| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Joe Blevins |
Posted - 02/22/2009 : 07:55:45
A nearby theater was running an annual promotion allowing customers to watch all five Best Picture nominees in one day. Since I had not seen any of these films, I decided to take this opportunity to watch them all in one fell swoop.
I have just returned from this event. My head is still sort of swimming, but here are some general thoughts on the day:
Milk (10:30am) A lionizing biopic in the Gandhi tradition. Sean Penn is very convincing, and the cast is good all around. Essentially a commercial for Harvey Milk, the film is hokey and preachy but effective. I'll say this for it: the film takes an unambiguous stand and stays with it for the entire running time. No chickening out here. Occasionally falls victim to biopic-itis: reducing a man's life to a "greatest hits" highlights reel. Made me want to seek out the documentary on Milk. Grade: B
The Reader (1:05pm) This seems like typical Oscar bait: a sober drama about the Holocaust, illiteracy, and power of reading. Some generous Kate Winslet nudity spices up the first act, but the male protagonist is a petulant little twerp even during the stages of his life when he's being played by Ralph Fiennes. I was somewhat intrigued by the story but not moved or enlightened. Of the five films, this one seemed to go over the weakest with the assembled audience of hardcore movie geeks. Second film in a row to feature people in 1970s period costumes. Grade: B-
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (3:45pm) This film benefitted enormously from being totally unlike The Reader. Lots of crazy stuff going on in this flick, which is heavy on gimmicks and sentimentality but light on actual insights. The woman behind me was sniffling by the end, but I was totally unmoved. Take away the backwards-aging, and you have a story of two characters (Benjamin and Daisy) who are not especially interesting or even that intelligent. The awesome Tilda Swinton briefly lights a fire under this movie, only to frustratingly vanish from the plot. Movies about the American South tend to get very hokey indeed, and this film is no exception. It's hard to deny all the artfully-done weirdness, though, and Daisy's sexy ballet-stretching got some appreciative catcalls from the male audience members. And as for '70s period costumes, we're three for three. Grade: a very generous B-
Slumdog Millionaire (7:15pm) I'd heard this was the odds-on favorite to win, and now that I've seen it I'm convinced it will. This was a very well-made crowd pleaser and went over great with the audience today. I'll have to be honest here and say that as corny, formulaic, and manipulative as this film is, I got caught up in it. Maybe it's because this is the closest thing to a gangster picture among the nominees. Whether the film misrepresents India, I do not know and will not speculate. Maybe in five years, I'll rewatch this movie and cringe. For now, I'm happy to have seen it. Any 1970s period costumes? Quite possibly in the clips of the Bollywood action movie star who gives Jamal an autograph. Plus all the gangsters in this movie dress like it's still the 1970s.Grade: B+
Frost/Nixon (9:45pm) This and Slumdog were my favorites of the day, but F/N is the only one of the five films that might end up in my DVD library. What can I say? This is the kind of stuff I find fascinating. They could make a Nixon movie every year, and I'd never get tired of them since I consider RMN to be far and away the most interesting American of the 20th century. Great cast with lots of recognizable character actors. Careful attention to period details. This is the kind of flick that gets me out of my little hobbit-hole and into the cineplex. I love it when Hollywood makes movies about television. (Not adaptations of TV shows, but movies ABOUT the production of television shows.) And 1970s period costumes? The whole MOVIE is 1970s period costumes! Grade: A-
BONUS: 10 lessons I learned from the Best Picture nominees:
1. War is bad.
2. Learning is good.
3. Life can be rough, but you have to make the most of it.
4. War is bad.
5. Bigotry is bad.
6. Believe in your dreams.
7. People should be nicer to each other than they are.
8. Never give up.
9. War is bad.
10. People wore funny-looking clothes in the 1970s.
|
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Wheelz |
Posted - 02/17/2010 : 13:27:03
quote:
Originally posted by Joe Blevins
(Wheelz? You out there?)
Yes, I am! 
quote:
Originally posted by Joe Blevins
I'm totally up for this. Trouble is, I can't make heads or tails out of the designated list of participating theaters.
Anyway, I really hope I get to participate in this ridiculous marathon again this year. I'm a terrible driver, though, and the ONE (1) bad thing about last year's marathon was that it happened to fall on a very snowy day and required me to drive to a theater I'd never visited before. The snow fell all day and I kept worrying, "How am I going to make it home alive?"
I don't know why they decided to list only the theatre names by metropolitan area, rather than, you know, the name of the city the theater is actually in.
South Barrington 30, at the intersection of I-90 and Route 59, is the closest choice to Arlington Heights and shouldn't be that tough to find -- it's pretty much right there in front of you as you exit the tollway. It'd be about a 10-mile drive, depending on what part of A.H. you're coming from.
I'll be at the Cantera 30 in Warrenville (I-88 at Winfield Rd.), which according to Google is 32 miles from Arlington Heights. If you feel the drive is worth it I'd be happy to meet you there.
As for the others on the list (which you probably don't want to bother with): Yorktown is in Lombard (20 miles); Crestwood is in the south 'burbs (40 miles); and River East and 600 N. Michigan, of course, are in downtown Chicago.
But if you're up for a real marathon, the River East is showing all 10 films in a row beginning at 12:01 am on March 6! Metra and about an $8 cab ride will get you there pretty easily. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 02/17/2010 : 02:27:16
I wonder if there's anything similar here. I've just checked the nominations and I really need to play catch-up. |
| Joe Blevins |
Posted - 02/06/2010 : 05:06:32
Hello, one and all!
Well, it is that time of year once again. Last year, I was one of the brave/foolish moviegoers who watched all five Best Picture nominees in one day. I believe other FWFRers have done this, too. (Wheelz? You out there?) This year, of course, there are 10 nominees. I wondered how the AMC theater chain was going to handle it... or if they were simply going to drop the promotion.
BUT! I needn't have worried. AMC is continuing with the promotion this year, but they're spreading it out over two Saturdays.
I'm totally up for this. Trouble is, I can't make heads or tails out of the designated list of participating theaters.
Last year, they had it set up so that you entered your zip code into a search engine, and the site would cough up the name of the theater closest to you. Tickets aren't on sale yet, so maybe they'll add that later.
Anyway, I really hope I get to participate in this ridiculous marathon again this year. I'm a terrible driver, though, and the ONE (1) bad thing about last year's marathon was that it happened to fall on a very snowy day and required me to drive to a theater I'd never visited before. The snow fell all day and I kept worrying, "How am I going to make it home alive?" |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 02/27/2009 : 14:49:55
I know what you mean, and can retrospectively see that the film may well mean that, but how I see it is that if he ever committed paedophilia then he shouldn't be working with children and Sister Aloysius is right to drive him away regardless of his actions this time. I know that he ends up at another school, but even though she probably knows that is likely she does try her best to prevent it by talking to his superior. In other words, her actions should be pretty much the same regardless of the specifics of the Miller case. I don't want to be too Daily Mail and I'm not saying that paedophiles necessarily cannot repent and reform, but it's a no-brainer to stop them from working with children. It would therefore surely be far more interesting if she drove him out without proof that he had ever done anything wrong. Or at least she should voice the fear that he is now more able to do harm than under her watch. |
| demonic |
Posted - 02/27/2009 : 13:27:54
Isn't it? I think that's a crucial point. As he says himself he confessed and atoned for his sins, the same way that Sister Aloysius did for whatever she did that was a "mortal sin". It's a bit like saying a reformed thief must be guilty and punished for a another crime even if there's doubt of his guilt. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 02/27/2009 : 08:04:55
I had not thought about the possibility that Flynn had been guilty in the past but had not happened to be this time. On the other hand, the film therefore didn't cause me to think that. Either way, the problem still remains, for me, that the trailer overwhelmingly gave the impression that he was guilty in general. Indeed, this sense may have coloured my view of his guilt in the film, but I was hoping for the evidence to more strongly swing the other way. Also, if he was guilty in the past, it's not massively interesting whether he's also guilty this time anyway. |
| Joe Blevins |
Posted - 02/27/2009 : 01:17:41
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
I enjoyed Doubt, but my main problem with it was that (spoilers) the trailer made it very clear that Father Flynn was guilty. I therefore very much hoped that this would turn out to not be the case, but while the film attempts to introduce some ambiguity and never actually proves it, we are never in any doubt..
"We" aren't? I was. Til the last frame.
Of course, I never did see that trailer. I did, though, hear a radio interview with P.S. Hoffman who said that he took John Patrick Shanley aside and asked him whether Father Flynn was guilty. Shanley gave Hoffman a definitive answer, but Hoffman would not reveal that answer -- nor should he.
|
| Joe Blevins |
Posted - 02/27/2009 : 01:16:15
quote:
Originally posted by Wheelz
quote:
Originally posted by Joe Blevins
I'd love to see the 2010 marathon with fellow FWFRers. Where the heck is Warrenville? To get to this year's marathon, I had to drive about half an hour to Northbrook, IL and the weather was not exactly cooperating. The roads were very, very slick. I was trembling by the time I got to the theater.
I was at AMC's Cantera 30 at I-88 and Winfield Rd. I thought Streets of Woodfield was doing the Oscar Showcase thing too; that's where I assumed you must have gone. A.H. to Northbrook is a pain in the ass in good weather!
The Streets of Woodfield was indeed running the showcase, but I've never actually been there -- and the street directions to Northbrook were seemingly idiot-proof. (Only one actual turn!) But the trip was tougher than I thought it would be. I chose the theater based on how simple the directions appeared to be. |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 02/26/2009 : 23:11:14
It's the boy's mother who encapsulates the aspects of doubt.
Oh, yeah - prob'ly spoilers:
The scene with Streep and Davis transcends the stagey nature of the film itself to reveal that the mother knows her son has homosexual tendencies. She, and the boy, have been terrified of the father's brutally homophobic reaction. She's willing to refuse to confront anything about Flynn so long as her husband never gets the chance to imagine the boy may have been complicit in the priest's attention to him. It's that scene which more than any other allows Streep to loosen her absolutes, even to herself. The scene is so important because Shanley's point is that everyone is fallible and no one really knows everything about other people. And, most important, in a world in which morals can never be absolute, who cares.
|
| demonic |
Posted - 02/26/2009 : 22:28:14
quote:
Originally posted by Salopian
I enjoyed Doubt, but my main problem with it was that (spoilers) the trailer made it very clear that Father Flynn was guilty. I therefore very much hoped that this would turn out to not be the case, but while the film attempts to introduce some ambiguity and never actually proves it, we are never in any doubt. As for Sister Aloysius blubbing about doubt at the end (which I just take to be about God; some people have said that she has doubt about his actions but from the film I cannot see that -- I am guessing that it is more possible in the play), I just thought "Well, good, you should have doubt -- at the very least".
Interesting. I agree that the final sentiment of doubt is regarding her faith, but could just have easily refer to her actions or any other number of things, maybe all of them. It sort of seems to be the point that nothing is explicit and nothing is explained in a film concerned with interpretations of the truth.
Regarding Flynn's guilt, I figured that he had indeed behaved inappropriately in the past, hence his reaction to his past being potentially uncovered, however I don't think he did anything untoward with the boy in this instance. In fact thinking about it I'm pretty sure that the only homosexual activity going on in the rectory was between the two altar boys, hence their strange behaviour throughout the film. |
| Wheelz |
Posted - 02/26/2009 : 14:35:31
quote:
Originally posted by Joe Blevins
I'd love to see the 2010 marathon with fellow FWFRers. Where the heck is Warrenville? To get to this year's marathon, I had to drive about half an hour to Northbrook, IL and the weather was not exactly cooperating. The roads were very, very slick. I was trembling by the time I got to the theater.
I was at AMC's Cantera 30 at I-88 and Winfield Rd. I thought Streets of Woodfield was doing the Oscar Showcase thing too; that's where I assumed you must have gone. A.H. to Northbrook is a pain in the ass in good weather! |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 02/26/2009 : 04:13:08
I enjoyed Doubt, but my main problem with it was that (spoilers) the trailer made it very clear that Father Flynn was guilty. I therefore very much hoped that this would turn out to not be the case, but while the film attempts to introduce some ambiguity and never actually proves it, we are never in any doubt. As for Sister Aloysius blubbing about doubt at the end (which I just take to be about God; some people have said that she has doubt about his actions but from the film I cannot see that -- I am guessing that it is more possible in the play), I just thought "Well, good, you should have doubt -- at the very least". |
| Joe Blevins |
Posted - 02/26/2009 : 03:50:48
Wheelz:
I'd love to see the 2010 marathon with fellow FWFRers. Where the heck is Warrenville? To get to this year's marathon, I had to drive about half an hour to Northbrook, IL and the weather was not exactly cooperating. The roads were very, very slick. I was trembling by the time I got to the theater.
In retrospect, Milk probably only got a B because I saw it at 10:30am and was still a little sleepy. The cast, as I said, was good from top to bottom. Sean definitely earned his Oscar. (Haven't seen The Wrestler, though.) This is not necessarily a showy performance. His potrayal of Harvey Milk feels very lived-in. In many ways, this is much better, more mature filmmaking than Slumdog Millionaire. But Slumdog had the advantage of being the day's only real action thriller -- the schedule's token "jolt of adrenaline."
What can I say about Frost/Nixon except that every year there are one or two films that are seemingly geared so specifically to my interests that I like to pretend they were actually made for me. F/N is a film like that. If I were a filmmaker, that's the kind of project I would seek out to do. Looking over my DVD collection, I see a lot of movies about film and television production, and again I have an enduring interest in Richard Nixon. The scene where David Frost and his girlfriend are given a personal tour of La Casa Pacifica? I'd have given my eye teeth for that! And the scene in which Nixon calls Frost the night before the final taping was my favorite scene in any of the five films. Secret Honor probably remains my all-time favorite Nixon film, though.
BTW, there was nothing really "wrong" with The Reader per se. I just didn't really care about what happened to the characters. I didn't care about the characters of Benjamin Button either, but again there was all that crazy, gimmicky stuff to distract me. (But did we really need the framing story with the hospital and the hurricane? Yeesh! I swear, half an hour of this film must be clips of the Weather Channel and nurses giving progress reports on the storm! "The storm is getting worse." "The storm is going to miss us." "The storm isn't going to miss us." "No, wait, it is." All of this adds up to exactly NOTHING! THE MOVIE ISN'T ABOUT THAT IDIOTIC STORM! STOP TALKING ABOUT IT!)
P.S. - Probably my fave film of 2008 was Doubt, not among the BP nominees but a swell film nevertheless. Call it the great Catholic feel-bad flick of '08! I was disappointed it did not win anything at the Oscars and hope people see it anyway. Four great performances and a very lean, spare script that explores the idea of "doubt," admittedly not the easiest concept to capture on film. |
| randall |
Posted - 02/23/2009 : 15:45:05
Great summary, Joe. Five in one day is banging against the limits of my brain power. |
| Wheelz |
Posted - 02/23/2009 : 13:06:13
My wife and I did this last year and had some doubts about how we would handle it. But it turned out to be a blast so we did it again this year.
A good friend joined us as well, and half the fun was discussing each film afterward and looking ahead to the next one. Not sure I would have made it through the day by myself, so nice going, Joe!
As a whole, we all agreed that last year's five made for a more entertaining day. No real clunkers this time, just an overall slower pace and some heavier themes (and longer by about an hour). We felt more drained by the end of the night. No Juno to cleanse the palate this year! After sitting through Milk and The Reader, a guy behind us said, "They need to throw in an episode of Family Guy right about now."
If it had been up to me, I might have tweaked the order of the screenings. Last year closed with No Country For Old Men, a perfect shot of adrenaline to finish out the long day. Frost/Nixon, while an excellent film, was the talkiest of them all; I was beginning to lose focus by the end, and my wife actually dozed off once. I think swapping Frost/Nixon with Milk would have been just the ticket.
As for the films themselves, Joe Blevins has done an excellent job with his reviews, and I have no significant disagreements -- though I'd give a higher grade to Milk and was somewhat less enthusiastic about Frost/Nixon. If I had an Acadamy vote, it would have gone to Milk.
I'm already looking forward to next year's Showcase. (Joe, you feel like driving down to Warrenville?) |
|
|
