The 82nd Annual Academy Awards: YES!

The Academy Awards have been a tradition of Hollywood that is quickly approaching a centennial. While it has been a trademark of cinematic quality along with artistic and technical merit for a great many years, a few decades ago it began to morph. It has now become a magnificent benevolent force of karmic and political influence as well as a harbinger of quality. Political issues of race, religion, sexual orientation and other varied topics have been given their spotlight moment in the world of Hollywood every year without fail. Al Gore was even given the opportunity to further his own political agenda with the "green" 79th Academy Awards.
While this has angered some, for the most part it has met with passive indifference by most of the world who live a million miles away (in every metaphoric sense possible) from that world of cinema; with the last few years having left most in a disappointing middle-ground between anger and confusion, I was concerned that this year the Academy might actually begin the end of their reign as judges of success in Film. I was genuinely afraid that I was witnessing the end of something I had come to love dearly.
Nominations were as typical as they had been in recent years and I was frankly expecting to be horribly disappointed. Then I spied the Best Picture category. It was longer than usual, double the usual length in fact, and included, at the very top of the list, Avatar.*

At this moment I realized that this year's Oscars had a villain, an antagonist. His name was James Cameron.
Putting aside for the moment that I am no fan of James Cameron, you must examine the evidence:
This man directed and wrote a film that while popular and fun to look at, was almost universally acknowledged by critics to be a fairly mediocre film. In fact, the elements of the film conducted by James Cameron were the least admirable aspects of the film. If James Cameron were to win there would be such an outcry from critics and film enthusiasts that the Academy would not be able to live it down and we would more than likely witness the final days of the respectability of the Academy.
Luckily we were saved by a greater political endeavour: a woman, an ex-wife of Cameron's, directed a war film with, as far as I can tell, no true political agenda. I desire nothing more than to shake that woman's hand. Good thing she won!

Kathryn Bigelow showed a gracious and humble win that exemplified the dignity that is always in style. I commend her genuinely for her win and look forward to more of her work.

On the whole, the Oscars went old-school this year. The set was simplistic and classy, the wardrobe was mostly classic and not embarrassing, there was even a musical number performed by Neil Patrick Harris. On the whole the evening was as classic as I have seen the Oscars in many a year.


My favourite change this year was instead of showcasing the Best Song category through an elaborate set of performances (or a single fiasco medley as with the 81st Awards), they instead produced a dance production accompanied by the Best Score nominees. While the street dancing was sometimes awkward and out of joint with the music, there were certain numbers that worked wonderfully and the overall effect was beautiful.

While not usually enthusiastic about Steve Martin or Alec Baldwin, I do believe they genuinely improved their collective talent by having Martin return to his stand-up roots and playing up Baldwin's off-kilter humour. I was extremely impressed. The announcers for the awards were all very good in fact, with the exception of Kristin Stewart and Taylor Lautner. It was not my dislike of their acting that I resented in this particular case, it was two other things: first, that they hardly represent the Horror genre they were introducing a montage to and second, that they were incapable of taking cues and reading prompters. No big deal, a minor hiccup in the end.

My single genuine surprise for the evening: Sandra Bullock's win for Best Actress. It is not because I think she gave a lesser performance, but it was strictly uncharacteristic of the Academy to deny actresses such as Meryl Streep, Helen Mirren and especially to deny newcomers who make such a stir as Gabourey Sidibe of Precious based on the novel Push by Sapphire. I believe that Sandra Bullock has really shown her stars this year and she certainly deserved her win. Her acceptance speech was full of heart and beautifully spoken.
The same goes for Jeff Bridges who spoke with all his soul yesterday. It was a night full of class and heart.

All in all I think the Oscars pulled out of what has been an awkward rut of predictability and mediocrity. The night was wonderful and the Awards well deserved.



Congratulations everyone!


* For a more detailed explanation of my opinions on Avatar I recommend you scroll down to my review of that film. I do not think I ought to re-hash t here.

Funny People: Are we so sure?

First of all, I am aware that this is not exactly a new release, however, I was just recently made to watch it. I feel compelled to share my opinion. Funny People is simply not funny.
 I will admit that I am not the biggest fan of blue comedy and I get tired very fast of over-zealous cursing. This, however, was the least bothersome part of Funny People.
First of all, the plot isn't just one plot, it is two, or perhaps three, main plots. This results in a confusing, anti-climatic, and long film. This film is two and a half hours long, where most comedies last about 90 minutes. Here's the kicker, the DVD has an extended version, as in the two and a half hours is less than Judd Apatow wanted to show. That is scary on a whole new level seeing that this film took the better part of an hour to come to a point. How this movie is missing scenes is beyond me, it has too many already.

Adam Sandler, whose character George Simmons is supposed to be mildly unsympathetic, is intolerable. He is grim when he is supposed to be funny, and awkwardly disgusting when he is supposed to be funny. Since he is essentially playing himself, (a comedian formerly known for stand-up and increasingly known for stupid movies he has made) it strikes me that it should be rather important to maintain some sort of humanity. Not so. We end the long, arduous film by seeing him hit bottom four times in a row. He then hits the very bottom where he begins writing jokes for his once protege. While some may see this as an acceptance of humility, I see it as a last desperate act of a man who has lost integrity for everything.

Ira Wright, played by up-and-comer Seth Rogen, makes a very convincing naive play, but that's where his role in this film ends. He is the played-up naivety that is a send-up to all of Adam Sandler's jaded penis jokes. The other actors are the exact same as they are in the other Judd Apatow films they have been featured in, which means they even make the same jokes.

A singular saving grace of this film is the wonderful stand-up comedy that was peppered in. The quality of Seth Rogen's performances increased with time exactly as it was supposed to and every act conveyed the exactly the tone and theme it was supposed to. The only times I laughed were during these scenes. The rest of the film is a long succession of people I don't care about doing things I don't need to know about.

The romance, so called, in this film is more like an obsessive co-dependent and abusive relationship wherein both parties manipulate and cheat their way into affection at every turn. Leslie Mann, playing Laura, fumbles her way through an affection that cannot be understood as genuine for either her husband or her lost flame Adam Sandler. As far as I am concerned, Laura's two daughters were the finest actors in the film. They are ironically Judd Apatow and Leslie Mann's actual daughters.

Eric Bana makes a close second in both acting talent and humour in this film. Interestingly, I believe it is because Eric Bana doesn't do comedy. He is funny because he is not supposed to be within the context of the film. He plays a minor role and does it wonderfully. He is the only person in this film not infected with the maddening desire to make the people nearest you laugh at penis and fart jokes. That, and his hysterical fight scene with Adam Sandler, are the reasons this film was marginally watchable.

I retract what I said before, Eric Bana must share his titles for funniest person in the film with Marshall Mathers, also known as Eminem. This man, also not a usual favourite of mine, exhibits some of the finest comedy I have seen in motion picture history. A little quiet scene where he threatens to beat up Ray Romano. Bizarre, but highly humourous and it involves Adam Sandler making the fewest jokes of anywhere in the film.

Everyone I have asked told me this movies was "just ok, but not great" and I call them liars. This movie led me down a path of false hope where I believed that I could passively sit and mostly ignore this film. I was actively afeared and angered instead. If any of you are followers of wise men voice by Frank Oz, you know what fear and anger lead to.




Have a good night.


Liz

Up in the Air: Kind of up in the air

I'll begin with saying that this was a strange film. However, you would expect something strange from Jason Reitman, director of Juno and Thank You For Smoking. Reitman's off-kilter humour and flair for muted drama is the touch which keeps what should be a fairly mediocre premise from running dry. Everything from the cinematography down to the costume design (and the actors are there in between) has the Reitman touch.
This film was not quite another Juno or Thank You For Smoking, because the premise is somewhat limited, even to an otherwise stellar combination of director, actors and writers.

George Clooney leads the wonderful cast as Ryan Bingham with, I'll admit, what has become a "George Clooney" performance, which would be a bad thing, if George Clooney still weren't so damn good. He can afford now to essentially play himself, but "himself" is still a wonderful performance, so I'm not one to crow about it. His aptly-named co-worker Natalie Keener is played by relative newcomer Anna Kendrick, who should act in more films like this one to get out of her somewhat unfortunate casting in the "Twilight saga". Her performance is flawless, the perfect balance between self-assurance and vulnerability characteristic of her character's position in life as well as her young age, a difficult balance for any actress.
The key performance in this movie is hers, because make no mistake, Clooney is not the MAIN character, he is simply a very prominent one. Her holding her own among veterans like Clooney and his screen pair Vera Farmiga, is as admirable as her character's attempt to play ball with their characters. I expect, with a little good luck, to see a lot from this young face.
Where the film is lacking any kind of special spark is in the main premise of the film. The novelty of the life that Ryan Bingham leads is played up in the trailer to the point where it is barely noted while watching the film. This surreal suitcase existence is the clincher in our incredulity which is supposed to carry us through the film in the hopes that this fellow will see the light and come to his sense. The fact is that we are as comfortable with the concept as HE is before we even start the film; as a result we want to keep him where he is and begin to resent what he resents, like what he likes, and even partially envy his lifestyle. The climax makes this sentiment very awkward, as he is temporarily converted and desires the stability of a life, a relationship and family. We sit there, uncomfortable and desirous of a return to the "normal" life of endless plane rides and awfulness of firing dozens of employees every week. I don't know if this is a good thing or not, because that's what we find Mr.Bingham gets, his old life back. Of course with this kind of urban folk tale, which is what this movie is, "getting what you want" MUST be bittersweet. This is why I maintain our Ms.Keener is really the star of the film, as she is the only character who seems to gain anything by way of happiness or fulfillment. Perhaps this is a harbinger of youth being capable of learning from their mistakes? Let us hope so.
Individual scenes in this film, a handful scattered throughout, seem to be miniature homages to cinematic comedy of years gone by. Anna Kendrick's wonderful "what I need/want in a man" speech, countered by Vera Farmiga's "what you end up wanting in a man, sort of" is very reminiscent of Nora Ephron, writer of When Harry Met Sally, who was one of the first people to write into film the true differences between not only Men and Women, but Young and Old men and women.
Another classic scene, which is worth the price of admission, was J.K.Simmons' glorious cameo (a requirement of any Jason Reitman film apparently, in any case a welcome one). While his appearance ran the risk of undercutting the otherwise poignant scene, it did no such thing. In fact, our knowledge of the actor accelerated our deepest regrets for his current situation.

This film, in its entirety, was very enjoyable, truly a good movie. However, with the limited and off-center concept of the main plot restrains it from the kind of acclaim it might otherwise garner. It is entertaining and an excellent choice, but don't expect to be in awe as with other such films by Jason Reitman, who falls just short of his usual fantastic performance as director. No worries, Mr.Reitman, if you were consistently as successful as some, you would turn into James Cameron, and nobody wants that!

Until next week,

Liz

Sherlock Holmes: A Taste of Sensation

Like a true fan of Conan Doyle, I was horrified when the Sherlock Holmes trailer began to run. Explosions? Nudity? What were they writing about here? What bastard had scrambled together this catastrophe?

Then the unthinkable happened: I laughed.
By the end of the trailer I was sold hook, line and sinker for this film. I saw it on December 26, not thirty hours after it had been released.
My first thought when the credits began to roll was "No one but me will like this film." I cannot explain this sentiment beyond having a certain understanding of what people expected from this film as opposed to what they got. I believe that I expected exactly what I got from this film, but that I am one of few.
Indeed the problems that face it are numerous: apparent ignorance of historical accuracy as well as of the literary canon, sensationalizing of a literary oeuvre, and, the worst crime of all, an element of romance.
How will this film overcome these harsh accusations?

I will not engage these problems in any way other than to dismiss them altogether. There ARE deviances from the canon, and the script is sensationalized, but if you object to them there is no reason that will sway you. Therefore I digress with only one defence, which is essential to anyone's understanding of the spirit of the film:
Arthur Conan Doyle wrote his stories as popular fiction, fiction that was accessible to, and enjoyed by everyone. In this way it was not considered "high" literature. It is comparable to action and adventure movies of today. Are we beginning to see my point? Sherlock Holmes has become a folk hero of literature, but one accessed by few in its original form which, compared to modern literature, can be considered dry or long-winded. The sensational modernization of this character, I believe, is more a testament to its original intent, which was only to entertain. 

Robert Downey Jr.'s stunning portrayal of Holmes is, in its way, unprecedented. While Jeremy Brett remains my favourite when consulting accuracy to the written canon, Downey preserves the spirit that is transcends the modernized sentiment of the film. His arrogance, wit and unconventional madness is the centrepiece that makes the film marvellous. Indeed all of the characters whose origins are within Conan Doyle's stories are portrayed with a modern edge which becomes them excellently. With that in mind, it would surprise most to learn that very little was added to these characters to make them modern entertainers. Even the brazen Irene Adler was not embellished much at all, as she is the only woman to gain Holmes' esteem.

I have heard some objection to the film's apparent fixation with the occult, which is again, more a testament to Conan Doyle than most would recognize. When not writing Holmes' adventures, Doyle was writing books on the subject of parapsychology, that is to say, spirits, seances, automatic writing and other communication with the dead. Doyle was obsessed with the supernatural and in fact his reputation was decidedly ruined later in his career by his stalwart belief in the Cottingley Fairies Photographs, which were later proved to be faked.
In any case, the supernatural elements are in fact proven false by all accounts and therefore these is no reason to cry about it, folks.

I do believe I liked everything about this movie. I loved the elaborately constructed sets. I loved the hysterical dialogue that seems to have been created by a modge-podge collection of writers, only a few of them with more than one Hollywood film under their belt. I loved the courageous but underrated cinematography. I loved the not-so-subtle hint at a sequel which has us all guessing, except that we aren't. I even love that despite the mixed reviews, lack-lustre buzz and very modest box office earnings, this little film is powering through to be still in theatres.

I admit when it comes to films I liked, I am positively boring. I'll hit you with some more negative reviews next week.

Until then...

Liz

Avatar: Bigger than Titanic (but with less calories)

 

With the overwhelming popularity and success that James Cameron's new film Avatar has garnered, it seemed only right to air my views, since no one else seems to be holding back. I will warn fans of the Avatar film that I am not amongst you. This may shock some, but it needs to be said. There are other gainsayers; I am not alone, though I am still in a strict minority. How can I begin to defend this wretched position of conscientious objector which so many seem to despise?

Let us start with the man himself. James Cameron. I blame James Cameron for a good deal with what is wrong with Hollywood films in our day and age. It is because he can, and probably does, OWN most of it. It is true, James Cameron makes big movies, they make lots of money, and because he seems to put himself in charge of almost every department, he also gets most of the credit. The things he can't actually do himself are pawned off to the same handful of people who he seems capable of deigning with a portion of his credit. This is credit that is not even well-deserved. Cameron's hubris has kept him from understanding that he is a terrible writer and most of what his production and directorial jobs entail is saying "bigger. more expensive. extra big booms. BOOM, man! you understand me? BIG BANGING BOOM!"
Which can get boring if you don't enjoy things being blown literally out of proportion on the screen. We have to remember also that the few good movies we remember James Cameron doing tend to overshadow the massive number of awful movies he has had an equal part in.
To name a few: True Lies, Rambo: First Blood part II, Terminator 2 and 3, Dark Angel, The Sarah Connor Chronicles, Terminator: Dawn of Fate, and my personal favourite Solaris.

That is a list of some of the funniest Bad movies and TV shows I have every seen. And he is credited in a number of them as writer, director AND producer.

Leaving aside the man for a moment, let us have a look at the writing: We'll first have a look at the basic plot, courtesy of my friend, the internet.

This is only a single element of my objection to the plot structure. Not only is it a shameless re-hashing of an ancient plot, but it plays up every cultural stereotype so as to gain our politically correct sympathies.
The villain is contained in the dual antagonism of Corporate AMERICA Earthlings (sorry, that's some Tourrets thing I have) and a psychotic and typical General PATTON Quaritch (oops, there it goes again!). Together they are in search of the valuable mineral called -this never ceases to crack me up- Unobtainium. UN - Obtain - ium. You get it? Because it is unobtainable? *Nudge Nudge*. This mineral is so vaguely established that we are not even told its uses or why the ONLY deposit of it of any value is directly under the tree that is sacred to the native people.
And speaking of the Native people - I could not help but notice every actor (save one) of the Native Peoples of Pandora are African-American, speaking in an accent that recalls the African continent (where none of the actors were born, these are constructed accents). Are we being maybe TOO subtle, James Cameron? Why don't you just toss some beasts reminiscent of the African jungles in there? Oh wait...

Even the individual typecasting was horrific:
Newbie scientist: Smart but inept and less attractive than main character.
Single hispanic actor: female and butch, and rogue (didn't I see her in Resident Evil? What's she doing in the future?)
Main Character: capable of bypassing standard procedure and is more adept in things the trained scientists have been working on for years.

Militant villain: Looking for a fight, a war, and a win despite the lack of need, encouragement, or likelihood of survival. Always smoking a cigar and drinking what is presumably whiskey with a touch of coffee.

James Cameron: I am BORED.

Now, to give the film a chance, everyone declares that while the plot is specious at best, the visual experience is the saving grace and is in fact, revolutionizing the way we watch films.
The only difference between Avatar and other films of its visual calibre is that Avatar was funded by billionaires. The estimated budget before marketing and promotion has been reported as anywhere between 200-300$ million. I was not taken away by the visual effects. They were perfectly equal to the funding in most ways, and that is as much as I can say. I am irritated constantly by 3D and in fact the only revolution for ME watching this film was the headache I got from wearing the ridiculous 3D glasses.

The digital effects captured me in only one respect: the melding of live actors and their animated characters was unprecedented. Although a seven-foot blue Sigourney Weaver still haunts my dreams, it was a certain success of the film. In other ways the animation does not bypass the capabilities that any other studio possesses. There was no method that was invented, nor anything truly revolutionized. It was simply a much more expensive film than one usually sees.

My last words to James Cameron: Quit your job. You're rich enough to retire and pay ample settlements on your inevitable fifth divorce. 

Lots of love.

Glee: A Slice of Cheese

I will begin with a television series I have been recently (yet belatedly) exposed to: Glee.

When initially told that there was a television show taking the world of American High School and mashing it with Choral Remixes of contemporary and classic musical numbers I was confused, but secretly optimistic. Being a sucker for Broadway Musicals and cheesy hits of the 90s, I was thrilled that televised musical talent was no longer bound by America's Got Talent and The Disney Channel. It is a big step forward for television, I thought. 

I cannot say now that I was totally wrong. They have managed to get hold of some very talented people, who make up a rare mix of acting talent and musical talent, some that I have not seen since Bing Crosby hung up his microphone. The music producers, arrangers and vocal coaches have brought out some of the best moments in this series. Musical numbers and montages that litter the show are sometimes nonsensical, but always a thrill to see and hear. They are certainly responsible for what exceptional quality this show has.
The music, the actors and the staging all entertain me. I quite enjoy these all-too-brief moments of the show.

I cannot say the same for the writers, who, while they try and achieve a sort of self-deprecating charm with their punchy dialogue and predictable plot arcs, fail just short of their goal and leave me in an awkward lurch. Creator Ryan Murphy, also creator of the notorious Nip/Tuck, brings with him Brad Falchuck, sci-fi television writer converted seemingly by Murphy for Nip/Tuck and then later, Glee and newcomer Ian Brennan whose resume boasts little else but this show. This conglomeration makes up the writing staff (also half the co-producers) to whom I point this accusatory claim. My capability to speak along, predict words and indeed pre-recite entire phrases speaks to how little-used their creative impulses are. Plots are trite when they are original, which is not often, because mostly they languish in a traditional formula which has not only been done to death but panders to audience groups that their focus groups determine for them.

The clichéd "almost romance" of central Glee members Rachel Berry (Lea Michele) and Finn Hudson (Cory Monteith), for example, is acted on one side by almost-genuine dialogue of Monteith and on the other by the stilted, awkward and implausible dialogue of Michele, making the chemistry between them feel (rightly) formulaic. Having seen what I have of similarly lack-lustre writing in Nip/Tuck, I can only blame Falchuck and Murphy for this element of the show.

There are times, a few moments per episode usually, that I make a notable exception to this general feeling with the recognition of new blood, no doubt I have developed a "Brennan Sense". Ian Brennan's contributions to the dialogue and plot development are clear, because these are the moments that defy the "inside the box" methods of Murphy and Falchuck.
My example for the present is the superbly accomplished "coming out" of Kurt Hummel played by talented Chris Colfer. American television traditionally uses an opportunity like this to expose a character to more pain and despair by revealing parents that are aggressively against the sexuality of their children. While that tradition is founded in the producers' objection to such reactions, the overwhelming message that is broadcast is that homosexuals are always cast out for being who they are.

Kurt Hummel's open and honest confession of his sexuality to his father is not met with hostility or anger but an insistence that his love does not waver, despite their differing opinions on the subject. Love and acceptance are messages that this scene portrays. It is an ideal reaction, true, but it emphasizes that the greatest torture of the homosexual community is hiding identity, not revealing it.
It is moments like these that excuse my general dislike of the writing. I cannot entirely forgive them, but they get a certain number of props for addressing the truth as well as they do clichés.

For all that, Glee has developed an astounding response from its audience: The term "Gleek" -a less-than charming mash-up of "Glee" and "Geek" and not the pet monkey belonging to the Wonder Twins, has become commonplace. Soundtracks are being produced almost weekly -seemingly to match every episode with an album all its own. The most notorious sign of all that this show has reached horrifying popularity is in the release of the first half-season of the show. Why did they only release a half-season? Because that is all that has been produced!

It seems that in order to market a show that ceases for five months- those five months being the peak-time for most other televised programs- halfway through the first season, you have to get a jump on the game. First by sucking in all the people who aren't patient enough buy an entire season and will instead pay full price for half, and then expanding their impatient audience by having those people show their DVDs to everyone they know.

Very smart, folks. Kill them with anticipation. That's the key to success.

Maybe the hiatus is to circulate more rumours of Joss Whedon co-directing, producing, or writing an episode or two. The truth is yet to be seen, but if that great man does decide to buck up this little-show-that-could, I will applaud them for having taste at last.

The Pictures are Moving! I just talk about them.