Having a long February break, I was able to watch several movies that I was looking forward to for quite some time. One of them, District 9, is nominated for Best Picture, along with three other nods (for Editing, Visual Effects and Adapted Screenplay).
Yes, I realize that this film was released way back in the summer of last year, and I should have seen it a good long time ago, but my procrastination got in the way of that. Without further ado, I will review the aforementioned film
District 9 was produced by Peter Jackson, who saw special potential in the film's director and writer, Neill Blomkamp. The movie did quite well at the box office, and received critical acclaim, being considered one of the smartest science fiction films in years. And just recently the film scored its Academy Award nominations. To put it mildly, I was very excited to see this movie for a variety of reasons, and I think that is why I was inevitably disappointed by what I saw.
Yes, District 9 has one of the most clever concepts which the alien invasion genre has seen in years. When the ships land in South Africa, the invaders (here a crustacean-like species called Prawns) don't attack mercilessly; rather, they are malnourished creatures hardly capable of defending themselves. The Prawns are then placed in slums, and entirely segregated from the human population, in a smart allegory for apartheid in the 20th century.
Nevertheless, the premise and some great acting from Sharlto Copley (I would argue that Copley is more deserving of a Best Actor nod than Jeremy Renner of The Hurt Locker) are not enough to stop District 9 from being a slightly better than average sci-fi flick. It doesn't have the same intellectual punch like some of my favorite sci-fi flicks, such as Blade Runner, Aliens, Brazil or 12 Monkeys.
Don't get me wrong, the first half hour or so of the film was spectacular, with moments that were both humorous and jarring. Nevertheless, towards the end, the film slips into a somewhat stereotypical actionfest that is all too common in today's sci-fi.
Though certainly a fine movie, District 9 doesn't have the kind of attributes worthy of most other Best Picture nominees, and, therefore, I feel that it was one of the "filler" films included to round out the 10 movie race.
6/10
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Double Feature Review: (500) Days of Summer AND The Hurt Locker
Even though my last couple of posts have been focused on accolades in general, I have realized that it's neccesary to return to my earlier review format.
In this post, I will be reviewing two films which I have recently viewed: the romantic "comedy" (500) Days of Summer, and the Iraq war drama The Hurt Locker. Despite the varied subject matter, the two movies are similar in that their stories are entirely realistic, and this pervading sense of realism can sometimes be uncomfortable to watch. We usually go to the movies to see things that help us escape from reality, not face it. However, the movies that DO make us face our everyday lives are sometimes the most important ones.
(500) Days of Summer follows the 500-day relationship between Tom (played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and Summer (Zooey Deschanel). The romance has its many highs and lows, but what is interesting is the non-chronological narrative. Since the film skips around to many points in Tom and Summer's relationship, we get a dizzying blend of the different emotions experienced between the two, rather than a linear, more straightforward progression. I personally fell in love with the narrative style, and I feel that it is these kinds of changes in presentation that will allow movies to evolve, instead of becoming overladen with CGI effects.
However, not meaning to spoil, I have to say that the film does NOT have a happy ending. Though it starts out as the well-worn story of two typical lovers (who, in this case, meet at the office), things quickly begin to go sour for Tom. Though he is convinced that he loves her, Summer's feelings for him begin to wane as the 500 days progress. Though I became angry when the relationship between the two didn't work out, it made me marvel at the power of the film; that I could become so wrapped up in the storyline that I truly wanted these two characters to be together. However, the film is also very honest in this way. Relationships often aren't perfect, and this is why the film seems so relatable.
Though it is a phenomenal film, part of me still wishes that (500) Days of Summer was a little more sweet than bitter.
9/10
On the other hand, Oscar buzz has been growing for Kathryn Bigelow's The Hurt Locker. Entertainment Weekly currently considers the war film to be the front-runner for both the Best Picture and Best Director. However, when I saw The Hurt Locker it did not have a tremendous impact on me; at least not the same kind of impact that made me so sure that Slumdog Millionaire would take away the Best Picture last year.
The Hurt Locker follows a bomb defusion squad in the Iraq War. Straight from the get-go, the movie thrusts you into an incredibly tense world, where death could await you at every corner. In this regard, the movie is a triumph, because it accurately depicts the war situation in a way no film has before. When reading an interview with Bigelow, she also commented on how she didn't want the film to have a political subtext. Though I didn't notice this when initially watching the film, I have to say that the lack of government jargon really helps you to focus on the war more for the combat itself, instead of the motives.
Unfortunately, the film falls short in making emotional connections. Though I can't help but root, while remain fearful, for the entire squad, I feel that I would do the same for any human being in their situation. It's hard to stay truly sympathetic with the characters, because we have very few glimpses of their actual emotions; we only see how they act under the intense pressure of war.
This is why I am baffled by Jeremy Renner's Oscar nomination. He certainly offers a fine portrayal of how a man acts in such an atrocious situation, but I can't latch on to his character of William James (or really any character in the movie, for the matter), or at least not in the way I can latch onto Tom or Summer.
Although the lack of character development probably revolves around the relatively sparse script, I still don't feel it has the kind of lasting, emotional power to merit a Best Picture win. Although the movie makes you cringe, and pity the poor soldiers who are working to promote democracy in the Middle East, a deep connection with the movie is difficult to sustain.
Instead, I am still rooting for this year's other pre-eminent war picture: Inglourious Basterds.
8/10
In this post, I will be reviewing two films which I have recently viewed: the romantic "comedy" (500) Days of Summer, and the Iraq war drama The Hurt Locker. Despite the varied subject matter, the two movies are similar in that their stories are entirely realistic, and this pervading sense of realism can sometimes be uncomfortable to watch. We usually go to the movies to see things that help us escape from reality, not face it. However, the movies that DO make us face our everyday lives are sometimes the most important ones.
(500) Days of Summer follows the 500-day relationship between Tom (played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and Summer (Zooey Deschanel). The romance has its many highs and lows, but what is interesting is the non-chronological narrative. Since the film skips around to many points in Tom and Summer's relationship, we get a dizzying blend of the different emotions experienced between the two, rather than a linear, more straightforward progression. I personally fell in love with the narrative style, and I feel that it is these kinds of changes in presentation that will allow movies to evolve, instead of becoming overladen with CGI effects.
However, not meaning to spoil, I have to say that the film does NOT have a happy ending. Though it starts out as the well-worn story of two typical lovers (who, in this case, meet at the office), things quickly begin to go sour for Tom. Though he is convinced that he loves her, Summer's feelings for him begin to wane as the 500 days progress. Though I became angry when the relationship between the two didn't work out, it made me marvel at the power of the film; that I could become so wrapped up in the storyline that I truly wanted these two characters to be together. However, the film is also very honest in this way. Relationships often aren't perfect, and this is why the film seems so relatable.
Though it is a phenomenal film, part of me still wishes that (500) Days of Summer was a little more sweet than bitter.
9/10
On the other hand, Oscar buzz has been growing for Kathryn Bigelow's The Hurt Locker. Entertainment Weekly currently considers the war film to be the front-runner for both the Best Picture and Best Director. However, when I saw The Hurt Locker it did not have a tremendous impact on me; at least not the same kind of impact that made me so sure that Slumdog Millionaire would take away the Best Picture last year.
The Hurt Locker follows a bomb defusion squad in the Iraq War. Straight from the get-go, the movie thrusts you into an incredibly tense world, where death could await you at every corner. In this regard, the movie is a triumph, because it accurately depicts the war situation in a way no film has before. When reading an interview with Bigelow, she also commented on how she didn't want the film to have a political subtext. Though I didn't notice this when initially watching the film, I have to say that the lack of government jargon really helps you to focus on the war more for the combat itself, instead of the motives.
Unfortunately, the film falls short in making emotional connections. Though I can't help but root, while remain fearful, for the entire squad, I feel that I would do the same for any human being in their situation. It's hard to stay truly sympathetic with the characters, because we have very few glimpses of their actual emotions; we only see how they act under the intense pressure of war.
This is why I am baffled by Jeremy Renner's Oscar nomination. He certainly offers a fine portrayal of how a man acts in such an atrocious situation, but I can't latch on to his character of William James (or really any character in the movie, for the matter), or at least not in the way I can latch onto Tom or Summer.
Although the lack of character development probably revolves around the relatively sparse script, I still don't feel it has the kind of lasting, emotional power to merit a Best Picture win. Although the movie makes you cringe, and pity the poor soldiers who are working to promote democracy in the Middle East, a deep connection with the movie is difficult to sustain.
Instead, I am still rooting for this year's other pre-eminent war picture: Inglourious Basterds.
8/10
Friday, February 5, 2010
Oscar Nominations!
A few days ago, the Academy finally released their list of films nominated for the big night. One of the major amendments to the awards ceremony is the fact that there will be ten films in the running for Best Picture, instead of the usual five.
And the nominees are:
Avatar
The Blind Side
District 9
An Education
The Hurt Locker
Inglourious Basterds
Precious
A Serious Man
Up
Up In The Air
Some cynicists say this devalues the importance of getting nominated, while others think that the extra five films allows for recognition that would've never been achieved, and (probably more importantly) nominations for films which the Academy which would usually be deemed too commercial. This is evident with Avatar, The Blind Side, District 9, and Up, all of which were blockbusters that probably wouldn't be up for nominations if it weren't for this new amendment to the ceremony.
The fact is especially true for Up, which would otherwise have only been Best Animated Feature (it is only the second cartoon to be nominated for Best Picture; the other being Beauty and the Beast). Some would argue that Up's nomination, and really the blockbusters in general, is like the Academy searching too hard for extra candidates. Others would argue that their inclusion could be an attempt by the Academy to gain more viewer interest, as the ratings were generally low this past decade.
Personally, I'm not furious about the films nominated (mostly because my personal favorite, Inglourious Basterds, got a nod) but I do sense that some of the films are probably not the same caliber as others (ie, I don't think you can compare The Hurt Locker and The Blind Side). In addition, so many nominees makes the race seem less tight, and is overall far more confusing.
Last year's Slumdog Millionaire, Frost/Nixon, The Reader, Milk and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button were all worthy films, and every movie had its own personal fanbase. With ten nominees, certain critics will find many of the nominees less than worthy, and there will unquestionably be divided fanbases with so many movies up for the award.
Right now, I see The Hurt Locker and Up in the Air as the frontrunners for this category, with movies like Avatar and Precious as definite possibilities for the win. Inglourious Basterds and An Education both have a chance, while I would consider District 9, Up, A Serious Man and The Blind Side all long-shots. Of course, this is all merely speculation and speculation has no influence on the Academy. However, over the past few years, the Academy has started a tradition of generally going with the flow in these larger categories. In fact, I would argue that the last huge upset in the Best Picture was at the 2006 Oscars when Crash beat Brokeback Mountain.
So perhaps the nicest thing about the increased number of nominations is that it will make the whole race more fair. In a year where, I would argue, there is no definite frontrunner (unlike last year's Slumdog Millionaire), the suspense, and subsequent interest, of the Oscars will increase considerably. With some commercial fare up for a few statues, audience interest will probably rise. The relevance of the ceremony will be rejuvenated, and that could be just what the Academy needs at this point in time.
The other major category nominees include:
BEST ACTOR
Jeff Bridges - Crazy Heart
George Clooney - Up In The Air
Colin Firth - A Single Man
Morgan Freeman - Invictus
Jeremy Renner - The Hurt Locker
BEST ACTRESS
Sandra Bullock - The Blind Side
Helen Mirren - The Last Station
Carey Mulligan - An Education
Gabourey Sibide - Precious
Meryl Streep - Julie & Julia
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Matt Damon - Invictus
Woody Harrelson - The Messenger
Christopher Plummer - The Last Station
Stanley Tucci - The Lovely Bones
Christoph Waltz - Inglourious Basterds
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Penelope Cruz - Nine
Vera Farmiga - Up In The Air
Maggie Gylenhaal - Crazy Heart
Anna Kendrick - Up In The Air
Mo'Nique - Precious
BEST DIRECTOR
James Cameron - Avatar
Kathryn Bigelow - The Hurt Locker
Quentin Tarantino - Inglourious Basterds
Lee Daniels - Precious
Jason Reitman - Up In The Air
And the nominees are:
Avatar
The Blind Side
District 9
An Education
The Hurt Locker
Inglourious Basterds
Precious
A Serious Man
Up
Up In The Air
Some cynicists say this devalues the importance of getting nominated, while others think that the extra five films allows for recognition that would've never been achieved, and (probably more importantly) nominations for films which the Academy which would usually be deemed too commercial. This is evident with Avatar, The Blind Side, District 9, and Up, all of which were blockbusters that probably wouldn't be up for nominations if it weren't for this new amendment to the ceremony.
The fact is especially true for Up, which would otherwise have only been Best Animated Feature (it is only the second cartoon to be nominated for Best Picture; the other being Beauty and the Beast). Some would argue that Up's nomination, and really the blockbusters in general, is like the Academy searching too hard for extra candidates. Others would argue that their inclusion could be an attempt by the Academy to gain more viewer interest, as the ratings were generally low this past decade.
Personally, I'm not furious about the films nominated (mostly because my personal favorite, Inglourious Basterds, got a nod) but I do sense that some of the films are probably not the same caliber as others (ie, I don't think you can compare The Hurt Locker and The Blind Side). In addition, so many nominees makes the race seem less tight, and is overall far more confusing.
Last year's Slumdog Millionaire, Frost/Nixon, The Reader, Milk and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button were all worthy films, and every movie had its own personal fanbase. With ten nominees, certain critics will find many of the nominees less than worthy, and there will unquestionably be divided fanbases with so many movies up for the award.
Right now, I see The Hurt Locker and Up in the Air as the frontrunners for this category, with movies like Avatar and Precious as definite possibilities for the win. Inglourious Basterds and An Education both have a chance, while I would consider District 9, Up, A Serious Man and The Blind Side all long-shots. Of course, this is all merely speculation and speculation has no influence on the Academy. However, over the past few years, the Academy has started a tradition of generally going with the flow in these larger categories. In fact, I would argue that the last huge upset in the Best Picture was at the 2006 Oscars when Crash beat Brokeback Mountain.
So perhaps the nicest thing about the increased number of nominations is that it will make the whole race more fair. In a year where, I would argue, there is no definite frontrunner (unlike last year's Slumdog Millionaire), the suspense, and subsequent interest, of the Oscars will increase considerably. With some commercial fare up for a few statues, audience interest will probably rise. The relevance of the ceremony will be rejuvenated, and that could be just what the Academy needs at this point in time.
The other major category nominees include:
BEST ACTOR
Jeff Bridges - Crazy Heart
George Clooney - Up In The Air
Colin Firth - A Single Man
Morgan Freeman - Invictus
Jeremy Renner - The Hurt Locker
BEST ACTRESS
Sandra Bullock - The Blind Side
Helen Mirren - The Last Station
Carey Mulligan - An Education
Gabourey Sibide - Precious
Meryl Streep - Julie & Julia
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Matt Damon - Invictus
Woody Harrelson - The Messenger
Christopher Plummer - The Last Station
Stanley Tucci - The Lovely Bones
Christoph Waltz - Inglourious Basterds
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Penelope Cruz - Nine
Vera Farmiga - Up In The Air
Maggie Gylenhaal - Crazy Heart
Anna Kendrick - Up In The Air
Mo'Nique - Precious
BEST DIRECTOR
James Cameron - Avatar
Kathryn Bigelow - The Hurt Locker
Quentin Tarantino - Inglourious Basterds
Lee Daniels - Precious
Jason Reitman - Up In The Air
Friday, January 22, 2010
Golden Globe Wins
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!
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!
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)