| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Joe Blevins |
Posted - 02/27/2010 : 01:33:43
Greetings again to one and all.
I'm happy to report that tomorrow, barring unforeseen circumstances, I will be attending the Best Picture Showcase, an all-day marathon of Best Picture nominees. It looks like the only theater I can get to is the AMC South Barrington, about 13 miles from my home. It's a little farther than I normally drive, but what the hey? It's only once a year.
Well, twice this year actually. Because there are 10 nominees, the event has been stretched over two weekends. Anyway, though, my plan is to watch all 10 nominated pictures and write a little about each one. Tomorrow's schedule is as follows:
Avatar
Up in the Air
Precious
The Blind Side
Inglourious Basterds
Basterds is the only one of that crowd that I've actually seen (twice!) in theaters already, and since it comes at the end of the day, I'm not 100% sure I'll stay to watch it again. I just might, though. As with my other reviewing projects, this is partly an endurance test. We'll see.
In any event, I do hope you will join me in this thread as it is updated. |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 03/13/2010 : 11:01:11
I like what I've seen in these trailers. I certainly haven't been happy with anything Stiller has done since Keeping the Faith, and this looks much like he could be back to being more subtle - which I find far funnier than all the over the top stuff he's done since. I don't care what people say, I want to see this film. |
| Joe Blevins |
Posted - 03/13/2010 : 03:27:36
quote:
Originally posted by silly
quote:
Originally posted by Joe Blevins
More random observations about the day
1. I won the trivia three times, so yay for me! For my troubles,
... (It says "Greenberg" on the back. Does that mean anything?)
New Noah Baumbach indie movie with Ben Stiller.
Trailer
I've heard it's good, but so far only read one review (said Stiller was fantastic).
Weirdly enough, the poster for that very film was directly opposite the auditorium where I spent two consecutive Saturdays watching movies, and yet I never put two and two together. I must have walked by that poster at least 30 times.
Well, now I hope the movie is great. Because knowing me, that t-shirt will be in my wardrobe for a looooooooong time. |
| silly |
Posted - 03/11/2010 : 18:53:37
quote:
Originally posted by Joe Blevins
More random observations about the day
1. I won the trivia three times, so yay for me! For my troubles,
... (It says "Greenberg" on the back. Does that mean anything?)
New Noah Baumbach indie movie with Ben Stiller.
Trailer
I've heard it's good, but so far only read one review (said Stiller was fantastic). |
| Wheelz |
Posted - 03/08/2010 : 13:39:19
And, now, a bit less timely, but here are my thoughts on Day 2:
An Education - This was the one film of the 10 that I knew the absolute least about going in. And I actually found it quite enjoyable. It had something to say, and though there's something of an inevitability to the way things turn out, it doesn't hit you over the head with its predictability. It's full of fine performances; the two leads are terrific, and I really liked Alfred Molina as Jenny's dad. But I'm pretty much in agreement with Joe that it doesn't really rise to the level of an Oscar-caliber film. It is indeed enjoyable, yet ultimately forgettable.
The Hurt Locker - Like Joe, I'd been hearing all the buzz about this, yet wasn't entirely sure what to expect out of it. What I got, from the very first scene, was an utterly compelling look into a situation that was heretofore completely unknown to me. Of course we all know about Desert Storm/Shield, but how much do we really know about it? It was fascinating to me to get a glimpse of what these guys actually went through. (And from all accounts I've heard of, this movie pretty much gets it right.) Everything - the story, the performances, the cinemetography, the narrative style - had me completely sucked in all the way through. James was a fascinating and complex character, and Renner portrayed him beautifully. I had not heard anything about the film being apolitical, or not having any plot. I don't think that was the case, nor would I have wished it to be. This film would have gotten my vote if I had one, and I'm completely on board with it winning.
Up In The Air � This is the one I was most looking forward to seeing, and I wasn�t disappointed. It manages to walk a very fine line between being light and funny (and there are some great laughs here) and having a serious and somewhat dark message. This is decidedly not a romantic comedy, even if the trailers tried to sell it that way. Rather, I�d call it a study of people who think they have life all figured out, only to realize that they don�t at all. No, that�s not ground-breaking territory at all, but I think the theme is handled quite deftly, and Reitman walks a directorial minefield to keep the tone from straying too far into rom-com land or becoming too heavy and maudlin. The metaphors about family and loyalty come on a little strong, but the performances keep it all real, and the open-ended finish was just right. Well done.
The Blind Side � Wow, I really don�t get all the hate here. Admittedly, I went in expecting a Lifetime movie of the week. And it could have turned out to be one, except that it�s, you know, good. Is there some sap? Sure, but it�s not drowning in it. I like some maple syrup on my pancakes, but not too much. So there was a little taste of sap here, but I wasn�t choking on it, so that was OK. Not that the film isn�t without its flaws. Aside from Bullock, the performances in it are not extraordinary; and does it really need to be said out loud that Michael is Ferdinand the Bull? Twice? We figured that out already. Move on. Really, though, folks, I can be as cynical as the next guy, but I believe there�s room in the world for a well-made feel-good flick every now and then. It�s by no means a perfect movie, but it�s a story about good people doing a good thing, which isn�t too common in Hollywood, so I guess people don�t quite know how to take it. Racist? Really? Huh.
Inglourious Basterds � This was the only film of the 10 I had seen before last weekend. I loved it the first time out, though I was a little concerned that all the long, long stretches of dialogue might become dull now that I know what was going to happen. On the contrary. It most definitely held up to a second viewing, and might even have been enhanced by it. If there�s one thing wrong here, it�s Tarantino�s signature scatter-shot directorial style, like he�s never entirely sure what genre he wants to be in. Mind you, he manages to make that work somehow, but the second time through, it seemed to get in the way of itself at times. Minor quibble, though -- I was happy to sit through this again. And how fitting that we got to finish out a 10-film marathon by (spoiler) blowing up a movie theater!
In all, I found day 2 to be much easier to take than day 1. I�m out of time here so I�ll probably be back to expand on that.
|
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 03/08/2010 : 07:55:35
quote:
Originally posted by Joe Blevins
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
Women are heightists?
I've found that many are, and not just the ones in this movie. I've heard this from real, actual women that I really, actually know, and I only need to look around to see that women generally marry men taller than they are. Your answer about the instinctual need to be protected is what I kind of suspected (and dreaded), but I think in 2010 it's time we moved away from that idea. The movie also says that it's important -- presumably for the sake of the male ego -- for the guy to make more money. Personally, I've never been and probably never will be a big earner. I hate thinking about money, and I worry about it more than I wish I had to. I would actually be relieved if the woman had more money than I did. One less thing to think about. But I guess I'm operating against the tide of history here.
Wow, the more I think about Up in the Air, the more depressing it is.
While I haven't seen the movie, it certainly sounds like a romantic comedy, and something that would be cute to see. However, it also doesn't seem all that more unique or special than say The Ugly Truth was. How something like that got nominated for Best Picture is a touch beyond me, but perhaps there's something there I just don't know about. Still, if the woman in this movie is as much of a heightist as you note, and also finds earning power to be an aphrodesiac, then I'm confused as why The Ugly Truth and 500 Days of Summer weren't also nominees. It just sounds so... trite and 1950s to me.
Well, at least it didn't win, right?
(More importantly, Avatar didn't win for Best Picture, either!)
|
| Joe Blevins |
Posted - 03/08/2010 : 05:19:31
POST-OSCARCAST CODA
Well, I clearly underestimated the Academy's love for The Hurt Locker, which pretty much cleaned up at this year's annual gold rush. The Academy loves to recognize films that touch on Important Issues of the Day, and I think they've been joenesing to give the big prize to an Iraq War film for some time. As I said in my review, I think The Hurt Locker is a very accomplished film but one that didn't really engage me on an emotional or intellectual level, and several of the film's major plot points seemed ever-so-slightly forced and contrived. The movie I've been thinking about all day is Stanley Kubrick's Paths of Glory. I still believe that the Iraq War is awaiting its own Paths of Glory, and I don't think The Hurt Locker is it. Maybe time will prove me wrong and The Hurt Locker will hold up as a visionary masterpiece ten or twenty years from now, shining even more brightly then as it does now. We'll see... |
| Joe Blevins |
Posted - 03/08/2010 : 00:12:28
More random observations about the day
1. I won the trivia three times, so yay for me! For my troubles, I got: a Lovely Bones poster, a From Paris with Love pencil holder, and a t-shirt connected to some movie I could not identify. (It says "Greenberg" on the back. Does that mean anything?)
2. The attendance was substantially higher for Day 2 than Day 1. One wiseacre said it was because audiences could avoid seeing A Serious Man. I wanted to whomp him upside his fat head for that, but I restrained myself. This was not a cinephile kind of crowd, by the way. This was the same kind of mainstream, Midwestern multiplex audience you'd find at any movie. Not too many film snobs here. There were lots of people who wore baseball caps indoors all day and spent every spare minute texting. Typical yahoos, I guess you'd say.
3. This is my third time through the five-films-a-day process, and I have to say the toughest stretch is the break between the third and fourth films. That's when I get hit with a mixture of panic, paranoia, and depression. But it's generally mild and passes quickly. Perhaps Milk Duds might have helped, but I couldn't bring myself to pay concession stand prices for them.
4. I've come all this way and have not given any Oscar picks. Of the ten films nominated, the three I liked best were: Up, Inglourious Basterds and A Serious Man. Serious cannot win, but I still like it best. I think Avatar will win, and I don't see any tragedy in that.
And now a rant...
You know what's wrong with movies? Audiences. Audiences are the problem with movies, simple as that. Why? Because films are so damnably expensive to make, they have to appeal to the most people possible and this drives down the quality. Creators in virtually every other media -- even television -- have more leeway, but filmmakers are shackled to convention. Movie audiences demand familiar formulas, comforting platitudes, conventionally attractive faces, tidy endings, and in short, more of the same, just presented to them in newer and fancier ways. They don't want to think. They don't want to venture outside a certain comfort zone. They want movies to tell them what they alrady know (i.e. love is good, war is bad, etc.) so they can leave the theater reassured in their own beliefs. And it's not enough for, say, 99% of movies to "follow the rules," so to speak. Oh no. Movie audiences demand 100% compliance. They're absolutely unforgiving. It's a wonder more film critics don't just throw themselves off a bridge. I can see why some filmmakers and film fans have retreated to so-called "genre" films: action, horror, sci-fi, fantasy. At least there, the safety net of the genre frees you in a way from having to be so goddamned conventional at every turn.
Look, I don't want all movies to be arty and difficult and weird. But I do believe in a balanced cinematic diet, so to speak: at least 1 "weird" movie for every 9 "normal" ones. Is that so unreasonable? To me, that's a very sensible compromise, but I know most audiences would never, ever go for it. I do say that this project has given me a newfound respect for filmmakers who manage to work within the range of "normal" audience expectations and still manage to make films that don't feel like compromises or sell-outs. So Pixar and Tarantino, I salute you. |
| Joe Blevins |
Posted - 03/07/2010 : 23:44:48
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
Well done Joe - you survived. All your reviews deserve further comment but I just wanted to one off my chest as a caught a free screening of The Blind Side this morning. My god, what a trite, cliched, racist piece of shit. If there was ever a reason to doubt the sanity of the Academy for increasing the Best Picture field to 10 this film clears it up big time. Is there anyone in the world who would enjoy this film other than stupid white middle Americans? That it is nominated in what is meant to be the most prestigious awards ceremony for film is a mockery of the whole thing - not that they need further reason to be mocked. The fact there's also a strong possibility, according to the bookies, that Bullock might actually take Best Actress.... come on. Yes, it's probably her best role. That doesn't mean much when she's in a film as bad as this doing nothing exceptional at all.
The Blind Side is the kind of comforting old-school hogwash that the Oscars and audiences alike love. I might have thought this sort of thing went out of style 10-20 years ago, but no. It should not surprise you to learn that, of the 10 films, it was the one that got the loudest and longest round of applause. I think Bullock's performance stands out in the film because she's the only person doing anything in this film, good or bad. There's literally nothing else happening in The Blind Side. Michael, the young African-American student presumably at the heart of this story, is essentially a prop. Everyone else is just in the film to serve as a plot point. What The Blind Side is doing as a Best Picture nominee in 2010 I don't know, but its success guarantees that Hollywood will go to this well again in the future. |
| Joe Blevins |
Posted - 03/07/2010 : 23:09:05
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
Women are heightists?
I've found that many are, and not just the ones in this movie. I've heard this from real, actual women that I really, actually know, and I only need to look around to see that women generally marry men taller than they are. Your answer about the instinctual need to be protected is what I kind of suspected (and dreaded), but I think in 2010 it's time we moved away from that idea. The movie also says that it's important -- presumably for the sake of the male ego -- for the guy to make more money. Personally, I've never been and probably never will be a big earner. I hate thinking about money, and I worry about it more than I wish I had to. I would actually be relieved if the woman had more money than I did. One less thing to think about. But I guess I'm operating against the tide of history here.
Wow, the more I think about Up in the Air, the more depressing it is. |
| demonic |
Posted - 03/07/2010 : 17:13:30
Well done Joe - you survived. All your reviews deserve further comment but I just wanted to one off my chest as a caught a free screening of The Blind Side this morning. My god, what a trite, cliched, racist piece of shit. If there was ever a reason to doubt the sanity of the Academy for increasing the Best Picture field to 10 this film clears it up big time. Is there anyone in the world who would enjoy this film other than stupid white middle Americans? That it is nominated in what is meant to be the most prestigious awards ceremony for film is a mockery of the whole thing - not that they need further reason to be mocked. The fact there's also a strong possibility, according to the bookies, that Bullock might actually take Best Actress.... come on. Yes, it's probably her best role. That doesn't mean much when she's in a film as bad as this doing nothing exceptional at all. |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 03/07/2010 : 14:36:13
quote:
Originally posted by Joe Blevins
One question, though, and it's for any women who might be reading this: why is a man's height such a crucial issue? Even in that old expression, �tall, dark, and handsome,� the word �tall� gets first billing. I'm doomed to spend the rest of my days as a short person, but I still want to know. Are you women constantly reaching for items on high shelves or something? What's the deal?
Women are heightists? Seriously, I really don't care how tall/short a guy is. But there is something about having a guy big enough to make you feel safe and secure when he hugs you. I guess women generally (and of course, all generalizations are false) have an instinct that makes them want to be taken care of, protected. A guy who is smaller than she is would be at a disadvantage in that. Certainly there are many happy couples where the guy is smaller than the girl, but it isn't as easy for either to overcome the inate feeling that something is a touch off-kilter with that scenario. It takes a very self-assured woman and equally secure guy to make that work.
At least... that's my take on it.
(And yes, if you're a small woman, having someone tall enough to get stuff from the top shelves for you is terribly useful, but hardly essential. That's what chairs, stepstools and ladders were invented for.)
|
| Joe Blevins |
Posted - 03/07/2010 : 07:17:08
Part Two: The OTHER Five Nominees
And just like that, I've survived all 10 Best Picture nominees. Phew! Another grueling day. Here's the schedule for those keeping track at home:
10:30am � An Education
12:45pm � The Hurt Locker
3:15pm - Up in the Air
6:00pm � The Blind Side
8:30pm � Inglourious Basterds
Maybe not as diverse a lineup as last week, but still a varied slate of films. Let's examine 'em one by one:
An Education � There's a lot to like in this story of a schoolgirl's affair with an older man in early 1960s England. It's handsomely made and very well acted by its entire ensemble. The movie captures its time and place nicely without feeling overly art directed. As the briefest of the nominees, it moves along at a good clip and is far too well-mannered to outstay its welcome. I guess I just found the whole thing sort of slight and predictable. When you tell stories like this, there are certain plot points you have to hit and certain character types you have to include. There must always be, for instance, a suitor the girl's own age to contrast with the suave, sophisticated older man. An Education hits all its marks and offers a few comfortable homilies along the way, but I sensed no profundity here. And, alas, the movie's heart is chaste despite the potentially racy subject matter. GRADE: B
The Hurt Locker � This is the first and only Iraq War movie I have seen, and I honestly did not know what to expect going in. I'd heard so much about The Hurt Locker and didn't know what to believe. I'd heard, for example, that the movie had no real �plot� per se. (This is flat-out untrue; the movie follows a definite and rather traditional narrative outline.) I had also heard that the movie is an action picture. (This is arguably true. I know of some action-flick junkies who love this film, though I personally didn't get that �adrenaline rush� feeling from it.) And I have heard that the movie is apolitical. (This is difficult to determine, but I'd say it's untrue. �Apolitical,� to me, implies that the movie simply observes and does not pass judgment.) I'd say this is a well-done, gritty war movie that wrings some definite suspense out of an activity which is inherently suspenseful: defusing bombs. I know this is a strong critical favorite � and a serious contender for the award � but I was left a little cold. I'd have preferred a movie that felt a little more observational and a little less scripted. There are a couple of plot points that felt a bit contrived to me. I actually wish the movie had been plotless and apolitical as advertised. More specifically, I wish The Hurt Locker had started purely as observation and then gradually unspooled its narrative so subtly that the audience is caught off guard. I wanted The Hurt Locker to startle me, to show me war in a way I'd never imagined. It didn't. Not that it isn't a well-made film, but it's not groundbreaking. GRADE: B
Up in the Air � This was a pleasant surprise. I had some reservations about Jason Reitman's first film and outright hated his second film. I was not exactly clamoring to see a third, but I was relieved to find that Reitman has grown as a director and is roping in some of his worst tendencies, i.e. gimmicky, self-amused cuteness. Somewhere around the middle of the movie, I began to worry that the script was selling the joys of domesticity and �togetherness� a little hard, and I began to chafe at the sentimentality. But then, miraculously, the film pulled itself back from the brink and gave us a third act that was much more open-ended and ambiguous than I was expecting. Up in the Air is by no means essential, but it is enjoyable and relatively painless. One question, though, and it's for any women who might be reading this: why is a man's height such a crucial issue? Even in that old expression, �tall, dark, and handsome,� the word �tall� gets first billing. I'm doomed to spend the rest of my days as a short person, but I still want to know. Are you women constantly reaching for items on high shelves or something? What's the deal? GRADE: B+
The Blind Side � If there was a film among the 10 nominees I was dreading, it was The Blind Side. I'll admit, when I first saw the film's trailer, it was hate at first sight. The movie looked like absolute torture, and there is no way I would have seen it had it not been part of this marathon. Now that I have seen it, I can say that the movie isn't particularly good, and it may well be as blatantly racist as its detractors say it is. (The film's African American characters are mostly embarrassing stereotypes, and there are some cringe-inducing scenes set in the poor section of Memphis.) But it was not as painful as I was fearing it would be. Well, at least not until the last third or so, when the sentimental sap starts rising up to the audience's nostrils. Sandra Bullock's performance is showy and shrill, but even this wasn't as annoying as I was fearing. There were even one or two moments of The Blind Side I admired. I am not a football fan and can't really follow the game, so I was most grateful for the brief tutorial about the importance of the Left Tackle at the beginning of the film. I was actually kind of hoping The Blind Side was a campy fiasco, so I was a little let down at how average the movie was. It's just kind of there. Nothing special. Move along. GRADE: C+
Inglourious Basterds � Somehow I managed to see this film three times on the silver screen: once on the day it came out, once while visiting my father, and then again today. I didn't plan to see it three times; it just worked out that way. What can be said? It's a fun ride and so packed with nifty scenes and performances that multiple viewings are justified. I'm trying to remember what stood out for me on this third viewing. I know that the decision to cast Eli Roth was controversial (and made some film purists see red), but with each viewing I'm more convinced that Tarantino made the right choice, since Roth's line-readings are quite funny, and his physical presence can be genuinely menacing. There are so many good performances here, both large and small, and for me at least it's a pleasure to be in the sure and steady hands of a stylist and storyteller for 2.5 hours. My favorite film of the day. GRADE: A- |
| silly |
Posted - 03/04/2010 : 14:31:10
quote:
Originally posted by Joe Blevins
For those still following this thread:
It just struck me yesterday how -- in several ways -- District 9 is like the evil twin of Avatar. Of course, the geography is exactly switched. In Avatar, we're the ones intruding on them, and in District 9 they're intruding on us.
I think you're right. |
| Joe Blevins |
Posted - 03/03/2010 : 23:14:22
For those still following this thread:
It just struck me yesterday how -- in several ways -- District 9 is like the evil twin of Avatar. Of course, the geography is exactly switched. In Avatar, we're the ones intruding on them, and in District 9 they're intruding on us. But consider the following:
!!!THIS NEXT PARAGRAPH IS LOADED WITH SPOILERS!!!
Both movies are about a conflict between humans and a race of very tall aliens who are handy with weapons. In both movies, the humans are trying to get the aliens to move -- using diplomacy first, then force. The humans involved in this relocation represent various factions (industry, science, and the military) but are supposedly operating as a unilateral force. The main character of both movies is a guy who gets caught up between the humans and aliens and becomes a strange hybrid of both so he really belongs to neither group fully. In both cases, the hero is someone who has been promoted to his present position not because of his achievements but because of who he is related to. In both films, the hero does end up forming a special bond with one of the aliens in particular as he becomes more alien than human himself. In both films, there are a great number of casualties -- both human and alien -- but the aliens do eventually move, though only after a devastating conflict. And in both movies, the conflicted human character eventually becomes all alien. Oh, and both movies essentially operate as parables about racism. The end.
!!!SPOILERS END!!!
Okay, maybe that's a little oversimplified, and the movies aren't really all that alike in tone or purpose. But I thought the parallels were kind of interesting. |
| Joe Blevins |
Posted - 03/03/2010 : 04:15:05
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
Presumably they want you to get a lot of non-free drinks.
That was my suspicion. I realize that theaters make a lot of their money from selling concessions rather than movie tickets, and I can appreciate that they need to sell drinks, too. But the popcorn still needs to be edible on its own. |
|
|
