It's time for a confession: I had not seen a Wes Anderson film until Moonrise Kingdom. Simply because quirky films like Anderson used to be a huge pain for me to sit through and even now, after seeing some truly great films from that genre, most of them tend to rub me the wrong way. Yet, Moonrise Kingdom surpassed my expectations and quickly dug it's way into my heart. To be honest, it's one of the most lovable films I've seen all year and the sort of film that I think I will always be able to fall back on and re-watch whenever I'm in the mood to wear a huge grin on my face.
Anderson has a fantastic screenplay to work with, which he cowrote with Roman Coppola. The tone for this film is one that is constantly upbeat and charming, with lots of eccentricity and hilarity thrown into the mix. The film deals with all too relatable challenges associated with growing up- such as feeling like you're alone in the world, or that you're parents don't like you- but they are handled with a sweet sensitivity and without becoming overly dramatic. The quirkiness in the film also manages to improve the film and make it feel like an organic part of it, not like some unneeded addition. The quirks, also, tend to make the film even more wonderful. Edward Norton's grown up boy scout of a character is a wonder to behold, and I laughed out loud every time Tilda Swinton's character was referred to as "Social Services." Add in that the film is often hilarious, with a ton of quotable one liners and a surprisingly sweet romance between the two youthful leads, and you have yourself a real winner of a movie.
The most noticeable thing about Moonrise Kingdom, however, is how beautiful it is. I'm not quite sure how Anderson managed to make the film look the way it does, but I was astonished by how stunning some of the shots were. From it's opening moments to it's closing scenes, every shot seems perfectly planned and serves as a real feast for the eyes. It's the sort of film you'd want to take screen shots of and hang them from your walls. As I mentioned above, I haven't seen any other Anderson films, and cannot offer a comparison, but I can say that Moonrise Kingdom is, by far, the best looking film I've seen this year.
I suppose it's time to list the negative aspects of this film, but I can really only think of one, and it would spoil a major part of the film. So, I'll try to tiptoe around it, but still address it. In my opinion, a certain subplot involving Frances McDormand's character was incredibly unnecessary and did not add anything to the film. It felt forced into an otherwise tight screenplay and, in the end, there are no real consequences as to why it happened. I also wish we had the time to find out more about the other boy scouts in the film, and maybe a little more about Suzy's siblings, but these are minor quibbles and not so much flaws.
Also, there was one more thing I really noticed about this film: In the past, I have been extremely critical of child actors. In fact, I tend to hate them. Yes there are the rare few that prove to be quite talented in front of the camera but, most of the time, they seem awkward and distracted. Kara Hayward and Jared Gilman are not a part of that majority. Both young actors have so much natural screen presence and radiate with charm and realism. Their comedic timing is impeccable for actors of their age, yet they never feel too mature for their age. Actors like Dakota Fanning and Chloe Moretz, while quite talented, come across as young teens who will be turning 30 next month. Gilman and Hayward are both filled with youth and childhood charm, but never act too old for their age. These are two refreshing performances that completely deliver. In fact, I'd say they give the best performances in the film, much better than their experienced adult counterparts like Norton, Willis and McDormand.
It's too early to say where Moonrise Kingdom will fall on my Top 10 list, but I really can't imagine an adequate list without this film appearing on it. I'm not sure if it's my favorite film of the year, but I feel as if it's the most re-watchable by a mile. It's consistently entertaining, heartwarming, hilarious and filled with so many stunning images that I feel like it will never get old. I can't wait to see it again, which, unfortunately, won't be until the holidays when I (hopefully) get it as a gift. But you don't have to wait that long! Check this film out as soon as possible, it's a truly special film.
OVERALL GRADE: A
Saturday, November 17, 2012
Friday, November 16, 2012
Cloud Atlas- An Ambitious, Beautiful Film
An American lawyer in the 1800s who befriends a slave. An English musician in the 1930s who agrees to assist an aging composer. An investigative journalist in the 1970s who uncovers a huge conspiracy involving a nuclear reactor. An amoral book publisher in 2012 on the run from gangsters. A fabricant in Neo Seoul circa 2144 leading a rebellion against an oppressive government . A tribesman in a post apocalyptic Hawaii overcoming personal demons to assist a beautiful woman and overcome an army of cannibals. Six very different stories. Six very different genres. One epic movie. This is what makes Cloud Atlas so ambitious. Quite simply, nothing like it has ever been made. While these six stories may seem completely different and without any actual connection, the are all strung together not by a storyline but an idea: Can the actions of impact others for years to come? The Wachowskis and Tom Tkywer examine that question in one of the best films of the year.
Clocking in at nearly three hours, there is no denying that Cloud Atlas is a lengthy film. That being said, I did not feel the three hours once. The film moves by at a fairly quick pace, without any scenes that feel tacked on or unimportant. In fact, every scene feels important and central to the primary theme of the film. Whether it be an intense action sequence or a quiet moment, each moment feels significant and, often, powerful. Also, while I'm sure some of the detractors of the film will argue that the stories are not completely connected, I would beg to differ. The Wachowskis and Tkywer made the distinct decision to not display the stories in a linear format and, instead, cut back and forth between the six different stories. This may feel overwhelming or confusing, but by looking past the story being told on screen viewers will see the film's actual stories: Of a man (Tom Hanks) who evolves from a despicable human being into a selfless hero, and the woman (Halle Berry) who inspires him to change his way. Of a couple (Jim Sturges and Doona Bae) who constantly try to protect the men and women on the fringes of society. And of the people on the fringes of society due to race or sexual orientation (David Gyasi and Ben Whisaw) trying to find independence. As one of Berry's six characters, Luisa Rey, says in the trailer "I'm trying to figure out why we keep making the same mistakes." That question, and many others, are the real story of Cloud Atlas. The rest is just the tool used to tell it.
But to tell such a story writers and directors must employ top notch editing skills and show true talent behind the camera. These three directors are more than up for the challenge and, again, displaying the stories simultaneously proved to be a wonderful decision. Each story works well on their own, but seeing a suspenseful moment on a slave ship in the 1800s intercut with an futuristic shootout gives an exhilarating feeling, that all too rare emotion that what we are watching is truly unique and unlike anything we've ever seen before. This intercutting also packs the biggest emotional punch. Seeing Berry and Hanks attempt to find love throughout the timeline makes it all the more better when they do and all the more sadder when they do not.
Now, the make up for the film, to be honest, is terrible. There is just no way to deny it. Was it intentional? I don't think so, but I'd be willing to hear some arguments about that. But, to be honest, I didn't mind all too much. Sure it's a bit distracting when Jim Sturges has to play a Korean but looks like a British man telling a racist joke, and when Hugo Weaving plays a malicious nurse in 2012 he doesn't look like a woman but a man in drag. And, the rare times the make up does look convincing, such as when Halle Berry plays a white woman in the 1930s, the effect wears off the second you realize that you are, in fact, looking at Halle Berry. Yet, I stopped caring about that due to the strength of the performances behind the makeup. The actors behind the makeup really sell the performance. Did I, even once, believe that Jim Sturges was actually a freedom fighting Korean? Or that Hugo Weaving was a Nurse Ratched-esque villain? Yes, I did, and not because of the makeup. The acting is, simply, one of a kind. Nobody here really seems like a weakest link, but if I had to highlight a few key actors, I'd say that Hanks, Jim Broadbent, Ben Whisaw and Doona Bae deliver the strongest performances. Bae gives one of my favorite performances of the year as Sonmi-451, and I hope she manages to break out into American films soon. Broadbent, who is great at playing over the top (see: Moulin Rouge!) finds a nice balance between realism and exaggeration while playing publisher Timothy Cavendish, and also steals scenes as the villainous Vyvyan Ayrs. Whisaw, who also delivers a solid performance in Skyfall, does a great job as Frobisher, one of the more dramatic and depressing characters in the film. And Hanks is simply a marvel. The fact that Hanks has built his reputation on being a 'nice guy' in almost all of his pictures, seeing him play a villain is shocking but a reminder of how talented he really is. Then, when he transforms into a hero, we are reminded how much we love him as 'the nice guy.'
Will everybody love Cloud Atlas? The middling box office results seem to say no, but I'd be willing to bet that, let's say, twenty years from now it will build up a reputation a la Blade Runner. A film this ambitious isn't goint to set the world on fire right away, and that's fine. I'm just happy to have the Wachowskis back in my life. Bound and The Matrix are both wonderful films, and Cloud Atlas can now join that list. And, in a way, the Wachowskis are bigger than ever. Lana Wachowski has become an icon for transgenders in Hollywood, and has become a true inspiration (have you seen her speech at the Visibility Awards? It's incredible!). Their next film also has two of the biggest movie stars working today, Channing Tatum and Mila Kunis, attached. Despite the film's status as a box office disaster (which is a shame considering the $100 million budget was paid, out of pocket, by the three directors) those two aren't going anywhere. And, I didn't forget about Tom Twyker. I haven't seen a film of his, but I certainly plan on it now. Right now, the film may be viewed as a financial disaster and a film that divided most critics. I say it's a visually stunning, beautiful epic with big ideas blockbusters should incorporate more often. I also say that the film is bound to be viewed in a much more positive light as the year's go by. And, lastly, I say that the film is one of the very best I've seen this year. Go see it, you might be impressed or, at the very least, treated to something you've never seen before.
Clocking in at nearly three hours, there is no denying that Cloud Atlas is a lengthy film. That being said, I did not feel the three hours once. The film moves by at a fairly quick pace, without any scenes that feel tacked on or unimportant. In fact, every scene feels important and central to the primary theme of the film. Whether it be an intense action sequence or a quiet moment, each moment feels significant and, often, powerful. Also, while I'm sure some of the detractors of the film will argue that the stories are not completely connected, I would beg to differ. The Wachowskis and Tkywer made the distinct decision to not display the stories in a linear format and, instead, cut back and forth between the six different stories. This may feel overwhelming or confusing, but by looking past the story being told on screen viewers will see the film's actual stories: Of a man (Tom Hanks) who evolves from a despicable human being into a selfless hero, and the woman (Halle Berry) who inspires him to change his way. Of a couple (Jim Sturges and Doona Bae) who constantly try to protect the men and women on the fringes of society. And of the people on the fringes of society due to race or sexual orientation (David Gyasi and Ben Whisaw) trying to find independence. As one of Berry's six characters, Luisa Rey, says in the trailer "I'm trying to figure out why we keep making the same mistakes." That question, and many others, are the real story of Cloud Atlas. The rest is just the tool used to tell it.
But to tell such a story writers and directors must employ top notch editing skills and show true talent behind the camera. These three directors are more than up for the challenge and, again, displaying the stories simultaneously proved to be a wonderful decision. Each story works well on their own, but seeing a suspenseful moment on a slave ship in the 1800s intercut with an futuristic shootout gives an exhilarating feeling, that all too rare emotion that what we are watching is truly unique and unlike anything we've ever seen before. This intercutting also packs the biggest emotional punch. Seeing Berry and Hanks attempt to find love throughout the timeline makes it all the more better when they do and all the more sadder when they do not.
Now, the make up for the film, to be honest, is terrible. There is just no way to deny it. Was it intentional? I don't think so, but I'd be willing to hear some arguments about that. But, to be honest, I didn't mind all too much. Sure it's a bit distracting when Jim Sturges has to play a Korean but looks like a British man telling a racist joke, and when Hugo Weaving plays a malicious nurse in 2012 he doesn't look like a woman but a man in drag. And, the rare times the make up does look convincing, such as when Halle Berry plays a white woman in the 1930s, the effect wears off the second you realize that you are, in fact, looking at Halle Berry. Yet, I stopped caring about that due to the strength of the performances behind the makeup. The actors behind the makeup really sell the performance. Did I, even once, believe that Jim Sturges was actually a freedom fighting Korean? Or that Hugo Weaving was a Nurse Ratched-esque villain? Yes, I did, and not because of the makeup. The acting is, simply, one of a kind. Nobody here really seems like a weakest link, but if I had to highlight a few key actors, I'd say that Hanks, Jim Broadbent, Ben Whisaw and Doona Bae deliver the strongest performances. Bae gives one of my favorite performances of the year as Sonmi-451, and I hope she manages to break out into American films soon. Broadbent, who is great at playing over the top (see: Moulin Rouge!) finds a nice balance between realism and exaggeration while playing publisher Timothy Cavendish, and also steals scenes as the villainous Vyvyan Ayrs. Whisaw, who also delivers a solid performance in Skyfall, does a great job as Frobisher, one of the more dramatic and depressing characters in the film. And Hanks is simply a marvel. The fact that Hanks has built his reputation on being a 'nice guy' in almost all of his pictures, seeing him play a villain is shocking but a reminder of how talented he really is. Then, when he transforms into a hero, we are reminded how much we love him as 'the nice guy.'
Will everybody love Cloud Atlas? The middling box office results seem to say no, but I'd be willing to bet that, let's say, twenty years from now it will build up a reputation a la Blade Runner. A film this ambitious isn't goint to set the world on fire right away, and that's fine. I'm just happy to have the Wachowskis back in my life. Bound and The Matrix are both wonderful films, and Cloud Atlas can now join that list. And, in a way, the Wachowskis are bigger than ever. Lana Wachowski has become an icon for transgenders in Hollywood, and has become a true inspiration (have you seen her speech at the Visibility Awards? It's incredible!). Their next film also has two of the biggest movie stars working today, Channing Tatum and Mila Kunis, attached. Despite the film's status as a box office disaster (which is a shame considering the $100 million budget was paid, out of pocket, by the three directors) those two aren't going anywhere. And, I didn't forget about Tom Twyker. I haven't seen a film of his, but I certainly plan on it now. Right now, the film may be viewed as a financial disaster and a film that divided most critics. I say it's a visually stunning, beautiful epic with big ideas blockbusters should incorporate more often. I also say that the film is bound to be viewed in a much more positive light as the year's go by. And, lastly, I say that the film is one of the very best I've seen this year. Go see it, you might be impressed or, at the very least, treated to something you've never seen before.
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
Let's Get Down to Business: Breaking Down the Big 8 Categories
Whether you realize it or not, we are well into Oscar season. Over the next few weeks, there is at least one movie for film geeks and Oscar lovers to check out. I, unfortunately, have been behind on my Oscar movie calendar due to Hurricane Sandy but by next weekend I should be completely caught up with my schedule (or, at the very least, Thanksgiving). That being said, it's time to get serious. A majority of the Oscar films have premiered at this point or, at the very least, there is a sizable amount of buzz attached to them. While ranking the nominees was important, now it's time to break each category down. Once we get to the Critic Choice Awards and especially the Golden Globes my predictions will be almost definite but, until then, we move into stage two of Oscar forecasts: Breaking Down the Nominees!
BEST PICTURE:
THE LOCKS: Argo, Les Miserables, Lincoln, Silver Linings Playbook
WHY ARE THEY LOCKS?: Argo is one of the most critically acclaimed films of the year and with a plot Academy voters will love and a major backing from mainstream audiences, it's a major threat to the rest of the year's nominees for the award. Les Miserables, meanwhile, is one of the most buzzed about films of the year and Universal has a lot of faith in the film. It's most certainly getting in there, and could win it all. Lincoln is said to be a return to form for Spielberg after a few duds, but if even one of his duds (War Horse) could get a BP nomination, one of his best will most certainly fit in there. Finally, Silver Linings Playbook is swooping in this Thanksgiving and will most definitely have critics and audiences eating it up. All four films will most definitely be nominated, and stand a good chance at winning as well.
FIGHTING FOR THE REMAINING SLOTS: Django Unchained, Flight, Hitchcock, Life of Pi, The Impossible, The Master, The Sessions
HOW LIKELY ARE THEY? It's an intense fight for the remaining slots, and it's very tough to see what will actually make the cut. If I were a betting man, I'd say that Django Unchained and Life of Pi would most definitely make the cut, but I think it's too early to call either a lock. Flight, The Sessions and Hitchcock could have what it takes, but both feel like acting showcases as opposed to true Best Picture nominees. On the outside looking in are The Impossible, which will largely depend on mainstream critics, and The Master which, I feel, may have lost it's steam in this category.
POSSIBLE DARK HORSES: Amour, Beasts of the Southern Wild, Moonrise Kingdom, Zero Dark Thirty
DO THEY HAVE A CHANCE?: At this point I doubt that Moonrise Kingdom has much of a chance, which is a shame as it's one of my favorites this year so far. At most, it could be this year's Midnight in Paris, but there are many more serious contenders compared to last year. Beasts of the Southern Wild has a slightly better push, but it will need a major end of year push from other award circuits. I have no clue if a positive critical reception could impact Zero Dark Thirty, as it may be viewed as simply a re-do of The Hurt Locker. And despite rave reviews, Amour has the massive hurdle of being a foreign film before getting a nomination.
AS OF RIGHT NOW, I'D PREDICT:
BEST PICTURE:
THE LOCKS: Argo, Les Miserables, Lincoln, Silver Linings Playbook
WHY ARE THEY LOCKS?: Argo is one of the most critically acclaimed films of the year and with a plot Academy voters will love and a major backing from mainstream audiences, it's a major threat to the rest of the year's nominees for the award. Les Miserables, meanwhile, is one of the most buzzed about films of the year and Universal has a lot of faith in the film. It's most certainly getting in there, and could win it all. Lincoln is said to be a return to form for Spielberg after a few duds, but if even one of his duds (War Horse) could get a BP nomination, one of his best will most certainly fit in there. Finally, Silver Linings Playbook is swooping in this Thanksgiving and will most definitely have critics and audiences eating it up. All four films will most definitely be nominated, and stand a good chance at winning as well.
FIGHTING FOR THE REMAINING SLOTS: Django Unchained, Flight, Hitchcock, Life of Pi, The Impossible, The Master, The Sessions
HOW LIKELY ARE THEY? It's an intense fight for the remaining slots, and it's very tough to see what will actually make the cut. If I were a betting man, I'd say that Django Unchained and Life of Pi would most definitely make the cut, but I think it's too early to call either a lock. Flight, The Sessions and Hitchcock could have what it takes, but both feel like acting showcases as opposed to true Best Picture nominees. On the outside looking in are The Impossible, which will largely depend on mainstream critics, and The Master which, I feel, may have lost it's steam in this category.
POSSIBLE DARK HORSES: Amour, Beasts of the Southern Wild, Moonrise Kingdom, Zero Dark Thirty
DO THEY HAVE A CHANCE?: At this point I doubt that Moonrise Kingdom has much of a chance, which is a shame as it's one of my favorites this year so far. At most, it could be this year's Midnight in Paris, but there are many more serious contenders compared to last year. Beasts of the Southern Wild has a slightly better push, but it will need a major end of year push from other award circuits. I have no clue if a positive critical reception could impact Zero Dark Thirty, as it may be viewed as simply a re-do of The Hurt Locker. And despite rave reviews, Amour has the massive hurdle of being a foreign film before getting a nomination.
AS OF RIGHT NOW, I'D PREDICT:
- Argo
- Beasts of the Southern Wild
- Django Unchained
- Les Miserables
- Life of Pi
- Lincoln
- The Master
- Silver Linings Playbook
Monday, October 22, 2012
Mid-October Oscar Update: The Master Shake-Up, Plus More Big Changes!
We're in the middle of October and the Oscar race is starting to heat up. We had a huge controversy that will seriously impact The Master's chances in all categories. Flight and Lincoln both premiered and we have a more clear indicator of what to expect with those films in terms of potential nominations. And we've had the premiere of Argo, Smashed and The Sessions, which allows us to see just how much of a standing it will have in the long run. Let's get started-
REMEMBER- this is a ranking as to how likely a film is to be nominated in the category, with one meaning the most likely. Once we get later into Oscar season (mid November- early December) I will begin posting definitive Oscar nomination predictions. I've also stopped my rankings at 15 for all categories. An asterisk (*) next to the films/actors/writers/directors I'd consider locks.
BEST PICTURE:
BEST ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE:
BEST ANIMATED FILM:
REMEMBER- this is a ranking as to how likely a film is to be nominated in the category, with one meaning the most likely. Once we get later into Oscar season (mid November- early December) I will begin posting definitive Oscar nomination predictions. I've also stopped my rankings at 15 for all categories. An asterisk (*) next to the films/actors/writers/directors I'd consider locks.
BEST PICTURE:
- Argo *
- Silver Linings Playbook *
- Les Miserables *
- Lincoln *
- Life of Pi *
- Django Unchained
- Hitchcock
- Beasts of the Southern Wild
- The Master
- The Impossible
- Zero Dark Thirty
- Amour
- The Hobbit- An Unexpected Journey
- Moonrise Kingdom
- Anna Karenina
ANALYSIS: At this point, I see no reason to move my top four picks. Argo is still my favorite for the win, with Silver Linings Playbook, Les Miserables and Lincoln all seeming like surefire nominations. There are a few major shifts from that point on, however, as The Master has moved all the way down to number nine. Due to Joaquin Phoenix's controversial anti-Oscar rant this week, as well as The Master's dismal box office returns and the fact that it was released just outside of the prime awards season, I could see The Master being shunned from the Best Picture race, though, as of right now, I see it just barely making it into the Top 10. Moving up a few slots- Life of Pi, which received positive word of mouth. I could see it being this year's Hugo. Django Unchained also looks wonderful, but Tarantino films are hard to predict. Still, Django seems like a relatively safe bet for the Academy. I also fell in love with the Hitchcock trailer, and could really see that securing a nomination, though that could change once reviews start coming in. Beasts, The Master and The Impossible are all distinct possibilities, with number 11-15 waiting in the wings as unlikely picks.
BEST ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE:
- Daniel Day Lewis, Lincoln *
- John Hawkes, The Sessions *
- Denzel Washington, Flight
- Joaquin Phoenix, The Master
- Anthony Hopkins, Hitchcock
- Hugh Jackman, Les Miserables
- Bradley Cooper, Silver Linings Playbook
- Matt Damon, Promised Land
- Brad Pitt, Killing Them Softly
- Jamie Foxx, Django Unchained
- Logan Lerman, The Perks of Being a Wallflower
ANALYSIS: Phoenix's comments will, no doubt, hurt his chances at winning. No, don't be mistaken. I do not think Daniel Day Lewis will win. He's already won twice, and his last win was just a few years ago. But, he's almost guaranteed a nomination. On the contrary, assuming he gets a nomination, I could see John Hawkes taking home the award. I'm considering him a lock for now, but I suppose it's a bit up in the air. Still, I see him being a strong contender. The recent reviews for Flight have made me think that Washington will certainly find himself amongst the nominees, with Phoenix being lowered considerably to slot four. Slot four and five (which I currently being held by Hopkins for Hitchcock) could easily be swapped out for Hugh Jackman or Bradley Cooper once we get later in the year. As for Damon, Pitt, Foxx and Lerman, there chances are slowly diminishing and could be removed from the next update.
BEST ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE:
- Jennifer Lawrence, Silver Linings Playbook *
- Hellen Mirren, Hitchcock
- Quevanzhane Wallis, Beasts of the Southern Wild
- Keira Knightely, Anna Karenina
- Naomi Watts, The Impossible
- Emmanuelle Riva, Amour
- Marion Cotillard, Rust & Bone
- Meryl Streep, Hope Springs
- Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Smashed
ANALYSIS: A quick note on this, I removed Maggie Smith simply because I had no idea what to expect with her nomination for Quartet. Lead? Supporting? No one seems to know yet. The fact remains, Jennifer Lawrence is the front runner by a mile in my eyes. The rest of the category is a war zone: You've got Hellen Mirren looking strong in the Hitchcock trailer (maybe even stronger than Hopkins?) and Quevanzhane Wallis looking strong, if she can overcome the hurdle of her age. Slightly less likely is Knightely, who I think could get in despite her polarizing film, and Watts, who the Academy doesn't seem to love much, but, it's The Impossible's best chance at serious awards representation. Just barely out of the top five are two actresses giving supposedly powerful performances in foreign films, Emmanuelle Riva and Marion Cotillard, who could sneak in their if the Academy responds well to their films. Meanwhile, Meryl Streep and Mary Elizabeth Winstead sit far on the outside as their films seem to have been forgotten by the Academy and serious critics. Especially a shame since the supposedly brilliant Winstead is getting virtually no representation from Sony Picture Classic.
BEST ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE:
- Leonardo DiCaprio, Django Unchained *
- Tommy Lee Jones, Lincoln*
- Robert De Niro, Silver Linings Playbook
- Phillip Seymour Hoffman, The Master
- Alan Arkin, Argo
- Russell Crowe, Les Miserables
- Hal Holbrook, Promised Land
- Bryan Cranston, Argo
- Christoph Waltz, Django Unchained
- Matthew McCanaughey, Magic Mike
- Dwight Henry, Beasts of the Southern Wild
- Jude Law, Anna Karenina
- Tom Holland, The Impossible
- William H. Macy, The Sessions
ANALYSIS: With Lincoln premiering this month, I removed many actors from that film and have focused the category around Tommy Lee Jones who is, supposedly, the best thing about the film. Both he and DiCaprio are, in my opinion, locks. DiCaprio is long overdue in a big film where he looks fantastic, and Jones is a veteran actor turning in one of his best performances in recent memory. Both are locks. Narrowly escaping lock status is De Niro, while Phillip Seymour Hoffman has been lowered (again) to the Phoenix controversy. Arkin and Crowe will likely duke it out for the fifth slot, but I'm giving Arkin the upper hand for now. Holbrook could sneak in if Promised Land is any good, Cranston is well liked in Argo, Waltz looks strong in Django Unchained and McConaughey is supposedly fantastic in Magic Mike. Henry, Law, Holland and Macy all stand a slight chance, but they could be crushed by the big names.
BEST ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE:
- Anne Hathaway, Les Miserables *
- Helen Hunt, The Sessions *
- Sally Field, Lincoln
- Amy Adams, The Master
- Scarlett Johansson, Hitchcock
- Samantha Barks, Les Miserables
- Jessica Chastain, Zero Dark Thirty
- Kerry Washington, Django Unchained
- Jacki Weaver, Silver Linings Playbook
- Frances McDormand, Promised Land
ANALYSIS: Hathaway is a lock. We've known that. And Hunt seems like a lock now with The Sessions getting such brilliant reviews now that it's hit theaters. Meanwhile, Field and Adams seem like the likely gals to stick out from the remaining bunch, but it could get competitive. Johansson looks like solid in Hitchcock, but Barks could break out with Les Miserables and Chastain looks good in Zero Dark Thirty (though I have no clue if she is lead or supporting). We can't forget about Washington, Weaver and McDormand though. The competition isn't filled with heavy hitters, but it's still a tough field to pick.
BEST DIRECTOR:
- Ben Affleck, Argo *
- Tom Hopper, Les Miserables *
- Steven Spielberg, Lincoln *
- David O. Russell, Silver Linings Playbook
- Paul Thomas Anderson, The Master
- Ang Lee, Life of Pi
- Quentin Tarantino, Django Unchained
- Benh Zaitlin, Beasts of the Southern Wild
ANALYSIS: Having just seen Argo (review to come in a little bit), I feel confident in saying that Ben Affleck has a good chance at winning the award. Even if the Academy splits the Best Picture and Best Director winner, I feel as if Affleck has a better chance at winning Best Director than Argo does for Best Picture. And that's because my number two pick for the category, Tom Hopper, just won a Best Director Oscar and I doubt the Academy would give him one again so quickly. Reviews for Lincoln make it seem like he's a shoo-in for a nomination, but he just doesn't have enough buzz to seem like the winner. Could O. Russell get it for Silver Linings Playbook? It's possible, but the film still seems light to me. if anything, Playbook would take home Best Picture and Affleck will take home Best Director. The rest of the potentials (Anderson, Lee, Tarantino and Zaitlin) all seem like long-shots at the moment. We'll see if any future developments could change that.
BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY:
- Quentin Tarantino, Django Unchained
- Paul Thomas Anderson, The Master
- Wes Anderson and Roman Coppola, Moonrise Kingdom
- Matt Damon and John Krasinski, Promised Land
- Michael Haneke, Amour
- John Gatins, Flight
- Mark Boal, Zero Dark Thirty
- Sergio G. Sanchez, Seven Psychopaths
- Rian Johnson, Looper
- Reid Carolin, Magic Mike
ANALYSIS: With the loss of buzz for The Master, I'm having Tarantino swoop in as the top choice for a nomination, but this category is still wide open. If there are any locks, it's the top three, but even they don't seem like sure things. The rest of the nominations all seem like dark horses even for a nomination. Hopefully, as the awards season approaches, we get a more clear front runner.
BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY:
- Chris Terrio, Argo *
- David O. Russell, Silver Linings Playbook *
- Tony Kushner, John Logan and Paul Webb, Lincoln *
- Ben Lewin, The Sessions
- William Nicholson, Les Miserables
- Lucy Alibar and Benh Zeitlin, Beasts of the Southern Wild
- David Magee, Life of Pi
- John J. McLaughlin, Hitchcock
- Stephen Chbosky, The Perks of Being a Wallflower
- Ronald Harwood, Quartet
ANALYSIS: I'd say the top three are locks. They are all big projects, the films are being well received and the Academy will surely want to honor them in this category. The rest, however, is wide open. The Sessions seems relatively likely, but if films like Life of Pi or Hitchcock really impress, they could fill out the category. Then there's Les Miserables, which I can't quite place my finger on. The film seems like one of the biggest films of the season, but will they be willing to nominate a film that will be primarily in song, not to mention previously published song? It'll be interesting, to say the least. I'm also secretly hoping that Summit pushes for a Perks nomination, but I really don't see that happening. As for Quartet, I just don't know what to expect.
BEST ANIMATED FILM:
- Wreck-it-Ralph
- Frankenweenie
- ParaNorman
- Rise of the Guardians
- From Up on Poppy Hill
- A Liar's Autobiography- The Untold Story of Monty Python's Graham Chapman
- Brave
ANALYSIS: No locks yet for this one. If Wreck-it-Ralph delivers (and I really hope it does) then I could see it winning. Frankenweenie's dismal box office is hurting it's chances, and ParaNorman's buzz has died down, but I just don't know what other films could be nominated in their place. I think Brave's mixed response will likely hurt it, but maybe I'm wrong? This category is tough to predict for sure.
FOR NEXT TIME: The next time I post this, Wreck-it-Ralph and Flight would have hit theaters, and we will hopefully have more buzz on a few others. I hope to see The Sessions by then, but that all depends on whether or not it expands quickly enough. If it doesn't expand soon, I'll probably go see it in mid-November in New York, during a double feature with Anna Karenina. Only time will tell though. Anyway, reply in the comments!
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
The Perks of Being a Wallflower- One of the Year's Must See Movies
Have you read The Perks of Being a Wallflower? Well, if you haven't, I highly recommend you give it a read. It's a true page turner, and a novel which, I feel, extends far past the typical expectations of the teen novel genre and proves to be an emotional novel for all readers. But I'm not here to talk about the novel, I'm here to talk about the film, which happens to be directed by the book's author, Stephen Chbosky. And, despite some changes from the source material, Perks stands tall as one of the year's must see films.
The story of the introverted, and possibly disturbed, high school freshmen Charlie (Logan Lerman) could have been a cliched coming of age story. But, like the novel, Charlie's experiences with his friends from "the island of misfit toys" prove to be relatable and refreshing. Don't be fooled by the 90s setting or the young stars on the poster- this is a film that any generation can appreciate, due to how realistic the universal experiences that make up high school are depicted. From experimentation with drugs, to the awkwardness of sex, to the more serious issues like bullying and depression, it all feels wonderfully accurate. I may not have been a teenager during the 90s, but I certainly can relate to Charlie's experiences with his friends. The parties he goes to, the dates he goes on and the seemingly unimportant car rides with his best friends all felt like experiences ripped from my own high school years, and I'd be willing to bet others will find similarities in at least some of his experiences.
That's where the real strength of Perks lies. Through the realism in the film, Chbosky creates a giant heart at the film's core that's impossible to resist. In lesser hands, many characters could have become gratingly annoying, or like characters we've seen countless times before. The flamboyant and boisterous Patrick (Ezra Miller) could have been annoying but, instead, is entertaining and brings much needed comedy during darker moments. Sam's (Emma Watson) "dream girl' status could have made her feel like a one dimensional love interest, but she ends up coming off as a fully realized and flawed character. The supporting roles- including Rocky Horror loving punk Mary Elizabeth (Mae Whitman) and in-the-closet jock Brad (Johnny Simmons) grow out of their archetypes and feel like real people you passed in the hallway at school. Perhaps most remarkable is the way Chbosky makes the audience fall in love with the narrator, Charlie. Charlie obviously has problems, and his almost childlike naiveté could have become grating. But, Charlie never becomes annoying. You constantly want the best for him, laugh while he laughs, and cry when he cries. Audiences will learn to love them, and want to spend more time with them.
The Perks of Being a Wallflower is, also, exceedingly well cast. I wrote off Logan Lerman early in his career (sorry, but Percy Jackson looked terrible). But, here, Lerman gives a performance that feels perfectly realized and is simply stunning. I'd argue it's Oscar worthy, even though there is virtually no chance at a nomination. But, he's surrounded by equally talented actors. Ezra Miller has, by far, the "showiest" role as his Patrick is responsible for being the comedic backbone of the film, while also being required to show the pain that comes with being an openly gay student in a close minded high school. Miller lives up to the challenge. As Sam, Emma Watson also delivers a strong performance, even if she is the weakest of the three. As a fan of the novel, I still feel Watson was slightly miscast. I just don't buy the fact that her character would have anything resembling a promiscuous past. But, Watson certainly shows her dramatic chops here, and has a remarkable amount of chemistry with Lerman. And her American accent? Perfect! Other wonderful casting decisions include the charming Mae Whitman, who helps make her abrasive character sympathetic and lovable, as well as a perfectly cast Paul Rudd, who plays the "teacher role model" role perfectly without ever becoming creepy, and Melanie Lynskey as Charlie's late Aunt Helen.
As a whole, Perks works, delivering all the necessary drama, comedy and inspiration a coming of age dramadey would need. But, it's in the individual moments that the film's true power is revealed. Fans of the book will be happy to see how well their favorite moments are re-enacted. The Rocky Horror sequences are fun and hilarious. Charlie and Patrick's bonding over their relationship woes are heart breaking. The novel's memorable line, which signifies the book/film's theme, "We accept the love we think we deserve" is delivered perfectly, and fully explored during the rest of the film. And, perhaps most importantly, the "infinite" scene is directed beautifully, with all the emotional power you'd expect. Don't know what I'm talking about? Well then, go see the film! Trust me, you will be moved.
There have been many great films so far this year, but none have impacted me emotionally quite like The Perks of Being a Wallflower, and it's not just because I love the book. This is a well made, brilliantly acted drama that may be about teens, but can appeal to anyone. If you write this film off as "just another teen movie", you will miss out on one of the year's very best. Please, go check it out!
OVERALL GRADE: A+
The story of the introverted, and possibly disturbed, high school freshmen Charlie (Logan Lerman) could have been a cliched coming of age story. But, like the novel, Charlie's experiences with his friends from "the island of misfit toys" prove to be relatable and refreshing. Don't be fooled by the 90s setting or the young stars on the poster- this is a film that any generation can appreciate, due to how realistic the universal experiences that make up high school are depicted. From experimentation with drugs, to the awkwardness of sex, to the more serious issues like bullying and depression, it all feels wonderfully accurate. I may not have been a teenager during the 90s, but I certainly can relate to Charlie's experiences with his friends. The parties he goes to, the dates he goes on and the seemingly unimportant car rides with his best friends all felt like experiences ripped from my own high school years, and I'd be willing to bet others will find similarities in at least some of his experiences.
That's where the real strength of Perks lies. Through the realism in the film, Chbosky creates a giant heart at the film's core that's impossible to resist. In lesser hands, many characters could have become gratingly annoying, or like characters we've seen countless times before. The flamboyant and boisterous Patrick (Ezra Miller) could have been annoying but, instead, is entertaining and brings much needed comedy during darker moments. Sam's (Emma Watson) "dream girl' status could have made her feel like a one dimensional love interest, but she ends up coming off as a fully realized and flawed character. The supporting roles- including Rocky Horror loving punk Mary Elizabeth (Mae Whitman) and in-the-closet jock Brad (Johnny Simmons) grow out of their archetypes and feel like real people you passed in the hallway at school. Perhaps most remarkable is the way Chbosky makes the audience fall in love with the narrator, Charlie. Charlie obviously has problems, and his almost childlike naiveté could have become grating. But, Charlie never becomes annoying. You constantly want the best for him, laugh while he laughs, and cry when he cries. Audiences will learn to love them, and want to spend more time with them.
The Perks of Being a Wallflower is, also, exceedingly well cast. I wrote off Logan Lerman early in his career (sorry, but Percy Jackson looked terrible). But, here, Lerman gives a performance that feels perfectly realized and is simply stunning. I'd argue it's Oscar worthy, even though there is virtually no chance at a nomination. But, he's surrounded by equally talented actors. Ezra Miller has, by far, the "showiest" role as his Patrick is responsible for being the comedic backbone of the film, while also being required to show the pain that comes with being an openly gay student in a close minded high school. Miller lives up to the challenge. As Sam, Emma Watson also delivers a strong performance, even if she is the weakest of the three. As a fan of the novel, I still feel Watson was slightly miscast. I just don't buy the fact that her character would have anything resembling a promiscuous past. But, Watson certainly shows her dramatic chops here, and has a remarkable amount of chemistry with Lerman. And her American accent? Perfect! Other wonderful casting decisions include the charming Mae Whitman, who helps make her abrasive character sympathetic and lovable, as well as a perfectly cast Paul Rudd, who plays the "teacher role model" role perfectly without ever becoming creepy, and Melanie Lynskey as Charlie's late Aunt Helen.
As a whole, Perks works, delivering all the necessary drama, comedy and inspiration a coming of age dramadey would need. But, it's in the individual moments that the film's true power is revealed. Fans of the book will be happy to see how well their favorite moments are re-enacted. The Rocky Horror sequences are fun and hilarious. Charlie and Patrick's bonding over their relationship woes are heart breaking. The novel's memorable line, which signifies the book/film's theme, "We accept the love we think we deserve" is delivered perfectly, and fully explored during the rest of the film. And, perhaps most importantly, the "infinite" scene is directed beautifully, with all the emotional power you'd expect. Don't know what I'm talking about? Well then, go see the film! Trust me, you will be moved.
There have been many great films so far this year, but none have impacted me emotionally quite like The Perks of Being a Wallflower, and it's not just because I love the book. This is a well made, brilliantly acted drama that may be about teens, but can appeal to anyone. If you write this film off as "just another teen movie", you will miss out on one of the year's very best. Please, go check it out!
OVERALL GRADE: A+
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)