The Golden Globes aired just this past Sunday, and, while I was unfortunately unable to watch, I was very fascinated by the results. I will be recapping only the award-winning films here (not the TV categories, due to the subject nature of this blog). Here is the list of winning films and people:
Best Motion Picture - Drama: Avatar
Best Performance by an Actress in a Motion Picture - Drama: Sandra Bullock (The Blind Side)
Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture - Drama: Jeff Bridges (Crazy Heart)
Best Motion Picture - Comedy or Musical: The Hangover
Best Performance by an Actress in a Motion Picture - Comedy or Musical: Meryl Streep (Julie and Julia)
Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture - Comedy or Musical: Robert Downey Jr. (Sherlock Holmes)
Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role in a Motion Picture: Mo'Nique (Precious)
Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role in a Motion Picture: Christoph Waltz (Inglourious Basterds)
Best Animated Feature Film: Up
Best Foreign Language Film: The White Ribbon
Best Director - Motion Picture: James Cameron (Avatar)
Best Screenplay - Motion Picture: Jason Reitman, Sheldon Turner (Up in the Air)
Best Original Score - Motion Picture: Michael Giacchino (Up)
Best Original Song - Motion Picture: The Weary Kind (Crazy Heart)
Although there are certainly some expected (and deserving) winners here, there is a notable number of upsets.
Christoph Waltz and Mo'Nique were both practically guaranteed awards for their phenomenal supporting turns, and the fact that Meryl Streep went home with a statue was no surprise to many. However, the other winning actors were not as expected.
Sandra Bullock's win for her commercial smash, The Blind Side, comes as a shock when she was up against critic's favorites, such as Gabourey Sibide and Carey Mulligan. In addition, I wasn't anticipating Robert Downey Jr to go home with a Globe, though I suppose he deserves it after his phenomenal comeback last year in films like Tropic Thunder, Iron Man and The Soloist.
Finally, Jeff Bridges beating George Clooney also came as a shock to some. Just a month or two ago, Up In The Air was expected to sweep all of the awards ceremonies, though it only won one award at the Globes (Best Screenplay). This is largely due to Avatar beating it out of the two main categories: Best Director and Best Picture (Drama). Now I understand that James Cameron invested about a decade of his life into making this film, and for that, I totally understand his win for director. But it still simply boggles my brain how Avatar (though cinematically breathtaking) beat out the other four (I feel, much more deserving films).
Finally, the last major upset is the crude commercial favorite The Hangover beating out more critically acclaimed movies like (500) Days of Summer and Julie & Julia. Though I have yet to see The Hangover, all of my friends assure me that it was a very deserving win.
That is all for now, and I hope that by the time I post my next entry, I will have seen many of the winning and nominated films!
Friday, January 22, 2010
Monday, January 11, 2010
Where The Wild Things Are
This new children's film from Spike Jonze, the director who created such off-beat cult hits like Being John Malkovich and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, stands somewhere between a typical kiddie film and a movie that is more indicative of Jonze's earlier work.
I saw this movie with a group of five friends. Two of them disliked the film, one feeling that it was simply boring and the other feeling it had too many plot holes to be enjoyable. The other three all liked the film, though they noted its off-beat, depressing style.
My opinions fell somewhere in the middle: I was very confused as whether to take Wild Things as a fun, simple story or a truly deep, poignant tale, and I think this was because Jonze felt the same way in his direction.
The film follows the story of angsty young Max, who is fed up by the constraints and the anger of his home life. To escape the stress he voyages off on a boat to a far-away island. Here he encounters the "Wild Things." Much of the remainder of the film is spent on the island, where there is the occasional typical children's film scene, such as the hectic and fun "mud battle" between Max and his new friends.
However, a great chunk of the film is not neccesarily fun or suitable for children. The inhabitants of the island all have complex psychological backgrounds and problems, leading to a pervading sense of tension which lingers throughout the entire film. Most children won't be able to handle the uneasy, often unsettling storyline, and many teens and adults will also be taken aback by these aspects of the film.
Having said this, I would highly recommend not watching this film with small children, but rather on your own. Once you can shake off the polarizing atmosphere of the film, Wild Things serves as a very accurate portrayal of the angst of childhood, while still saying a lot about the complex contradictions of adults (though the "adults" here come primarily in the form of hairy beasts).
In the end, uneasiness aside, Wild Things is a film that you is both enjoyable (for the most part) and thought-provoking, and isn't that what we're looking for in a good movie?
8/10
I saw this movie with a group of five friends. Two of them disliked the film, one feeling that it was simply boring and the other feeling it had too many plot holes to be enjoyable. The other three all liked the film, though they noted its off-beat, depressing style.
My opinions fell somewhere in the middle: I was very confused as whether to take Wild Things as a fun, simple story or a truly deep, poignant tale, and I think this was because Jonze felt the same way in his direction.
The film follows the story of angsty young Max, who is fed up by the constraints and the anger of his home life. To escape the stress he voyages off on a boat to a far-away island. Here he encounters the "Wild Things." Much of the remainder of the film is spent on the island, where there is the occasional typical children's film scene, such as the hectic and fun "mud battle" between Max and his new friends.
However, a great chunk of the film is not neccesarily fun or suitable for children. The inhabitants of the island all have complex psychological backgrounds and problems, leading to a pervading sense of tension which lingers throughout the entire film. Most children won't be able to handle the uneasy, often unsettling storyline, and many teens and adults will also be taken aback by these aspects of the film.
Having said this, I would highly recommend not watching this film with small children, but rather on your own. Once you can shake off the polarizing atmosphere of the film, Wild Things serves as a very accurate portrayal of the angst of childhood, while still saying a lot about the complex contradictions of adults (though the "adults" here come primarily in the form of hairy beasts).
In the end, uneasiness aside, Wild Things is a film that you is both enjoyable (for the most part) and thought-provoking, and isn't that what we're looking for in a good movie?
8/10
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Inglourious Basterds
I will state up front that this may be a moderately biased review, as I am a HUGE Quentin Tarantino fan. His unparalleled action scenes, witty dialogue and unforgettable characters are all staples of his filmmaking, though he always makes sure that his movies never become too commercial by putting his own unique stamp on them. In simple terms, Tarantino makes movies which have the ability to please the masses, but can also please more educated film buffs.
Having said that, Inglourious Basterds is without question Tarantino's best movie since Pulp Fiction, as the director explores the war genre. Thankfully, the movie never divulges into unnecessarily long combat scenes or goes too deep into the often depressing lives of soldiers in World War II. In this way, QT creates an authentic (though not typical) war film, with his own individual touches.
As with all Tarantino films, Basterds features a strong ensemble cast, lead by Brad Pitt as Lt. Aldo Raine, the leader of the Basterds. However, the actor who really shines here is Christoph Waltz who plays the "Jew Hunter" Hans Landa. As a Nazi commander, Waltz must act both ruthless and (seemingly) sympathetic, and he does so excellently (in four languages, no less!).
Having said this, there are no bad performances in the movie, and Tarantino once again makes us feel wrong for rooting for the controversial acts of the Basterds, a group of Nazi-scalping American Jews.
However, the movie is about much more than the troupe's brutal acts; at its core, Basterds is about Landa's chase after an escaped Jewish girl, named Shoshanna Dreyfus (played by Melanie Laurent). This game of cat-and-mouse leads to the entanglement of a variety of characters, including the Basterds, which eventually culminates into one of the most exciting (yet most historically inaccurate) film climaxes of the year.
I don't want to give away too much about the film, but be warned that, like all Tarantino films, Inglourious Basterds features its fair share of blood and guts. This aside, rent out the film if you are looking for a truly fun and engrossing movie to watch with friends. Even though its not entirely serious nature means that it won't go home with a ton of statues on Oscar night, it still stands out as one of the finest movies of the year.
10/10
Having said that, Inglourious Basterds is without question Tarantino's best movie since Pulp Fiction, as the director explores the war genre. Thankfully, the movie never divulges into unnecessarily long combat scenes or goes too deep into the often depressing lives of soldiers in World War II. In this way, QT creates an authentic (though not typical) war film, with his own individual touches.
As with all Tarantino films, Basterds features a strong ensemble cast, lead by Brad Pitt as Lt. Aldo Raine, the leader of the Basterds. However, the actor who really shines here is Christoph Waltz who plays the "Jew Hunter" Hans Landa. As a Nazi commander, Waltz must act both ruthless and (seemingly) sympathetic, and he does so excellently (in four languages, no less!).
Having said this, there are no bad performances in the movie, and Tarantino once again makes us feel wrong for rooting for the controversial acts of the Basterds, a group of Nazi-scalping American Jews.
However, the movie is about much more than the troupe's brutal acts; at its core, Basterds is about Landa's chase after an escaped Jewish girl, named Shoshanna Dreyfus (played by Melanie Laurent). This game of cat-and-mouse leads to the entanglement of a variety of characters, including the Basterds, which eventually culminates into one of the most exciting (yet most historically inaccurate) film climaxes of the year.
I don't want to give away too much about the film, but be warned that, like all Tarantino films, Inglourious Basterds features its fair share of blood and guts. This aside, rent out the film if you are looking for a truly fun and engrossing movie to watch with friends. Even though its not entirely serious nature means that it won't go home with a ton of statues on Oscar night, it still stands out as one of the finest movies of the year.
10/10
Julie & Julia
This was the first film I saw in the theater all summer, and I have not viewed it since, so bear with me as I try to recall my feelings upon it from half a year ago...
Julie & Julia follows the lives of Julia Child, the now legendary chef famous in the 1960s, and the modern day Julie Powell, a struggling wife who finds motivation from Child's legendary cookbook, The Art of French Cooking.
Meryl Streep stars as Child and Amy Adams stars as Powell, with both women giving great performances (especially Streep, who will almost certainly earn another Oscar nomination for her spot-on portrayal of the idiosyncratic chef). The cast is rounded out by some strong (though less memorable) supporting actors and actresses, including Stanley Tucci, Chris Messina and Jane Lynch.
Overall, Julie & Julia is that rare kind of movie: one that is truly heart-warming and uplifting, without seeming overly unrealistic or sugar-coated (not surprising, as both story lines are firmly based in fact). However, it is this same fact that makes the movie a good one, and not a great film that is worthy of a Best Picture nomination. Although it's nice to see Child achieve success in a male-dominated cooking society, and Powell become popular through her online cooking blog, the film remains nothing more than that: just nice. It's not the kind of movie that will leave you with a strong lasting impression, other than simple delight.
Although I certainly enjoyed the film, and left the theater joyfully, it's not exactly a movie that will be Oscar bait (aside from, as previously mentioned, a nod for Streep's efforts).
7/10
Julie & Julia follows the lives of Julia Child, the now legendary chef famous in the 1960s, and the modern day Julie Powell, a struggling wife who finds motivation from Child's legendary cookbook, The Art of French Cooking.
Meryl Streep stars as Child and Amy Adams stars as Powell, with both women giving great performances (especially Streep, who will almost certainly earn another Oscar nomination for her spot-on portrayal of the idiosyncratic chef). The cast is rounded out by some strong (though less memorable) supporting actors and actresses, including Stanley Tucci, Chris Messina and Jane Lynch.
Overall, Julie & Julia is that rare kind of movie: one that is truly heart-warming and uplifting, without seeming overly unrealistic or sugar-coated (not surprising, as both story lines are firmly based in fact). However, it is this same fact that makes the movie a good one, and not a great film that is worthy of a Best Picture nomination. Although it's nice to see Child achieve success in a male-dominated cooking society, and Powell become popular through her online cooking blog, the film remains nothing more than that: just nice. It's not the kind of movie that will leave you with a strong lasting impression, other than simple delight.
Although I certainly enjoyed the film, and left the theater joyfully, it's not exactly a movie that will be Oscar bait (aside from, as previously mentioned, a nod for Streep's efforts).
7/10
Introduction
My purpose for this blog is to see a good majority of the Oscar-worthy films of the year (and other movies which have received high acclaim), and write reviews on each one of them.
I have been a huge film buff for quite some time now (I spent many hours on imdb.com as a child), and few times of the year are more exciting than Oscar season! Last winter, I saw many of the films from 2008 which were up for nominations at the Academy Awards, and I thoroughly enjoyed the exposure to so many great films. In addition, it really helped make me a much more educated viewer on the night of the show.
I would like to repeat this effor this for the 2009 films, many of which are already garnering strong Oscar buzz. As always there are films which are gaining appeal for their outstanding acting, script writing and directing (sometimes, all three).
Like any year, the films expected to be nominated range from huge commercial smashes to smaller indie favorites. Some films will gain attention purely for a single shining performance, and some will do so for their overall appeal.
So I think the real question here is...what makes a good film? It is not neccesarily mass appeal. Take, for example, The Dark Knight. Almost everyone who saw it adored it, including many critics. Nevertheless, it was not even nominated for Best Picture. Instead, the nominees (excluding Benjamin Button) were all relatively small indie films that critics adored.
Some would argue that this is wrong...that it is indeed the films most liked by the most people that deserve to be entitled the Best Picture. Possibly in response to this, the Academy has bumped up the number of Best Picture nominees from 5 to 10. With this new system, it is inevitable that big movies (ie, Avatar, Star Trek) will be among the lucky to be nominated. What is not so certain is whether or not a "big" film will take home serious Oscar gold this year.
Blockbusters rarely do well at awards shows (aside from in categories such as Visual Effects and Art Direction), and, as an unfortunate result, the Oscars have seen a decline in ratings in recent years. Some have wondered if the Academy will start honoring blockbusters more (in an attempt to draw more viewers), or will continue to award those films they deem to be most worthy. Some wonder if they can do both...
Unfortunately, there is no "Dark Knight" this year...at least not one that I know of. No film that can rake in serious cash, but also provide a truly deep, thought-provoking storyline. As a result, I am anticipating that a film such as Up In The Air or The Hurt Locker will take home Best Picture (and probably Best Director and Best Screenplay, as well). {*UPDATE*: Avatar's Best Picture and Best Director wins at the Globes (an awards show that usually provides some indication of potential Oscar winners) may upset these predictions. Though I have not yet seen Avatar, my friends generally tell me that it is an amazing technological achievement, though one is severely lacking in story and emotion (a crucial part being a Best Picture winner). I think that now it will be very interesting to see if the Academy takes their typical route of awarding a smaller film, or giving into into the commercial world, and awarding Avatar with serious accolades.}
With all these "film geek" rants aside, I am making it my goal to see as many of these acclaimedmovies as possible before March 7th (the big night!), and then giving my subsequent predictions as to who will win. Wish me luck!
I have been a huge film buff for quite some time now (I spent many hours on imdb.com as a child), and few times of the year are more exciting than Oscar season! Last winter, I saw many of the films from 2008 which were up for nominations at the Academy Awards, and I thoroughly enjoyed the exposure to so many great films. In addition, it really helped make me a much more educated viewer on the night of the show.
I would like to repeat this effor this for the 2009 films, many of which are already garnering strong Oscar buzz. As always there are films which are gaining appeal for their outstanding acting, script writing and directing (sometimes, all three).
Like any year, the films expected to be nominated range from huge commercial smashes to smaller indie favorites. Some films will gain attention purely for a single shining performance, and some will do so for their overall appeal.
So I think the real question here is...what makes a good film? It is not neccesarily mass appeal. Take, for example, The Dark Knight. Almost everyone who saw it adored it, including many critics. Nevertheless, it was not even nominated for Best Picture. Instead, the nominees (excluding Benjamin Button) were all relatively small indie films that critics adored.
Some would argue that this is wrong...that it is indeed the films most liked by the most people that deserve to be entitled the Best Picture. Possibly in response to this, the Academy has bumped up the number of Best Picture nominees from 5 to 10. With this new system, it is inevitable that big movies (ie, Avatar, Star Trek) will be among the lucky to be nominated. What is not so certain is whether or not a "big" film will take home serious Oscar gold this year.
Blockbusters rarely do well at awards shows (aside from in categories such as Visual Effects and Art Direction), and, as an unfortunate result, the Oscars have seen a decline in ratings in recent years. Some have wondered if the Academy will start honoring blockbusters more (in an attempt to draw more viewers), or will continue to award those films they deem to be most worthy. Some wonder if they can do both...
Unfortunately, there is no "Dark Knight" this year...at least not one that I know of. No film that can rake in serious cash, but also provide a truly deep, thought-provoking storyline. As a result, I am anticipating that a film such as Up In The Air or The Hurt Locker will take home Best Picture (and probably Best Director and Best Screenplay, as well). {*UPDATE*: Avatar's Best Picture and Best Director wins at the Globes (an awards show that usually provides some indication of potential Oscar winners) may upset these predictions. Though I have not yet seen Avatar, my friends generally tell me that it is an amazing technological achievement, though one is severely lacking in story and emotion (a crucial part being a Best Picture winner). I think that now it will be very interesting to see if the Academy takes their typical route of awarding a smaller film, or giving into into the commercial world, and awarding Avatar with serious accolades.}
With all these "film geek" rants aside, I am making it my goal to see as many of these acclaimedmovies as possible before March 7th (the big night!), and then giving my subsequent predictions as to who will win. Wish me luck!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)