Author Archives: meetlauren

Virtual Reality

I’ll admit when I first read the title, I immediately thought of another of my favourite indie films, Lars and the Real Girl which chronicles a social outcast’s new (seemingly non-sexual) relationship with a blow-up doll. I even thought of a cheesy title to relate the two films. However, it took a different turn altogether and brought me to many themes including the moral issue behind the existence of robots, the struggles of growing old and inter-species friendships (if you could call it that). It asks a lot of questions and doesn’t necessarily give all the answers but it is certainly a story about the power of relationships and wellness for the mind.

12ROBOTS1_SPAN-articleLarge

A Modern Moral Dilemma

★★★★☆

First-time director and former television writer Jake Schreier and Christopher Ford, respectively, offer up a heartwarming yet thought-provoking film about an unlikely friendship in Robot and Frank.

Former cat burglar Frank (Frank Langella) has a wandering mind that is beginning to worry his two adult children, Madison (Liv Tyler) and Hunter (James Marsden). After serving time in prison, Frank has difficulty adjusting to life particularly due to his growing senility. The film takes place in the “near future” and so a robot (Peter Sarsgaard) is purchased for Frank as a butler/healthcare aide.

However, what becomes clear to Frank early on is that the robot, unlike most humans, lacks a sense of right and wrong. Frank quickly jumps on his newest project: teaching the robot how to steal. While having the robot around seems to be doing great things for Frank’s mind and well-being (including the garden-fresh food he’s fed every meal), the impending danger of illegal activity is not.

Visually, the colours of the film do well to represent the initial state of Frank’s life: dull, boring and lifeless. Clothing reflects this well as the opening scenes show streets full of people dressed in black, white and beige. While this colour representation does not seem to shift much once the robot comes around, it’s clear Frank’s demeanour changes as we begin to see bright colours in the mise-en-scene, such as through his meals and outdoor activities.

Viewers are introduced early on to the moral dilemma of owning a “servant” robot. The notion that owning a robot takes jobs from human workers and that the supposed companion is not actually real or alive are presented forcefully by Frank’s daughter Madison.  While Frank eventually warms up to the robot, he fails to recognize his comfort does not stem from a mutual friendship.

It becomes clear very quickly that the robot is doing more harm than good when it came to Frank’s spiritual well-being, which the robot (being that it is not alive) could not fully understand. Frank asks the robot how it feels about the fact it stole something and it is unable to emote let alone provide a response.

The film takes a few twists and turns, including Frank’s relationship with the local librarian Jennifer (Susan Sarandon).  It took me awhile to understand this relationship as Frank seems to meander aimlessly and shows minimal interest in Jennifer. Enter plot twist which I’ll let you see for yourself.

It’s hard to ignore the stance that Madison takes against the immoral owning of a robot.  While Frank deserves companionship, it is difficult, almost painful to watch this relationship bloom into nothing, really. And on that note, it was a little disturbing to see the lifelike features and tone of voice that the robot had. All of these characteristics which make the robot more lifelike and acceptable to humans creates the illusion that they are able to act and react like humans, which is absurd… until the robot carries on human conversations with you, participates in human actives with you. Therein lies another dilemma.

In the end, we are shown that, obviously, the robots do not go away and that it is up to each individual to seek out this type of aid if they feel it fits. It is up to each individual to determine how they wish to live their life and who they wish to have in it. An interesting story that will make you think.

Happy Screening!


*Image courtesy of nytimes.com

Leave a comment

The Master of the Muse

It’s been years since I’ve seen a Paul Thomas Anderson film, though I frequently reminisce about my love for Magnolia, a film I studied in University.  I’d been hearing some buzz about The Master (including a rumour that Anderson had longtime friend, Tom Cruise: Scientology Superstar, personally screen the film prior to its release – for his seal of approval). So, I didn’t pass up the opportunity when our local film group decided to show this piece. Here’s what I thought.

ptamaster

Lost Cause

★★★☆☆

After a long hiatus from the silver screen, Joaquin Phoenix returns in Paul Thomas Anderson’s The Master as Freddie Quell, a veteran of the Second World War with an impressionable yet unstable mind.  The film follows Freddie on his path to meeting modern mystic Lancaster Dodd, (aptly played by Philip Seymour Hoffman) father of The Cause.

The film appears to be a take on the beginnings of cult-like organizations but claims to bear no resemblance to real-life events.  Sharp criticism of the film began early with accusations it was a Scientology biography, a tribute to L. Ron Hubbard. Taking this possibility off the table, Hoffman certainly plays the part of the all-knowing leader and merges together those perfect traits that somehow give a man credence to persuade others into calling him Master.

The disturbing reality of home life for veterans like Quell sparks the discussion about mental illness following the toll of the war. Dodd, using his pseudo-hypnotism techniques, claims to be able to time-travel and even cure Leukaemia – “some types of it.” Despite Quell’s seemingly independent nature, he falls prey to Dodd’s Cause and takes it up with a full heart, and full fist.

Visually, the film takes an interesting journey into the minds of those we cannot understand. Through Quell’s own perspective, viewers are witness to angered thoughts and visions of entire rooms of naked women. Quell could not escape his battered mind no matter where he turned. Phoenix takes the role into dramatic territory in his authentic portrayal of a physically drained, socially inept drunk. His squeamish concoctions that draw the eye of Dodd include combinations of deadly chemicals and rare drops of real liquor – which leads to the discussion of the hypocritical nature of the Cause, like many similar “religions.”

The women in the film played the part of the brainwashed wives to a T, especially Peggy Dodd (played by Amy Adams). Her dedication to the Cause often outshone Dodd’s own especially when it came to her demand of him to stop drinking, followed by an uncomfortable “sex” scene which could be interpreted as her bribe.

With beautiful, sweeping first-person shots and an emotional soundtrack to boot (though I shouldn’t have doubted otherwise with Anderson), The Master is a must-see for its intrinsic dichotomy of visually stunning images of the time period and a captivating, heartbreaking story of a manipulated mind and the nature of the overwhelming human desire to belong.

Happy Screening!


*Image courtesy of nytimes.com

Leave a comment

The Odd Couple

So, a friend recommended this next film and my rule of thumb is, “if I haven’t heard of it, it’s probably great.” This rings true especially for foreign films. And, as my movie snob circle dwindles down to myself and the Internet, I thought I’d take this opportunity to see something new.

Now I love unlikely friends and this odd couple had me laughing and crying all the way through. A French film, Intouchables is based on the true story of a wealthy tetraplegic and his lower-class, live-in caregiver. Told in flashback style, the story reflects well upon the current divide between extreme political correctness and total apathy.

A heartwarming (and funny!) film you won’t want to miss!

“…étrange et symbolique”

★★★★☆

It’s a story that’s been told time and again: wrong side of the tracks meets rich and powerful; improbable friends beat the odds. And yet, Olivier Nakache and Éric Toledano make this story their own as they recreate the narrative in Intouchables.

François Cluzet stars as Philippe, a tetraplegic who takes a chance on Driss (Omar Sy), an unemployed caregiver interviewee destined to get his welfare papers signed – not a job. The film demonstrates the huge gap between rich and poor yet highlights the social advantages gained in learning from the other, as evidenced through the developing friendship of Philippe and Driss.  While I’m not familiar with the true story (and I’m sure being a live-in caregiver to a tetraplegic is far more challenging, but), Intouchables provides a rose-coloured image of the reality that disabilities can empower.

The film incorporates the typical shaky-cam effects to create a visually realistic environment. The technique, while highly popularized, does have a strong effect and enhances the grittiness of Driss’ poor neighbourhood. The film’s flashback scenarios all divulge at the climax, but I was pleasantly surprised by the effective use of cuts to remind viewers without replaying the whole scene (I really don’t like that…).

If my readers are familiar with my tastes at all, they’ll be glad to hear my delight in this classical-music-laced score. An instrumental score can certainly do wonders for the imagination and emotions! A scene in particular where Philippe arranges a symphony all-request hour in attempts to please Driss’ ears featured some favourite classical pieces that, again, worked to further the social gaps.

The characters played off each other well with Sy shining in his role. He incorporated interesting instances of character acting, particularly in my favourite scene when they are at the opera. The curtain rises to expose the opera star, a giant, singing tree – which causes Driss’ jaw to drop in this humorous scene. And, I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t thoroughly entertained by Sy’s dancing scene.

Intouchables appeals to a wide audience with comedic, dramatic and tearjerking moments. It even included some action in the opening car-chase scenes, so I might be able to convince some otherwise hesitant viewers. Restoring faith in the good of people and demonstrating the power of friendship, this feel-good film is inspiring and worth the search it may take you to find a French-language film (we critics need more film resources!). Anyway,

Happy screening!

*Image courtesy of tribute.ca

Leave a comment

Analyzing Anderson

Not that I would have anticipated any different but I’ve finally seen Wes Anderson’s newest feature and I adore it. Moonrise Kingdom is the story of two 12 year olds who fall in love and run away together; plus some other stuff happens.

As usual, Anderson features an all-star cast complete with the familiar faces (Bill Murray, Jason Schwartzman) and some fan favourites (Bruce Willis, Frances McDormand and Edward Norton). However, despite the amazing ensemble cast, it was lead Jared Gilman as Sam Shakusky who stole my heart. The awkwardness over-floweth and it couldn’t be more up my alley. While in terms of obscure it’s not off the map, it does warrant a certain standard for type of viewer – jovial, nostalgic, offbeat, creative… If you fit into any of these categories, enjoy!

Wes Anderson: Auteur

★★★★☆

I know – films are a collaborative effort and so cannot be attributed to one source. But come on! How can one look at a Wes Anderson film and not instinctively know it’s his? He is one of the few directors in Hollywood who represents a signature of truly individualized work. And his latest, Moonrise Kingdom, does not disappoint.

The film, which takes place in 1965, is full of subtle references to the era. It would be interesting to take an inventory of the set just to see the work put into creating such a natural mise-en-scene, from the commissioning of fictitious novel covers to portraying the realistic methods of passing time (listening to records, reading, you know, things people used to do).

As for visuals, I first noticed Anderson’s interesting use of colour (not to mention his effective use of symmetry) in 2004′s The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou. His incorporation of primary colours, while seemingly simplistic, offers such a visual contrast his films could be filmed in B&W and still have the same deep effect. Moonrise Kingdom does just that – notably off the top with the introduction of narrator Bob Balaban who dons a crimson red duffle coat and a hunter green toque – a winning combination of Paddington Bear and Jacques Cousteau (perhaps another reference to The Life Aquatic?).

Interestingly, if you pay close attention, there are characteristic scenes that Anderson tends to include in his films: the slow-motion group walk set to the folksy score, the dolly shots that track between sets and the unique POV shots that almost confuse the viewer.  However, despite the acknowledgement that these are staple, I am fully drawn to these scenes which might explain why I have noticed the repetition.

I tend to attribute this draw to his eclectic use of music. For Moonrise, Anderson used works by Benjamin Britten particularly to create a childlike nostalgia. And while the music made light of the couple’s situations, their romance and encounters are anything but childish.

Anderson is no stranger to good cinematography but he also demonstrates his understanding of human nature and tells stories that complement this. His construction of the family, while dysfunctional and bizarre, accurately portrays reality and the nature of relationships.

I could go on discussing themes and symbols, comparing his works, but I think the best way to understand Wes Anderson’s mind is to see it at work.

Happy screening!

*Image courtesy of austinist.com

Leave a comment

Continuing the musical cold streak

Judge if you must, but I am a lover of musicals. No. All musicals. I know. But seriously, all musicals. And, it was inevitable that I would see the critically-unacclaimed Rock of Ages, starring the aged Tom Cruise.

Now, you may want to sit for this next revelation. The truth is, despite the couch-jumping and scientolocrazy, I still like Tom Cruise as an actor. I repeat: as an actor. Come on. Did you see him in Tropic Thunder? I thought he was funny!

Anyway, back to Rock of Ages. It’s difficult to tell if I was enjoying the sing-a-long-ability of the songs or the story itself, but there was a part of me that did sort of like it. There was another huge part of me wondering what was happening. Let me explain…

Rock of Ages slips by the silver screen

★★☆☆☆

Who doesn’t love singing along to the rock songs of the ’80s and ’90s? Regardless of age, the songs have a foot-tapping quality that lures you in. The lyrical quality of these songs lend a hand to the back stories. I mean, the scenes can write themselves. And yet, the recently-released Rock of Ages somehow managed to continue the poor translation of theatre to film.

While Julianne Hough stars as Sherrie, the small-town turned big-city girl, and manages to demonstrate her dancing and singing chops, she lacks in the acting department and brings an over-enthusiasm not even allowed on the stage. Newcomer Diego Boneta (Drew) managed to save some scenes for the most part but I was mostly drawn to the incredibly odd relationship between barkeeps Lonny (Russell Brand) and Dennis (Alec Baldwin).

Thanks to media coverage, photos of Cruise as rock star Stacee Jaxx began appearing all over the Internet. I was eager to see his rendition of the character and I was left waiting until what seemed like halfway through the film before his first appearance. Even then, his portrayal was sedated and left me unsure of the weight of his role. I know, I know. There are no small parts, blah, blah, blah.

I was reminded of Cruises eccentricity when told of the reason for the role of Heyman the monkey. Apparently not part of the original theatrical production, it was insisted by Cruise that the role be introduced into the film, though I’m sure no one can say why. His performance was decent at best but not exactly believable.

Musical veteran Catherine Zeta-Jones portrayed the queen of anti-rock Patricia Whitmore but gave a performance quite sub-par compared to her memorable Chicago role. While her acting is not in question, her dance moves demonstrated her true age and the costume did not help. Despite an ill-directed moment where Paul Giamatti sings, his portrayal of talent agent Paul Gill was deliciously greasy. I usually find his performances at the top of the game but (and maybe it can be blamed on the directing), this time, he came off quite atypical of the musical genre acting.

The storyline redeemed itself with the incorporation of the recognizable rock tunes and fashion styles. It was interesting to see the “Vanilla Ice” references when Drew joins the pop boy band. And last but not least: the iconic ’80s “car phone.”

While it was obviously meant for stage, Rock of Ages offered interesting character development and decent closure at the finale. While it’s not Rent on Broadway, it was entertaining and had me singing (and sometimes, laughing!).

Happy screening!

*Image courtesy of stylefrizz.com

Leave a comment

They’ve created a monster!

I’d been contemplating film genres and how so many have come to overlap each other. For some reason, horror and comedy have become somewhat interchangeable, if not only for the numerous poor attempts at special FX. So I began to reminisce about the good ole days of genre films. The spaghetti westerns, films noir and gangster flicks that ruled the golden age; that was where the real stories were hiding. These were the stories that inspired the true filmmakers to create the art that would later be mocked in a badly-scripted spoof. I decided I would indulge myself with some genre classics with my newest collection of monster movies.

I decided to start with Frankenstein. Now, I dare not say that these next few paragraphs resemble anything close to a review of this film. It belongs in the category I will call the “Untouchables.” I merely aim to discuss and provide my insight into the obscurities within. And so I think…

It’s Alive: The Genre Film Lives On!

★★★★☆

To say that Frankenstein is a classic would be an understatement. James Whale’s 1931 film starring Colin Clive, Mae Clarke and Boris Karloff began a monster movement that spawned sequels and spoofs for years. Borrowing from the past and contributing to the future of film, Frankenstein is the prerequisite to horror and the course is mandatory.

The look of the film caught my attention from the start: stark contrasts of shadows, light and dark, a certain homage to German Expressionism and the gothic culture. While the discontinuous shots and inconsistencies (I love the scene when Fritz yells from off camera, “I’m coming!” and just appears next to Frankenstein) make this a timeless cult film, it doesn’t disappoint in instances of grotesque imagery from Fritz’s deformities to skeletons to hanging bodies lending to the visual hour. While not so shocking to the current disenchanted generation, these scenes were unheard of to the 1931 audience and warranting the brief achtung prelude by Edward Van Sloan.

Frankenstein began what would become stereotypical horror images – especially the torch-wielding mob scene. Not only were scenes shared between horror films but also actors. While genre films are great, they tend to cause typecasting in actors, which was the case for Karloff, who later went on to play The Monster in Bride of Frankenstein (1935) and Son of Frankenstein (1939).  Dwight Frye who played the incompetent hunchback Fritz also went on to play the insect-devouring Renfield in Dracula. Fancy that casting gold. Dracula star Bela Lugosi was also slated to star as Frankenstein prior to the casting of Karloff and Edward Van Sloan (Dr. Waldman) also played Van Helsing in Dracula and later starred with Karloff in The Mummy (1932).

The film not only started a cinematic movement, but it also spoke to a greater cause. Karloff brought an almost instinctive sympathy to the otherwise menacing, murdering character who, for the most part, was quite innocent. Still, I was shocked by the apparent apathy of the so-called “sane spectators” upon watching the doctor bring the creature to life. Was it normal then for someone to rob graves in order to obtain body parts for the animation of a miscellaneous corpse? And the death of a child? I’m surprised when they show that in current films. In any event, it was nothing if not interesting to witness the beginning of a movement and a film so dedicated to its own genre. I’m sure you can all give up one hour and eleven minutes to check out this great film (I know, it’s so short, right?).

Happy screening!

Leave a comment

Back to the drawing board…

hi•a•tus   

n. A gap or interruption in space, time, or continuity; a break, or,
my excuse for where I’ve been.

In the interest of saving face, I can explain. My Oscar hype shortly dwindled out and after signing my life away to the media gods at Rogers (right.), I found myself intricately woven into the sticky web of Digital Cable. Coming from aerial television, this was both a blessing and a curse. Series, mini-series, sitcom, drama – you name it! And my film reviews took a backseat to, dare I say, shows like Storage Wars, Celebrity Ghost Stories (actually a really good show) and most importantly, and probably most understandable, Mad Men. As my former roomie and I paced through the fourth season DVD (preceded by the third, second and first), we could not stand the anticipation for season five.

Now, I know what you’re saying to yourself. “This is NOT a television review site.” And in that remark, you would be correct. And yet, I finally made it to the season five finale and found myself entranced by the true likeness the drama has taken to the medium of film, most particularly in the cinematography. In some blurry attempts to capture these said moments, I found some great illustrations of my point on the magical Internet, so it appears others have fallen prey to the beauty of this mise-en-scène.

Exhibit A:

Now, I really appreciate a good setup. This scene certainly brought me back to one of my favourite film moments, as pictured below:

And I don’t know about you, but that scene from Fight Club changed the way I feel about The Pixies. But anyway, back to Mad Men.

The Mad Men team has proven their artistry time and again with their exciting promotional posters. This minimalist poster below comes off a long stream of StumbleUpon sessions of mine dedicated to revamped classic film posters like on this great Tumblr page. I don’t care about the controversy – I’m a sucker for simplistic.

Now I’m sure we’re not alone here but while said former roomie and I made our way through the Mad Men DVDography, we found ourselves in anticipation for which song they would end the next episode with. And when there was silence? Wow. So I was certainly drawn into the final scene of this episode as seen below:

SPOILER ALERT!!!!!!!!

Exhibit B:

This scene brought me back to The Artist, which I watched again recently. There’s something about exposing the cameras, crew and set. I love when the medium draws attention to its own existence. And with the incorporation of John Barry’s Bond ballad, “You Only Live Twice” (which is so fitting for the episode, as usual), the scene takes on that Old Hollywood glamour.

Of course I won’t spill the beans as to how the episode ends but I will be counting down the days until season six.

And now, back to the feature presentation!

*Images courtesy of ScreenCrave, 
http://decantre.wordpress.com
, Starcasm.net and Incoherent.net, respectively. 

Leave a comment

My Oscar Picks

It’s no surprise that I’ve not quite completed my reviews of all the Academy Award-nominated films for 2012. As mentioned before, I am happy that I undertook the challenge but since I was unable to complete, I will still be reviewing all nominated films, as they become available, simultaneously with new and old films that fit into the wonderfully obscure category. But in the meantime, here are my blind guesses for the 84th Academy Awards. Each will be updated as the winner is announced and I’ll tally my final score. Here’s hopin’:

Legend
My Picks
The Winners

Actor in a Leading Role

  • Demián Bichir in “A Better Life”
  • George Clooney in “The Descendants”
  • Jean Dujardin in “The Artist”
  • Gary Oldman in “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy”
  • Brad Pitt in “Moneyball”

Actor in a Supporting Role

  • Kenneth Branagh in “My Week with Marilyn”
  • Jonah Hill in “Moneyball”
  • Nick Nolte in “Warrior”
  • Christopher Plummer in “Beginners”
  • Max von Sydow in “Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close”

Actress in a Leading Role

  • Glenn Close in “Albert Nobbs”
  • Viola Davis in “The Help”
  • Rooney Mara in “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”
  • Meryl Streep in “The Iron Lady”
  • Michelle Williams in “My Week with Marilyn”

Actress in a Supporting Role

  • Bérénice Bejo in “The Artist”
  • Jessica Chastain in “The Help”
  • Melissa McCarthy in “Bridesmaids”
  • Janet McTeer in “Albert Nobbs”
  • Octavia Spencer in “The Help”

Animated Feature Film

  • “A Cat in Paris” Alain Gagnol and Jean-Loup Felicioli
  • “Chico & Rita” Fernando Trueba and Javier Mariscal
  • “Kung Fu Panda 2″ Jennifer Yuh Nelson
  • “Puss in Boots” Chris Miller
  • “Rango” Gore Verbinski

Art Direction

  • “The Artist”
    Production Design: Laurence Bennett; Set Decoration: Robert Gould
  • “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2″
    Production Design: Stuart Craig; Set Decoration: Stephenie McMillan
  • “Hugo” 
    Production Design: Dante Ferretti; Set Decoration: Francesca Lo Schiavo
  • “Midnight in Paris” 
    Production Design: Anne Seibel; Set Decoration: Hélène Dubreuil
  • “War Horse” 
    Production Design: Rick Carter; Set Decoration: Lee Sandales

Cinematography

  • “The Artist” Guillaume Schiffman
  • “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” Jeff Cronenweth
  • “Hugo” Robert Richardson
  • “The Tree of Life” Emmanuel Lubezki
  • “War Horse” Janusz Kaminski

Costume Design 

  • “Anonymous” Lisy Christl
  • “The Artist” Mark Bridges
  • “Hugo” Sandy Powell
  • “Jane Eyre” Michael O’Connor
  • “W.E.” Arianne Phillips

Directing

  • “The Artist” Michel Hazanavicius
  • “The Descendants” Alexander Payne
  • “Hugo” Martin Scorsese
  • “Midnight in Paris” Woody Allen
  • “The Tree of Life” Terrence Malick

Documentary (Feature)

  • “Hell and Back Again”
    Danfung Dennis and Mike Lerner
  • “If a Tree Falls: A Story of the Earth Liberation Front” 
    Marshall Curry and Sam Cullman
  • “Paradise Lost 3: Purgatory” 
    Joe Berlinger and Bruce Sinofsky
  • “Pina” 
    Wim Wenders and Gian-Piero Ringel
  • “Undefeated” 
    TJ Martin, Dan Lindsay and Richard Middlemas

Documentary (Short Subject)

  • “The Barber of Birmingham: Foot Soldier of the Civil Rights Movement” 
    Robin Fryday and Gail Dolgin
  • “God Is the Bigger Elvis” 
    Rebecca Cammisa and Julie Anderson
  • “Incident in New Baghdad”
    James Spione
  • “Saving Face” 
    Daniel Junge and Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy
  • “The Tsunami and the Cherry Blossom” 
    Lucy Walker and Kira Carstensen

Film Editing

  • “The Artist” Anne-Sophie Bion and Michel Hazanavicius
  • “The Descendants” Kevin Tent
  • “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” Kirk Baxter and Angus Wall
  • “Hugo” Thelma Schoonmaker
  • “Moneyball” Christopher Tellefsen

Foreign Language Film

  • “Bullhead” Belgium
  • “Footnote” Israel
  • “In Darkness” Poland
  • “Monsieur Lazhar” Canada
  • “A Separation” Iran

Makeup

  • “Albert Nobbs”
    Martial Corneville, Lynn Johnston and Matthew W. Mungle
  • “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2″
    Nick Dudman, Amanda Knight and Lisa Tomblin
  • “The Iron Lady”
    Mark Coulier and J. Roy Helland

Music (Original Score)

  • “The Adventures of Tintin” John Williams
  • “The Artist” Ludovic Bource
  • “Hugo” Howard Shore
  • “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy” Alberto Iglesias
  • “War Horse” John Williams

Music (Original Song)

  • “Man or Muppet” from “The Muppets” Music and Lyric by Bret McKenzie
  • “Real in Rio” from “Rio” Music by Sergio Mendes and Carlinhos Brown Lyric by Siedah Garrett

Best Picture

  • “The Artist” Thomas Langmann, Producer
  • “The Descendants” Jim Burke, Alexander Payne and Jim Taylor, Producers
  • “Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close” Scott Rudin, Producer
  • “The Help” Brunson Green, Chris Columbus and Michael Barnathan, Producers
  • “Hugo” Graham King and Martin Scorsese, Producers
  • “Midnight in Paris” Letty Aronson and Stephen Tenenbaum, Producers
  • “Moneyball” Michael De Luca, Rachael Horovitz and Brad Pitt, Producers
  • “The Tree of Life” Nominees to be determined
  • “War Horse” Steven Spielberg and Kathleen Kennedy, Producers

Short Film (Animated)

  • “Dimanche/Sunday” Patrick Doyon
  • “The Fantastic Flying Books of Mr. Morris Lessmore” William Joyce and Brandon Oldenburg
  • “La Luna” Enrico Casarosa
  • “A Morning Stroll” Grant Orchard and Sue Goffe
  • “Wild Life” Amanda Forbis and Wendy Tilby

Short Film (Live Action)

  • “Pentecost” Peter McDonald and Eimear O’Kane
  • “Raju” Max Zähle and Stefan Gieren
  • “The Shore” Terry George and Oorlagh George
  • “Time Freak” Andrew Bowler and Gigi Causey
  • “Tuba Atlantic” Hallvar Witzø

Sound Editing

  • “Drive” Lon Bender and Victor Ray Ennis
  • “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo” Ren Klyce
  • “Hugo” Philip Stockton and Eugene Gearty
  • “Transformers: Dark of the Moon” Ethan Van der Ryn and Erik Aadahl
  • “War Horse” Richard Hymns and Gary Rydstrom

Sound Mixing

  • “The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo”
    David Parker, Michael Semanick, Ren Klyce and Bo Persson
  • “Hugo” 
    Tom Fleischman and John Midgley
  • “Moneyball”
    Deb Adair, Ron Bochar, Dave Giammarco and Ed Novick
  • “Transformers: Dark of the Moon” 
    Greg P. Russell, Gary Summers, Jeffrey J. Haboush and Peter J. Devlin
  • “War Horse”
    Gary Rydstrom, Andy Nelson, Tom Johnson and Stuart Wilson

Visual Effects

  • “Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2″ 
    Tim Burke, David Vickery, Greg Butler and John Richardson
  • “Hugo”
    Rob Legato, Joss Williams, Ben Grossman and Alex Henning
  • “Real Steel” 
    Erik Nash, John Rosengrant, Dan Taylor and Swen Gillberg
  • “Rise of the Planet of the Apes”
    Joe Letteri, Dan Lemmon, R. Christopher White and Daniel Barrett
  • “Transformers: Dark of the Moon”
    Scott Farrar, Scott Benza, Matthew Butler and John Frazier

Writing (Adapted Screenplay)

  • “The Descendants” Screenplay by Alexander Payne and Nat Faxon & Jim Rash
  • “Hugo” Screenplay by John Logan
  • “The Ides of March” Screenplay by George Clooney & Grant Heslov and Beau Willimon
  • “Moneyball” Screenplay by Steven Zaillian and Aaron Sorkin  Story by Stan Chervin
  • “Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy” Screenplay by Bridget O’Connor & Peter Straughan

Writing (Original Screenplay)

  • “The Artist” Written by Michel Hazanavicius
  • “Bridesmaids” Written by Annie Mumolo & Kristen Wiig
  • “Margin Call” Written by J.C. Chandor
  • “Midnight in Paris” Written by Woody Allen
  • “A Separation” Written by Asghar Farhad”

9/24 Correct… not bad but better luck next awards season!

*Image courtesy of http://www.filmmakermagazine.com
Leave a comment

“Moneyball” Nominated for 6 Academy Awards

As someone who has a strong dislike for sports in real life, I’m a surprisingly big fan of sports movies. There’s something about the teamwork and the underdog story that really brings out a different side in me. However, I was not quite that inspired by this year’s big nominee, Moneyball.

It was a great story, I’ll give it that. Not knowing anything about sports, I actually expected the A’s would win the championships but was surprised and delighted that this story took a different turn. Considering this, however, it was quite a long narrative that really didn’t give much bang for your buck.

“Moneyball” looks for a home run at the Oscars

★★★☆☆

Nominated for Best Picture, Best Actor (Brad Pitt), Best Supporting Actor (Jonah Hill), Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Film Editing and Best Sound Mixing, Moneyball is critically-acclaimed for its adaptation of Michael Lewis’s book of the same name.

Directed by Bennett Miller (Capote), Moneyball is the story of the tactical use of sabermetrics to scout players in an attempt to reinvent the down-and-out Oakland Athletics.

Brad Pitt’s portrayal of Billy Beane was well done but not quite deserving of the nod from the academy. This moment brings me back (though not as similarly) to the nominations last year, including the random inclusion of The Tourist starring Angelina Jolie and Johnny Depp. The nod drew suspicions that the academy was just trying to bulk up their attendees list (the film did only receive a 20% rating on rottentomatoes.com). However, Pitt was spot-on considering the depth required in the role.

A standout for sure was Jonah Hill who portrayed Peter Brand, a composite character developed after the original assistant general manager, Paul DePodesta, disapproved of the growing fictionalization of his likeness. Hill used his looks to his advantage in portraying the diffident economics graduate who introduces the concept of moneyball.

Another surprising inclusion was Philip Seymour Hoffman as Art Howe, manager of the Athletics. With his shaven head and bit role, I was unsure if it was really him. His sour demeanor was not unlike many of his previous roles but he did well to keep the tension building between Beane and the rest of the team. Hoffman previously worked with Miller when he portrayed Truman Capote in the 2005 film.

The film, overall, was entertaining suffice for the last little bit which seemed to almost drag on. As I’m unfamiliar with the story of the Oakland A’s return to mediocrity, I felt a bit confused when the story took a turn and all of a sudden, Beane began receiving offers from other teams.

According to Pitt, the film went through several screenplay rewrites as well as director changes which may have contributed to the lack of clarity later in the film. As for sound mixing and film editing, there were interesting features but none that stood out enough to warrant a nod from the academy.

Moneyball is a great story of an underdog team that draws attention to inequalities in Major League Baseball regarding player salaries and the lack of a cap. While it was unclear in parts (and I’m certain the book brings to light some of the ambiguity), Moneyball is a great watch for any sports fan or just a family Friday night.

*Image courtesy of http://unews.com
Leave a comment

“Rise of the Planet of the Apes” Nominated for Best Visual Effects

I chose the opportunity of the 84th Academy Awards to really get my review site up and running. The reality is that the awards ceremony is this upcoming Sunday and with plenty of movies still waiting to be watched, this year, unfortunately, I will not reach my deadline but will continue to review all of the nominated films until I complete them.

It will still be a chance to get out and see some of the best films of the past year, although I do tend to take the nominations with a grain of salt. This year, there were some contenders that shocked and befuddled my inner critic. Included in that roster was Rise of the Planet of the Apes. Albeit, it was nominated for visual effects, but I still could not find an ounce of reason for praise of this film – until I took the time to watch it. What was a seemingly strange sci-fi turned into a poignant commentary on the human condition and the treatment of those who appear to be less intelligent, whether it be apes or the elderly.

The ‘Evolution’ of a Franchise

★★★★☆

Director Rupert Wyatt’s Rise of the Planet of the Apes is a visually intriguing film that serves as an introduction to the Planet of the Apes franchise popularized in the late ‘60s and early ‘70s.

The film presents the human side of science fiction in the character of Will Rodman (James Franco) and his Alzheimer’s-ridden father, Charles (John Lithgow). Rodman takes in Caesar (Andy Serkis), a baby chimpanzee whose mother has been euthanized due to a seemingly botched anti-Alzheimer’s drug.

As Caesar grows in the care of Rodman, it is undeniable that his intelligence level (thanks to the ALZ-112 drug passed from his mother) is far superior to other apes. After a rescue attempt goes awry in the suburbs, Caesar is forced into a primate shelter where he is mistreated. Caesar slowly plans to free himself and the other prisoners, unbeknownst to Rodman.

Watching the baby (and digitized) chimp grow in a family home becomes an emotional agent that makes Ceasar’s incarceration and eventual rejection of Rodman the more moving.

The film features Peter Jackson’s WETA Digital effects to create the lifelike appearance of the primates, from chimpanzees to gorillas to orangutans. Rise of the Planet of the Apes involved the motion capture technique, allowing for on-location shooting.

Playing Ceasar is English actor Andy Serkis who is well-versed in WETA Digital effects thanks to his portrayals of Gollum (Lord of the Rings trilogy), King Kong (King Kong, 2005) and Captain Haddock in the also-nominated The Adventures of Tin-Tin. Not surprisingly, Serkis has been nominated for many awards in his portrayal of the lead chimp, including Best Supporting Actor at the Broadcast Film Critics Association Awards, the San Diego Film Critics Society awards and the Alliance of Women Film Journalists Awards. Serkis won the Favourite Hero award in his portrayal of Caesar at the IGN Summer Movie Awards.

The film took advantage of their reboot and created a realistic portrayal of how these simians became so smart in the first place. As one who formerly tended to stray from the nonsensical Planet of the Apes franchise, I was quite enthralled by the relationship developed between the primates and humans from the love Rodman gave Caesar to the harsh treatment by his captors.

Certainly a film not to be judged by its campy predecessors, Rise of the Planet of the Apes paves the way for a new franchise with a touching and entertaining back story.

*Image courtesy of http://cdn.screenrant.com
Leave a comment