergie’s “Be Italian,” is mean to be “less tasteful” – did you forget, Mr. Scott, that she’s playing a whore? “Cinema Italiano,” my favorite of the musical numbers, is not meant to recall Visconti or Antonioni.. Kate Hudson – who very much resembles her mother in one scene – is an American! You seem to have ignored her part as the American journalist, singing of what Americans want: hip coffee bars and neo-realism. Perhaps it is a reference to the naivity of American, but either way, you have overlooked the entire intent of this number.

The 37% rating over at Rotten Tomatoes is awfully misleading. Can a critic advise you not to trust critics? I enjoyed every second and every musical number of Nine. Daniel Day-Lewis gives yet another incredible performance as the exhausted – in mind and body – Italian film director. You can see it in his eyes and the slump of his body as he walks back toward his dinner (the one where he discusses the script he hasn’t written). Marion Cotillard, who stole my heart with her performance in La Vie En Rose, proves that she can do more than just lip-sync. Her every word poors out with such vigor, confidence, but a hint of her character’s suffering peeks through. The rest of the supporting cast is just as electrifying and beautiful – how can one NOT be in awe of a few of the greatest women in cinema on one stage?! And they’re singing and dancing! I bow down to the leading man of this film, but bow furhter to his female co-stars.

“So, please Guido, yes or no?” Yes, Lilli. Yes!

"Up in the Air" has everything but turbulence

2009-12-21T15:43:00.004-06:00

What first attracted me to Up in the Air (nominated for six Globes, which it rightfully deserves) was not the trailer; it was the people who were in and behind the film. It stars one of my favorite actors, George Clooney, and an actress that I have admired throughout many, many films: Vera Farmiga. And, behind the scenes, it is produced and directed by Jason Reitman (who directed another favorite of mine: Juno). The trailer depicted a somewhat cheesy storyline, but when I saw the film I was met with perfection from every aspect.

Up in the Air follows Ryan Bingham (George Clooney) who brings a newly employed woman - Natalie (Anne Kendrick, another chick from Twilight) - to repel her use of Skype-technology for business. You see, their employment is to make unemployment; when an employer's boss is too much of a coward to do it him-/herself, they call up Bingham, who flies out anywhere (and, it seems, everywhere) to do the dirty work.

The most flattering aspect of this film is its actors: Clooney, Farmiga, and Kendrick put the pieces together. As Todd McCarthy states, "The timing in the Clooney-Farmiga scenes is like splendid tennis, with each player surprising the other with shots but keeping the rally going to breathtaking duration." McCarthy here, however, ignores Kendrick's power. There is a scene where all three actors come together: Clooney and Farmiga sit in chairs side-by-side facing Kendrick; a mother and father handing advice to their daughter. The dialogue is quick and smooth and the actors handle their own characters - and their co-stars - with such balance. It is incredible to see such a triangle of talent together; each actor's talents are just as strong - if not stronger - when linked.

"Up in the Air is light and dark, hilarious and tragic, romantic and real.The modernity of Up in the Air is what makes this film so relatable," says Entertainment Weekly. It tackles issues of unemployment (ring a bell?), technology and its advances (tweet tweet), and love (or lack-there-of). I read somewhere - forgive me, I do not have a link - that the interviews with the unemployed were not by actors, but by the recently unemployed Americans themselves. The film highlights the economic recession with a touch of sensitivity. Bingham's journey to realization of both love and technological advancement is also an interesting critique. Clooney despises the use of Skype-like technology to boot him out of his own career (newspaper editors are cringing), and there are sly comments from each character that never let you forget the importance of new technology. As Alex (Farmiga) tells Bingham: "I googled you. That's what us modern girls do when we have a crush."

Reitman's direction - which began receiving recognition when he was only 23 (23!) with his short film In God We Trust - flies us through without a bit of turbulence (sorry, I couldn't resist). Reitman is brilliant with his work in every aspect of direction. In one scene, a couple flies into each others' arms as Clooney speedily walks past toward another flight. Reitman commands an incredible performance from every actor (as we have seen in both Thank You for Smoking and Juno) in every scene. Nothing is ever lost.

There is a shot in the film where the camera slowly follows the nude backside of Vera Farmiga as she travels to the hotel bed with a backless apron. I have not been able to get this shot out of my head (and trust me, it's nothing sexual). There is such beauty in the camera, the movement, the woman, and the emotion of the scene that sums up the film itself: moving, beautiful, and has you asking for more.

Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/srgoogoo

"Precious" is so much more than its name

2009-11-28T00:23:00.002-06:00

Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire is a film you have to see to believe. When one explains the synopsis – It’s about an obese, black, illiterate, 16-year-old girl living in Harlem who is pregnant with her second child and at a middle-school level education – you can’t (or don’t) want to believe it. What you certainly can’t believe is that you would want to see such depressing material. But there is so much more to this film than a synopsis.

Claireece “Precious” Jones – played by newcomer Gabourey Sidibe, is so much more than the girl described in whichever synopsis you read. She’s the whole reason this movie is watchable: you observe her battle all of these incredible demons, but you also watch her maintain courage – through her daydreams of stardom to her growing friendships with her classmates. There are moments in the film where Precious really builds you to such a high degree of happiness. The next scene, however, could bring you so far down you feel the heat of Hell at your feet.

And this is what makes Lee Daniels’ storytelling so powerful: the script is so honest to the life of Precious that it reflects in your own, but to higher degrees. You experience her happiness through her friendships and relationship with her mentor and teacher, but you turn around and experience her depression and degradation from her mother, played by Mo’Nique.

The performances from this film are astonishing. Gabourey Sidibe narrates the film – a concept in film that is usually overwrought, but I felt such attachment to her because of the narration. Sidibe creates such honesty through almost no expression. The delivery of each line is so simple and unquestioned. Mo’Nique, however, is arguably the true star of this film. Known for her comedic turns in film and various media (if you have at least listened to her radio show, you know what I mean), Mo’Nique divulges an astounding turn as Precious’ abusive – both verbally and physically – mother. There is a scene near the end of the film where Mo’Nique explains her situation solely through dialogue. We do not need a visual depiction of her story; her words are unbelievably commanding, vulnerable, and chilling to the bone. There is nothing more real than this scene. Mo’Nique deserves – and will probably receive – Best Supporting Actress Academy Award for her role, and I cannot think of a better woman to receive it.

There are two other incredible aspects of this film that are not of the film itself. First is the audience in each theater. What I tried to pay attention to when I saw the film at AMC is the racial and age make-up of the audience. There was quite a mixture of race in the audience and quite a mixture of age – something that a movie is hard-pressed to accomplish, especially such a small production like Precious. I hope that this movie does not segregate its audience, and I trust that it won’t. Precious is not a story of a black girl, but a story of a teenager/mother/learner/friend. Second, the box office numbers of the film is incredible as well. On its opening weekend playing in only 18 theaters, the film took over $32K. The past weekend, Precious remained on the Top 10 Box Office at #6 with $21.3M. I can only hope this weekend it will still be on this list.

When I write my reviews of film, I generally analyze the thoughts and texts of other critics. Precious, however, has brought out an exception. This story has had such an effect and power that I cannot justify its value on the words of other critics. This film deserves more. Precious is unique and hopeful in both its narrative and its story as a film itself; it has proven its power and will continue to do so until the Academy Awards. I hope this film will be held in high regard no matter what age, gender, sexual orientation, or race (all values the film takes on at some point in its story) and that you will appreciate the film as much as I did.

Pandorum: Worst of 2009

2009-09-28T00:03:00.004-05:00

Peter Martin over at Cinematical begins his misguided review of Pandorum with:

Really good sci-fi horror flicks don't come along too often.

Martin then makes the mistake of praising the film, when this quote alone could fulfill the review of the film completely. Pandorum is dense in every aspect: acting, writing, editing, direction. You name it, they got it wrong.

We are introduced to Bower (played boringly by Ben Foster - but this could be the fault of the script), as he awakens from hyper-sleep on the space ship Elysium, in the future sometime in the future 2000s (forgive me for not remembering the date - I was distracted by the other problems of the film). After five or ten minutes of the same old "Where am I? Who am I?" looks and physical stutters, Lieutenant Payton (played by Dennis Quaid, sometimes very stiff and other times too melodramatic, like the storyline) pops in with the same problem. So, after at least fifteen minutes of stuttering their own histories, we finally get to watch Bower crawl through scary tight spaces speaking to Quaid through an electronic device. Again, dull. So twenty or so minutes into the film, the creatures/aliens from The Descent creep in and start going crazy. Are you bored by my synopsis of the first act of the film? Yeah, I was too. So we'll just skip to the problems.

The amount of unoriginality of the film extends beyond its box office intake this weekend. It seems that screenwriter Travis Milloy thinks adding a few "motherfuckers" and "assholes" in a script makes it more intense and realistic. Instead, we're greeted with over-the-top use of bad language poured into already poor dialogue. We also encounter a huge amount of stereotypical, generic elements as well. One, for example, is near the end of the film. Our heroine finally reaches his destination - which happens to be the home of the alien creatures (didn't see that coming!) - and has to cross a bridge, while the creatures snooze beneath him. But wait! The bridge is falling apart, so he has to be extra careful not to fall AND be quiet so he doesn't wake up the monsters!

Also, director Christian Alvart seems to be confused. When there is a fight scene (which there are, scattered here and there to wake you up from your own hyper-sleep), he seems to choose every possible angle and asked his editor to cut between each angle every half second. So we're force-fed into five minutes of cut-cut-what-the-fuck-am-I-looking-at "action." We're also introduced to two supporting characters, one of which speaks another language, the other uses some foreign accent. Neither elements make sense.

Perhaps the worst acting (again, limited by the script) comes from Cam Gigandet, star of Never Back Down (2008) and Twilight (2008). Oh wait, you didn't see those? Me neither. He's the hot guy who takes his shirt off. And here he is again, introduced with all of his clothes off. But it's not that appealing because he opens his mouth a few times, sputtering out lines like a broken garbage disposal (with a few "motherfuckers" thrown in for good measure).

There are many, many more mistakes in the film (maybe I should bring my laptop into the theater next time to take lengthy notes), but I would be here until 2AM reciting them. However, there is a pleasing twist at the end of the film, but I would imagine it would be much more thrilling if the hour and thirty minutes preceding it kept me interested and entertained. Instead, I left the theater wishing I experienced my own hyper-sleep, awakening to find myself unaware of the two-hour trash my eyes just devoured.

Roman Polanski Arrested

2009-09-27T13:55:00.003-05:00

From indieWIRE (and anywhere else you find movie news):

The Associated Press is reporting that director Roman Polanski has been taken into custody by Swiss police on the 1978 U.S. arrest warrant for having sex with a 13-year-old girl. Polanski was flying in to receive an honorary award at the Zurich Film Festival when he was detained late Saturday at the airport, organizers at the festival said in a statement. Zurich police since confirmed the arrest, but have refused to provide more details because he said it was a matter for the Swiss Justice Ministry. Switzerland and the U.S. have an extradition treaty dating back to the 1950s that is still in force.

Festival organizers said Polanski’s detention had caused “shock and dismay,” but that they would go ahead with Sunday’s planned retrospective of the director’s work. The Swiss Directors Association sharply criticized authorities for what it deemed “not only a grotesque farce of justice, but also an immense cultural scandal.”

This comes over a year after the release of Marina Zenovich’s documentary “Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired,” which discussed how Polanski was the subject of a media onslaught after being convicted of statutory rape with a 13 year-old girl. He became the victim of a salacious mix of trumped up headlines, frenzied reporters and an attention-starved judge much more eager to satisfy his own desires to tap into the celebrity mix, than adjudicating justice. He fled the United States for France in the midst of this.

Polanski recently asked a U.S. appeals court in California to overturn a judges’ refusal to throw out his case. He claims misconduct by the now-deceased judge who had arranged a plea bargain and then reneged on it. The now 45-year-old victim, Samantha Geimer, who long ago identified herself publicly, has joined in Polanski’s bid for dismissal, saying she wants the case to be over. She sued Polanski and reached an undisclosed settlement.

Prior to today’s arrest, Polanski for many years avoided visits to countries that were likely to extradite him, such as the United Kingdom. He travelled mostly between France, where he resides, and Poland. As a French citizen, he was protected by France’s limited extradition with the United States.

Trailer: "A Single Man"

2009-09-22T08:12:00.002-05:00

For the past few weeks now, I've been wondering when some good trailers would be showing up. And what I've found out this past weekend is that sometimes you just have to search for them. I've been looking into film festivals and things that have been picked up and searched good ol' YouTube for some of the trailers.

One of them is A Single Man. According to IMDb, the film is "a story that centers on an English professor who, after the sudden death of his partner tries to go about his typical day in Los Angeles." Colin Firth has never impressed me too a great extent, but it looks like this is his chance to nab the Oscar (or at least a nomination). And Julianne Moore looks beautiful as well; I love that first shot of her in the trailer. I can certainly see this at the Academy Awards, in Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, Best Actress, and Best Cinematography. Check it out for yourself over at YouTube.

Emmy Awards 2009: My Picks!

2009-09-20T16:27:00.007-05:00

Hope Davis has my pick for Best Actress in a Drama Series. Who has yours?

The Emmy Awards are in a couple of hours.. here are my predictions and votes!

Outstanding Comedy Series
My pick: Weeds. This show has been full of surprises ever since its first season. From moving to the suburbs to Mexico (along with its opening credits), each episode has provided a new, twisted plot line. Where a typical twist or climax (such as a wedding or the birth of a child) may be built-up until the season finale, Weeds turns these tricks throughout a season, providing surprises throughout each episode.
Who will win? The Flight of the Concords just ended its run after its second season, but probably won't get the lady. Instead, 30 Rock might get it again, and frankly, I'm sick of it.

Outstanding Drama Series
My pick: Mad Men. Granted, I've only seen Season 1 (2 is in the mail!) but I still believe the show deserves another one. For one, it provided a committed audience to AMC and gave the network original programming. For another, it has an outstanding cast with incredible storylines and an interesting vision of the 1960s (and from what I hear, an honest one). And who doesn't like to look at the handsome Don Draper in his mysterious air of cigarette smoke?
Who will win? Mad Men.

Outstanding Made for Television Movie
My pick: Grey Gardens. It's the only one I've seen, and the performances really blew me away, however, all of these biopic films have a formula and fulfill it as unoriginally as the last. But, it was still extremely impressive because of the performances.
Who will win? Grey Gardens. Trust me. It will.

Outstanding Lead Actor in a Comedy Series
My pick: Alec Baldwin. Listen, I'm tired of him winning it. But I'm not particularly interested in the other nominees. My second vote is for Jemaine Clement simply because Flight of the Conchords was so brilliant and original. But, hey, Alec Baldwin is hilarious.
Who will win? Alec Baldwin.. again.

Outstanding Lead Actor in a Drama Series
My pick: Gabriel Byrne. PLEASE give this man his Emmy!! He won the Globe for it last year, and he was more than brilliant this year. His character was given much more to do than just listen to his patients; he had much more of a personal story through his personal life and work. Byrne carries this series brilliantly and deserves this award.
Who will win? I'm afraid Jon Ham might take it, but it was a surprise last year when Bryan Cranston took it for Breaking Bad. And, Michael C. Hall has been losing it every year since Dexter started, so this year might be his. Your guess is as good as mine.

Outstanding Lead Actress in a Comedy Series
My pick: Toni Colette. I think The United States of Tara is such a well-written show with such a great cast, and no other actress could really carry this series like Toni Colette. She transforms into these different roles so beautifully and knows how to say so much with one glance in the mirror. And I'm tired of Tina Fey getting it.
Who will win? Toni Colette... please?

Outstanding Lead Actress in a Drama Series
My pick: Elizabeth Moss. She's go great on Mad Men, right? She's got such a great role and serves it so well.
Who will win? Saving Grace was recently canceled (or just quit?) so I think Holly Hunter may be receiving it, but who really watches that show, anyway? Maybe this is Moss' year?

Outstanding Lead Actress in a Miniseries or Movie
My pick: Drew Barrymore. I have never enjoyed Drew Barrymore's work or appreciated her as an actress until this film. She was absolutely brilliant and breathtaking in Grey Gardens and deserves an Emmy statue as recognition. Her co-star, Jessica Lange, deserves one as well (could there be a tie?), but I think Barrymore really showed her chops in this film.
Who will win? Either Lange or Barrymore. Personally, I think Jessica Lange will get it. And she deserves it.

Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Comedy Series
My pick: Neil Patrck Harris. I've only seen a few episodes of How I Met Your Mother, so I can't reallybe the perfect critic, but I was empressed with NPH's work on the show. And he's hosting the awards, could this be a sign?
Who will win? NPH.

Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Drama Series
My pick: Michael Emerson. Emerson has really produced an incredibly mysterious character in LOST, a show that is already full of intensity and mystery. He's been nominated twice already, and while I do think that in previous seasons he was better, he still deserves the statue.
Who will win? You're guess is as good as mine.. but I wouldn't mind if John Slattery got if or Mad Men.

Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Comedy Series
My pick: Jane Krakowski. I think she had some really great moments this past season of 30 Rock and she really has great physical comedy, in addition to her lines.
Who will win? I think Kristin Chenowith might grab it this time, but we'll see.

Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Drama Series
My pick: Hope Davis. Hope Davis was an absolute surprise this past season of In Treatment. I have never been familiar with her work, but her appearance on In Treatment gave me another fantastic female role of which to be in awe (besides Dianne Wiest, also nominated, last year won). She really delved deep into this character and struck a chord with every line. Give this Emmy to her!
Who will win? I really believe it is Hope Davis this time. Not sure why; it just seems the others are more "Been there, done that" and Hope Davis is pushing her way out. She certainly deserves it.

And this is where I end my choices and predictions. Yes, I left out a few awards here and there; these are just my main concerns. Also, please ignore any spelling mistakes or name confusions - I'm typing this up quickly so I can get ready for the show!

Listen to Imogen Heap's "Ellipse"

2009-08-17T18:23:00.002-05:00

Harry Potter and the Biggest Disappointment

2009-07-21T21:14:00.006-05:00

Light your wands (Lumos!): spoilers ahead.

I should make a few things clear before I really get into this review. First, I am a huge Harry Potter fan. I fell in love with the books after I saw the first film, Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone. Since then, I have attended the midnight premieres of books five through seven and movies three to six. Secondly, I want to make it clear that I am more than willing to view each film separate from the book. I have never disliked one of the Harry Potter films because of a missing plot or scene, simply because I liked the scene from the book. Therefore, when I later state that I dislike the choice of Yates deleting the Hogwarts battle and funeral scenes, it is not because I simply enjoyed the scenes in the book. It is because they serve a purpose; because they work in context of both the book and (would have worked) in the film.

It is very disappointing to me that Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince has achieved a substantially higher rating at Rotten Tomatoes than its predecessor, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix (my favorite of the lot, very close to Prisoner of Azkaban).

Roger Ebert states that HP6 is a "darker, more ominous" film, but I remember differently. What I found most aggravating about the film was its mixture of light-hearted romance and creepy, "ominous" (sorry to steal your term, Ebert) scenes. It was unbelievably choppy throughout the film. We would witness a scene where Lavendar Brown, played over-enthusiastically (still comedic, I must say) by Jessie Cave, makes a move toward Ron Weasley, and then we would shift to a scene of Draco Malfoy looming throughout the dark, melancholy hallways of Hogwarts castle. The inconsistency was as bad as Goblet of Fire, where the director seems to be struggling with the tone of the film.

Yet again, Lisa Schwarzbaum at Entertainment Weekly has proven herself as boring as I was throughout the film. Her review is almost a complete summary of the plot instead of an analyzation of its quality. Instead, the only real critique she lends to the film is a short sentence, hardly even a summary:

They've found just the right balance of timeless spiritual profundity and contemporary teen specificity...

This is extremely vague, but Schwarzbaum seems to be taking the same view of Ebert and other critics, applauding the film's mixture of comedy and drama. It doesn't make sense that Half-Blood Prince is the "funniest of the films" (as the trio has stated in many interviews) because it has been understood since film three that the films become darker and darker. And, quite frankly, the plotline of HP6 (that being Voldemort's journey to power) is quite dark. The filmmaker failed to commit to the darker tone.

What I found most surprising and pleasing about the film was Jim Broadbent's turn as Professor Slughorn, a character I viewed as both annoying and boring in the book. However, Broadbent brings both comedy and a sad secrecy to the character, making him more human in the film than the books. He was probably the most interesting character throughout, stealing every scene in which he appeared.

The omissions of the small battle scene at Hogwarts and Dumbledore's funeral are bothersome ones. According to an interview, Yates exprssed redundancy toward the insertion of the battle at Hogwarts at the end of the film. I agree, sure, that every Potter film has ended with a large battle climax, but it is a necessary redundancy. We have expected this ending for five films; why change it now? Additionally, the "battle" that did occur after Dumbledore's death was sporatic. In the book, many Death Eaters travel throughout the school and battle students and professors in various hallways. The film, however, shows Bellatrix Lestrange (overly campy in this film) and other Death Eaters travelling through the Great Hall - simply to blow up a few windows and smash some goblets - and then to Hagrid's hut, only to set it on fire and walk away. Their actions don't make sense and serve absolutely no intensity/purpose to the climax.

Dumbledore's funeral in the book allowed readers to focus on Harry's struggle with accepting his death. Instead of focusing on Harry's (our protagonist, mind you) response to his death, we see a collection of students and professors raise their wands in allegiance and make the Dark Mark disappear. There was only a slight emotional pull to this scene, but where was Harry's resolution to this? We followed Harry throughout this entire film as he developed an even closer relationship to the Hogwarts Headmaster, and then leave it abruptly. Again, I do not hold hostility toward the deletion of these scenes because of their absence. Instead, I argue that these scenes were necessary for the film because they work and have a purpose that was otherwise unfelt.

The problem here is not that I am a fanatic of the books, as Dan Kois of the Washington Post suggests. Instead, Yates has created a film undecided in tone and unnecessary in many scenes (why did we need Quidditch this time?). Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is a huge disappointment to the Potter series. But don't worry, Warner Bros., I'll still see the movie again in theaters (probably IMAX), purchase the DVD (the two-disc edition, of course), follow-up with the last two films, and visit the theme park next year. That's all you really want anyway, right?

"In Treatment" is the finest

2009-07-10T19:34:00.002-05:00

As I don't have HBO, I've been having difficulty catching In Treatment, Season Two. However, I was visiting home recently and had the chance to enjoy the wonderful On Demand HBO. In Treatment is a five-episode a week show (adapted from the Israeli counterpart BeTipul)that I was absolutely enthralled with since the first season, which some critics did not enjoy as much. However, I am happy to say that the second season is even better, and many critics agree.

Let's start with an argument, as usual. I disagree with a statement from Variety's review in March. In this review, Brian Lowry suggests, once again, that the writing is more apparent than the acting, stating that it is "too apparent." In his first review of the program, Lowry was more critical, stating that the screenwriting is self-conscious. I feel that this cannot be an accurate assessment. The writing may seem more apparent in this series because it is (generally) two people in a room talking. People today are used to more action in television and film, and this series is brought together completely by its dialogue. Thus, the writer may inevitably be a part of the viewer's experience; however, this does not take away from the characters. Each character is so raw, honest, and completely relatable. There is always a quality (or qualities) divulged in each episode that one can look and say "Yes, I know that person; I know someone just like that." This is the strength of the show; it is entirely dependent on the writing and that's okay.

Lowry also labels the show as "melodrama," however, I'm not sure I would categorize it as such. I feel that the show is so complex with the character's actions, motives, and minds that it is something deeper, farther than melodrama. Instead of being over-the-top it actually seems under; we must critically analyze the characters as Paul (Gabriel Byrne) does.

Entertainment Weekly's Ken Tucker praises the program, and I actually agree with everything he states - because it contains no negative comments. The characters in season two are arguably more interesting than the previous. I think the praise for this goes to the idea of seeing Paul and the patients out of Paul's office. Throughout the episodes we sometimes catch a glimpse - and even a full episode - outside of Paul's office. We are able to observe the character(s) in a new light, literally. This change is most effective with Paul, certainly more interesting than season one. We see him struggling through more personal difficulties than a crumbling marriage, and we see him personally go through each obstacle. Then, at the end of the week, we observe him psychologically with Gina.

In Treatment deserves more praise than any television show on air. The writing, acting, cinematography, direction and music are totally heart-wrenching, sometimes comedic and always eye-catching. However, as Lowry states, it probably won't catch a large audience, but that's okay. Part of my love for HBO is the secrecy: I am watching a true gem that others aren't able to cherish. It's like an autograph or a limited edition book. It's mine, and no one else's.

P.S. Give Gabriel Byrne an Emmy!

Why "Up" is less than Up-lifting

2009-06-06T00:21:00.004-05:00

Last year, I sat in the theater for a screening of Disney and Pixar's Wall-E. I found it to be the best animated feature film I'd ever seen. It had all the similar features of an animated film: beautiful cinematography, comedic (and at just the right moments dramatic) characters, and great music. But Wall-E contains features that we had not seen in animated films - but more of that later.

I enjoyed Up, I did, but I found it less than original. Up is certainly no Wall-E. However, almost every review for the film praises it as much as Wall-E, giving them the film the same "grade" and similar praise. Up does not deserve the same amount of praise.

Dear Lisa over at Entertainment Weekly states that Up contains "breathtaking" features: the comedy, the animation, the balloons. She then goes further to say that the movie's great accomplishment is that the audience is not meant to see these features; that the audience is meant to focus more on what the characters are going through. Isn't this what every Pixar film seeks to accomplish? In Wall-E, we are carried through the beginning with no dialogue, focusing on Wall-E's lonely, hardworking personality. In Toy Story we view the interactions between each character and devote our time to the conflict between Buzz and Woody. Lisa, your statement is just as unoriginal as Up.

Ebert also lends a four-star review for the film, lending one unoriginal compliment after another.

It begins with a romance as sweet and lovely as any I can recall in feature animation.

There. Even he states the movie's unoriginality; the story is just the same as others animated features! So why does Up deserve such praise? This statement sums up (pun intended) the film completely: there isn't anything truly original about it. There are funny animals, there are talking animals, there's a dramatic, touching plot weaved in with comedy. So what.

Kenneth Turan's review at NPR stated one of Up's achievement is tackling "one of Hollywood's taboos: old people" by having the main character a lonely old man who - as the reviewer states - carries a walker. But, how can this film tackle that taboo by also supplying this "old man" the strength to carry his home across a large plateau, literally running from talking dogs and birds? Don't tell me that this film is tackling a taboo; they're exaggerating the character to child-like form to make it less taboo.

Perhaps my review is biased; I am constantly thinking of Wall-E, which achieved an extremely high dose of originality: politically, the film tackled an incredibly important issue in the current world, forecasting the destruction of Earth and mankind. As an animated feature, the film used live-action in small doses to expose the issues expressed in the film, making the audience more attached and intertwined in the story. And, of course, providing an almost silent film with even more expressive emotion and story. Wall-E, it seems, will always be Pixar's greatest achievement, whereas Up tries to fly too high.

42 Below Presents...

2009-05-19T11:10:00.002-05:00

Straight from Cannes, ONEDREAMRUSH is a project that brings together 42 filmmakers making 42 forty-two second-long films. All of these films are based on each filmmaker's perception of dreams. Filmmakers include David Lynch and James Franco.

The website provides links to some of the films, and will update with later films throughout the year. Check it out at the link. I was really impressed with the film An Exercise in Futility by Dee Poon; the lighting was beautiful and I love the symbolism and meaning behind it. Can't wait to see David Lynch's film.

Chris Columbus is not a great director.

2009-05-03T23:20:00.007-05:00

I'll say it again: Chris Columbus is not a great director.

I wouldn't say Columbus shows an incredible amount of symbolism in the shots of his films or creates necessarily stand-out performances from his actors. But he is a director who has helmed some well-known, well-respected movies. However, I viewed the trailer for I Love You, Beth Cooper (view at your own risk) a few weeks ago and failed to realize who the director was. Until I came across it on another blog: Chris Columbus is the director of the film. Not only that, but he is a Producer!

Columbus has helmed some respectable movies that I have enjoyed: Mrs. Doubtfire, Harry Potter (1 and 2), RENT. All of these films have their issues (what film doesn't?) but I enjoyed them. And one reason why I enjoyed them was because they have obviously been a different kind of challenge for Columbus.

Columbus started out with some very family-friendly films such as Home Alone and Mrs. Doubtfire and moved on to something a bit more controversial with Bicentennial Man, which garnered a great, challenging performance from Robin Williams. Then, Columbus went on to direct Harry Potter, what I would consider to be his greatest challenge. Columbus had to hold the weight of many obsessed Potter fans while being pressured to retrieve a ton more (and he succeeded) along with dealing with a foreign territory (literally) of special effects work and even more children to direct. Then he went on to adapt a very well-known musical, RENT, here again with the weight of thousands of Broadway musical fans (which are arguably just as persistent - if not more - than Potter fans), broadening his abilities as a director. Even before RENT, Columbus tackled the comeback of 3D film, a technology that once failed and is now returning to theaters with packed audiences.

And now he has taken on I Love You, Beth Cooper. Sure, this would probably be considered "new material" for Columbus, but this certainly cannot be any more challenging. From the trailer, this appears to be the same generic teen comedy film: the geek falls in love with the out-of-reach hot girl who already has a "hot" boyfriend and all teenagers drink lots and lots of alcohol and can do anything they want.

So why Beth Cooper? Because it will make money. A producer should set out to do something they are passionate about, and maybe Columbus is, but I think this is a decision based on monetary value alone - which is what studios look for the most. Teens are familiar with Hayden Panettiere and will enjoy the simple, familiar plot. But I just wanted to take a moment to say that I am disappointed in you, Chris Columbus. This is a disgrace for a director who has taken the steps to challenge himself with each film and who helped create one of my favorite franchises. I will not support Beth Cooper because I consider this a failure for you as a director (and becuase the film just doesn't look good). Shame on you. I do not love you, Chris Columbus.

Sunshine Cleaning

2009-04-26T02:17:00.002-05:00

Sunshine Cleaning was blatantly advertised as a replica of Little Miss Sunshine. They use "From the Producers of LMS" and I believe the theme song from the film. But I find Sunshine Cleaning extremely different - more dramatic, less family-based quirky comedy - and that makes it that much better.

According to Roger Ebert, Sunshine Cleaning

But not this film that compromises on everything it implies, because it wants to be cheerful about people who don't have much to be cheerful about. How can you make a feel-good movie about murder-scene clean-ups?

Who said it was a film that wanted to be cheerful about people who have nothing to be happy about? Did the director say that? Because I missed it. Roger, where is your explanation of this? Perhaps you felt that it was the comedy that drove its desire to be "cheerful," and I understand that. However, it is wrong to suggest this because the film decreases the "cheerful" material throughout. Thus, it becomes less comedic and more dramatic, a technique that I felt worked to its benefit.

Todd McCarthy at Variety makes a valid point in Alan Arkin's performance:

Arkin does nearly the identical blunt-talking, lovably cranky shtick he performed to such effect in "Little Miss Sunshine," as he tries to instruct young Oscar in the ways of the mercantile world.

Arkin's performance not only was identical to his in LMS but it was also less-effective. It seemed that he came in as a fill-in for a plot that didn't focus on the two protagonists. We see glimpses of him tackling a small business plan for selling shrimp and yelling out snarky lines toward his daughters. These instances pop up very rarely and are insignificant to the overall story.

The problem that this film presents is through its advertising. Because it is promoted as "another" Little Miss Sunshine, audiences go in expecting a cute little girl and a dark comedy about a quirky family and their inability to get along. And this is where I feel Sunshine Cleaning succeeds. It differentiates itself from LMS by placing more drama in the story and deteriorating the comedy as it goes along. Because, of course, the plot becomes more dramatic as the sisters battle the tough business in which they seemingly progress at the start.

Where critics state the film lacks in its comedy and therefore lacks in its power, I argue that the film is enhanced by this lack of comedy. Had the film not been advertised as a mirror image of LMS it would have succeeded in its reviews. However, I seem to be one of the few that praise the film for its dramatic content and power.

The performances in this film are astonishingly perfect. Emily Blunt and Amy Adams are unbelievable as sisters, biting at each other with quick dialogue and simple body language. The love-hate relationship between the sisters was incredibly strong and kept the film in tact. I also enjoyed the performance of Clifton Collins Jr., a who plays Winston, a one-armed hardware store clerk.

Sometimes, Mr. Ebert, I whole-heartedly agree with your reviews (The Fall, for example, was given an immense amount of praise from myself and you), but this time you just don't seem to get it. Sunshine Cleaning is an effective comedy/drama with two strong female characters and a story that intertwines every small detail in an effect, full-circle manner. You won't get as much comedy as is advertised, and that's why you will enjoy it more.

Duplicity

2009-04-14T17:08:00.000-05:00

Duplicity was released quite a few weeks ago, but I haven't been able to catch a film in theaters since (hopefully that will change this weekend with Sunshine Cleaning and/or State of Play). What did the critics say?

According to Roger Ebert,

Claire and Ray seem to have hollow hearts. Can they, in their trade, sincerely love anyone? Knowing all the tricks, they know the other one knows them, too.

This removes some of the romantic risk from the story, replacing it with a plot so ingenious that at the end, we know more or less what happened, but mostly less. That's fun, but it deprives Roberts of her most winning note, which is lovability.

The fact that Claire and Ray seem to have hollow hearts is completely the point. It is only "seemingly" because we have seen them fall in love and we have observed their close relationship. So, is the romantic risk really removed from the story? I believe it makes it more intense. It seems that they have hollow hearts, because we know it is an act; it keeps us guessing. I also think part of the point of the ending is to be confused. We know more or less what happened, just as Claire and Ray know more or less what happened. We, like the protagonists of the story, are left pondering the strategies of the schemers.

Nick Schager at Cinematical also involves a collection of poor remarks in his review of Duplicity.

The only thing at risk is money, which, in terms of caring about these two ace swindlers, isn't enough.

Wait a minute. Wasn't there a small plot line involving romantic ties between Claire and Ray? Weren't they risking their relationship with each other? Or maybe that was another plot line you considered too complicated.

In a comment following Cinematical's review of the film, "pola" states:

Thanks for looking beyond the razzle-dazzle in this film and seeing what's underneath, which isn't much after you look past watching two pretty people get frisky in luxe surroundings. Even the dialogue is nothing special. The reviews have been glowing and I don't get it.

"Glowing," really? As I've pointed out, both Roger Ebert and Cinematical place the film in mixed light. In addition to these two, Lisa Schwarzbaum at Entertainment Weekly gives the film the grade of a B. Sure, a B is scores higher than what it could have received, but the woman offers a fair amount of complaints.
It seems that my review of the film could be taken directly from the pages of Variety, stating the film is "ultra-sophisticated" and "smart, droll, and dazzling."

If you enjoyed Michael Clayton (which earned a Best Supporting Actress Oscar for much-deserved Tilda Swinton), you will enjoy Duplicity. Tony Gilroy is back with a complicated screenplay with interesting, witty (and of course, attractive) characters played by two of the best leading actors in Hollywood (whether you like Julia Roberts or not). This time, however, the film is more fun, maybe even more complex, and just as visually entertaining and witty with its dialogue.

Don't listen to them. Listen to me.

Welcome.

2009-04-11T15:09:00.001-05:00

Blogs to come when I don't have so much school work.