I've always wanted there to be an around-the-clock, ESPN-style show that covered the world of film. With that in mind, I've decided to release my top 25 of current directors. Keep in mind, this is not a "Best Living Directors list", this is a "Best Directors of 2010" list, and as such if a director has not done any significant work in 2010 he won't be listed (example: David Lynch). Much like NCAA football and basketball release top 25's and update them throughout the year, this list will also change as new films come out, as critical reception evolves, and as awards are given out.
25. Mark Romanek
The trailer for his upcoming film Never Let Me Go has already started to create buzz. Based on the critically adored novel by Kazuo Ishiguro, Romanek's followup to One Hour Photo boasts a solid cast that includes Carey Mulligan, Keira Knightley, and Andrew Garfield.
24. Joseph Kosinski
Buzz for the much-anticipated Tron: Legacy is reaching a fever pitch. Early assessments indicate the film will certainly be a moneymaker. Whether or not it will be good... We'll see.
23. Roman Polanski
Legal problems aside, Polanski's The Ghost Writer was well-received, and thus far well-rewarded, winning the Silver Berlin Bear at the Berlin International Film Festival.
22. David Michod
Michod's Australian crime drama, Animal Kingdom, has been one of the best reviewed films of the year. If by some chance it becomes popular with American audiences, Michod could move far up the rankings.
21. Noah Baumbach
Baumbach's tart gem Greenberg struck a chord with critics, who praised Ben Stiller's affecting performance.
20. Mike Leigh
With the release of Another Year, it seems Leigh has once proved why he's one of the most acclaimed filmmakers of his time.
19. Todd Phillips
Phillips has been riding high ever since the breakout success of The Hangover. In his next film Due Date, Phillips combines the starpower of redhot Robert Downey, Jr. and Zach Galifinakis for what looks to be a winning comedy formula.
18. Jon Favreau
Iron Man 2 didn't necessarily out-perform expectations, but it was still one of the biggest hits of the year.
17. Sophia Coppola
Athough Marie Antoinette was only a lukewarm success both financially and critically, I'm betting that Somewhere will be a return to form.
16. Debra Granik
Granik's gritty drama Winter's Bone has been one of the most acclaimed indie films of the year with Jennifer Lawrence's performance generating significant oscar buzz.
15. Julian Schnabel
The visionary filmmaker looks to make a splash in this year's oscar race with Miral, a film about a Palestinian woman's attempts to establish an orphange in Jerusalem amidst the burgeoning Isreali-Palestinian conflict.
14. Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu
There were some concerns for the Babel filmmaker after he and screenwriter Guillermo Arriaga broke off their long-time collaborative relationship, but so far things are looking up. Biutiful probably won't be the feel-good success of the year, but if Javier Bardem's best actor prize from Cannes is any indication it could very well be an oscar contender.
13. Lisa Cholodenko
The Kids Are All Right has been something of a cause celebre this year. With it's endearing mix of comedy and sincere emotion, the film is an early best picture dark horse.
12. David O. Russell
Despite his ridiculous, youtube-blaring antics, Russell is still one of the most talented filmmakers working today, and with the Fighter he might have a legitimate oscar contender on his hands. Based on the true story of boxer Mickey Ward, the film stars Christian Bale, Mark Wahlberg, and Amy Adams.
11. Tim Burton
Alice in Wonderland was not a hit with the critics, but it was a hit with just about everyone else. There's something to be said for making a billion dollar grosser.
10. Edgar Wright
Off the strength of Scott Pilgrim's glowing advance reviews, Edgar Wright makes his first appearance in the top ten this year.
9. Doug Liman
The director of such highbrow fare as Mr. and Mrs. Smith and Jumper, Dough Liman isn't used to oscar buzz, but that's exactly what his new film Fair Game is generating. Based on the Valerie Plame scandal, the film stars Sean Penn and Naomi Watts, and based on early clips that have been released both actors might have oscar nominations in their future.
8. Lee Unkich
Toy Story 3 was not only a critical success, but it was a massive financial boon. This film has most likely already punched it's best picture ticket.
7. Clint Eastwood
Invictus was well-received by some and shrugged off by others, but make no mistake... Eastwood's past accolades more than warrant a top-ten ranking. The prolific director will be releasing the supernatural thriller Hereafter later on this year. Written by acclaimed screenwriter Peter Morgan and starring Matt Damon, this will certainly be one of the more anticipated films of the year. However, if this is just another Eastwood thriller ala Bloodwork, Eastwood will not be in the top ten for long.
6. David Yates
Early buzz for the first installment of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows couldn't be higher. Some were dissapointed with the Half-Blood Prince, but the core audience of the series isn't going anywhere, and the film should be one of the highest grossing of the year. If it is and if the reviews are strong, this film could be nominated for best picture.
5. Darren Aronofsky
A thriller centering on rival ballet dancers doesn't necessarily inspire much interest, but one simpy gets the feeling that somehow Aronofsky will make his upcoming film, Black Swan, fantastic.
4. Joel and Ethan Coen
With No Country for Old Men and A Serious Man, the Coen Brothers have come on particularly strong lately, and there's no reason to think their remake of True Grit starring Jeff Bridges won't be just as good.
3. Martin Scorcese
Shutter Island divided critics and audiences, but it was still a phenomenal success, grossing nearly 300 million at the box office.
2. David Fincher
The release of the new Social Network trailer has quickly made that film one of the most anticipated of the year. David Fincher proved with The Curious Case of Benjamin Button that he's capable of making a great film that can still connect with audiences.
1. Christopher Nolan
Inception is the best reviewed hit of the summer and seems poised for a best picture nomination. The debate over this unusually challenging blockbuster shows no sign of waning.
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Sunday, July 18, 2010
Saw Inception Tonight
As the post says, I saw the much anticipated Inception, and my verdict: good, but not great. I wouldn't begrudge anyone who thinks this movie is fantastic, but in my opinion the glowing reviews it has been receiving are overblown.
One review for instance said Inception was a "Kubrick film with heart". I'm not sure I'd agree either with it being Kubrickian or having heart. Certainly, it tries to have heart, but it doesn't really succeed. In the film, Leonardo DiCaprio plays Dom Cobb, the world's best "extractor": a thief who specializes in going into people's dreams and accessing their most guarded secrets. He's also a fugitive trying to get back to his kids. So, when an employer comes along promising to clear his name if he can perform inception--planting an idea rather than stealing it--he can't refuse.
OK. Makes sense. He's trying to get back to his kids (and deal with some issues relating to his wife). Very heartrending. But DiCaprio almost plays it too straight. Sure, he conveys that mix of vulnerability and intensity that he does so well, but in my opinion that's become too one-dimensional. It doesn't help that we don't emotionally connect to anyone else in the film. Hell, there isn't time to connect to anyone else. The film moves too quickly for it's own good, jumping from one mind-bending action scene to the next without leaving time for us to understand who these character's really are.
One review for instance said Inception was a "Kubrick film with heart". I'm not sure I'd agree either with it being Kubrickian or having heart. Certainly, it tries to have heart, but it doesn't really succeed. In the film, Leonardo DiCaprio plays Dom Cobb, the world's best "extractor": a thief who specializes in going into people's dreams and accessing their most guarded secrets. He's also a fugitive trying to get back to his kids. So, when an employer comes along promising to clear his name if he can perform inception--planting an idea rather than stealing it--he can't refuse.
OK. Makes sense. He's trying to get back to his kids (and deal with some issues relating to his wife). Very heartrending. But DiCaprio almost plays it too straight. Sure, he conveys that mix of vulnerability and intensity that he does so well, but in my opinion that's become too one-dimensional. It doesn't help that we don't emotionally connect to anyone else in the film. Hell, there isn't time to connect to anyone else. The film moves too quickly for it's own good, jumping from one mind-bending action scene to the next without leaving time for us to understand who these character's really are.
Monday, June 28, 2010
"Give me the water, Eli!"
Paul Thomas Anderson's brilliant There Will Be Blood has been coming on FX recently. I put it on one day during the baptism scene, where Eli forces Daniel Plainview to admit he "abandoned his son." If you've seen the film, you'll remember that the majority of the scene consists of a long close-up of Daniel Day Lewis. Watching Daniel Day Lewis' towering performance here is a pleasure, and Paul Thomas Anderson made an ingenius decision presenting the scene in this way.
This got me thinking of the best male leading performances of the 21st century.
10. Will Farrel, Anchorman
In my opinion, Will Farrel's performance as Ron Burgundy is one of the iconic comedic performances of all time, and deserves to recognized as a great acting achievement. There is something to be said about acting as relentlessly entertaining as this.
9. Philip Seymour Hoffman, Synecdoche, New York
Hoffman's has been one of the most lauded actors of the 21st century, and has no shortage of accolades to show for it, including an Academy Award for his portrayal of Truman Capote in Capote. He's also been recognized for his performances in Doubt, Charlie Wilson's War, and The Savages, but he received little attention for his stunning turn in Charlie Kaufman's unsurprisingly mindbending Synecdoche, New York. It's a huge credit to his abilities that he made this role so memorable. In the film, his character is constantly searching for answers and existential meaning to the point that he himself is a mystery. But Hoffman imbues him with a visceral emotional life.
8. Gene Hackman, The Royal Tenenbaums
Another unforgettable comedic performance from one of the greatest actors of all time. Hackman perfectly realizes Royal Tenenbaum's crusty, self-possessed dimensions, but it's how he evokes Tenenbaum's vulnerable, human core that makes the role so incredible.
7. Paul Giamatti, American Splendor
Although some may prefer his affecting work in Sideways, I'll take Giamatti's portrayal of Harvey Pekar any day of the week. From the spot-on voice to the perpetually misanthropic face, Giamatti owns this role.
6. Daniel Day Lewis, Gangs of New York
Gangs of New York was a flawed film, but it was not the fault of Daniel Day Lewis, who is blisteringly great as Bill the Butcher. His ability to play-up's Bill's insatiable violence appetite for violence as well his full-on humanity is astounding.
5. Christian Bale, American Psycho
To turn a psychopathic killer into a compelling human figure is not easy; some actors have excelled at it, creating indelible cinematic characters, while others have simply churned out caricatures. In Patrick Bateman, Christian Bale portrays perhaps the most galvanizing serial killer character ever.
4. Mickey Rourke, The Wrestler
When I first saw The Wrestler, I was wowed by Rourke's performance, but I still felt that Sean Penn's utterly heartrending turn as Harvey Milk was better. I've since watched both films again, and not only do I think Rourke's performance is better, but I think it's one of the best in recent memory. Rourke loses all emotional inhibition in this role and provides as clear into a person's soul as any actor has done in some time.
3. Tom Wilkinson, In the Bedroom
In 2001, Denzel Washington won best actor at the Academy Awards with his ultra-hyperbolic, one-dimensional villian in Training Day. Since that time, I've heard little of the film or the performance--though both were solid--because you can't get anything from a one-note performance after the first viewing. Tom Wilkinson's turn in In the Bedroom on the other hand is anything but one-note. His multi-layered portrayal of a parent grieving the loss of his murdered son is nothing short of devastating.
2. Daniel Day Lewis, There Will Be Blood
I think I've said all there is to say about Daniel Day Lewis' incomparable talents in this film.
1. Ralph Fiennes, The Constant Gardener
This performance could just as easily be at the top of a "Most Underrated Performances List", but dare-I-say, that would be underrating it. In this film, Ralph Fiennes does a very difficult job: playing a weak character. His Justin Quayle is a mild-mannered British diplomat investigating the death of his activist wife. We witness his transformation from a timid yes man to a man willing to do anything to expose his wife's killers. It's a stunning feat and Ralph Fiennes takes us through Justin's transformation with unequaled subtlety and emotional command.
This got me thinking of the best male leading performances of the 21st century.
10. Will Farrel, Anchorman
In my opinion, Will Farrel's performance as Ron Burgundy is one of the iconic comedic performances of all time, and deserves to recognized as a great acting achievement. There is something to be said about acting as relentlessly entertaining as this.
9. Philip Seymour Hoffman, Synecdoche, New York
Hoffman's has been one of the most lauded actors of the 21st century, and has no shortage of accolades to show for it, including an Academy Award for his portrayal of Truman Capote in Capote. He's also been recognized for his performances in Doubt, Charlie Wilson's War, and The Savages, but he received little attention for his stunning turn in Charlie Kaufman's unsurprisingly mindbending Synecdoche, New York. It's a huge credit to his abilities that he made this role so memorable. In the film, his character is constantly searching for answers and existential meaning to the point that he himself is a mystery. But Hoffman imbues him with a visceral emotional life.
8. Gene Hackman, The Royal Tenenbaums
Another unforgettable comedic performance from one of the greatest actors of all time. Hackman perfectly realizes Royal Tenenbaum's crusty, self-possessed dimensions, but it's how he evokes Tenenbaum's vulnerable, human core that makes the role so incredible.
7. Paul Giamatti, American Splendor
Although some may prefer his affecting work in Sideways, I'll take Giamatti's portrayal of Harvey Pekar any day of the week. From the spot-on voice to the perpetually misanthropic face, Giamatti owns this role.
6. Daniel Day Lewis, Gangs of New York
Gangs of New York was a flawed film, but it was not the fault of Daniel Day Lewis, who is blisteringly great as Bill the Butcher. His ability to play-up's Bill's insatiable violence appetite for violence as well his full-on humanity is astounding.
5. Christian Bale, American Psycho
To turn a psychopathic killer into a compelling human figure is not easy; some actors have excelled at it, creating indelible cinematic characters, while others have simply churned out caricatures. In Patrick Bateman, Christian Bale portrays perhaps the most galvanizing serial killer character ever.
4. Mickey Rourke, The Wrestler
When I first saw The Wrestler, I was wowed by Rourke's performance, but I still felt that Sean Penn's utterly heartrending turn as Harvey Milk was better. I've since watched both films again, and not only do I think Rourke's performance is better, but I think it's one of the best in recent memory. Rourke loses all emotional inhibition in this role and provides as clear into a person's soul as any actor has done in some time.
3. Tom Wilkinson, In the Bedroom
In 2001, Denzel Washington won best actor at the Academy Awards with his ultra-hyperbolic, one-dimensional villian in Training Day. Since that time, I've heard little of the film or the performance--though both were solid--because you can't get anything from a one-note performance after the first viewing. Tom Wilkinson's turn in In the Bedroom on the other hand is anything but one-note. His multi-layered portrayal of a parent grieving the loss of his murdered son is nothing short of devastating.
2. Daniel Day Lewis, There Will Be Blood
I think I've said all there is to say about Daniel Day Lewis' incomparable talents in this film.
1. Ralph Fiennes, The Constant Gardener
This performance could just as easily be at the top of a "Most Underrated Performances List", but dare-I-say, that would be underrating it. In this film, Ralph Fiennes does a very difficult job: playing a weak character. His Justin Quayle is a mild-mannered British diplomat investigating the death of his activist wife. We witness his transformation from a timid yes man to a man willing to do anything to expose his wife's killers. It's a stunning feat and Ralph Fiennes takes us through Justin's transformation with unequaled subtlety and emotional command.
Thursday, June 24, 2010
Fright Night Redux
As you may or may not know, I'm a huge fan of Tom Holland's 1985 cult horror classic Fright Night. In fact, I'm fairly certain that I like this movie more than any person on the planet ever has. In my opinion, it's an extraordinarily well crafted and immensely entertaining film.
When I found out that there was a remake planned for 2011, I didn't react with much enthusiasm. Don't get me wrong... I'm not some Fright Night fundamentalist, who thinks even the thought of a remake is blasphemy, but I immediately suspected it would be at the least a mediocre film.
It could very well be a bad film, but I'm becoming increasingly interested in it. For starters, it's being directed by Craig Gillespie, who also helmed the acclaimed Lars and the Real Girl (of course, he also directed the significantly less acclaimed Mr. Woodcock); and the film was being written by Marti Noxon, a writer for Mad Men.
The casting looks solid as well. Anton Yelchin will be playing Charlie Brewster and although I'm not in awe of his talents, he could be right for this part. In addition, Christopher Mintz-Plasse is playing Evil Ed, Imogen Poots from 28 Weeks Later is playing Amy, Toni Collette is playing Charlie's mom, and David Tennant of Doctor Who fame is playing Peter Vincent.
But the best casting choice by far has been for the enigmatic vampire neighbor Jerry Dandridge:
COLIN FARREL.
Listen, by no means do I think casting Colin Farrel guarantees success, but I when I saw this casting decision it instantly made sense to me. I think he could be very successful in this role.
I read a review on the script, and I must admit the new plot does seem contrived. It involves Charlie becoming a newly popular high school student and alienating his friends. Peter Vincent is no longer a cheesy television personality, but is instead a Las Vegas showman of sorts? What?
We'll see.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Early thoughts on LSU
I saw the results of LSU's spring game on the university's website and I really don't know what to think of the upcoming season. The team has been inconsistent ever since the 2007 Championship. I chalked up 2008's disappointing campaign to the obvious reason: no Ryan Perriloux, but although we improved in 2009, particularly on defense, things weren't much better. In fact, in terms of the running game things were worse. At times, Jordan Jefferson acquitted himself well at the quarterback position, at others I was actually wondering if Jarret Lee wouldn't be a better starter. This was mainly when Jefferson was getting sacked constantly because he never got rid of the ball under pressure--say what you will about Lee, but he was never shy about getting rid of the ball.
So, one would think that Jordan Jefferson would be coming into this season the best he's ever been. Here are his numbers from the spring game: 8 of 23 for 94 yards and an interception. That doesn't look like improvement to me, and this is a SPRING GAME! I have to say, though, I am more optimistic about our running game this year. Steven Ridley will probably be a good go-to guy and apparently Michael Ford has the skills to get a lot of touches as a redshirt freshman. Also, Russel Shephard did more in this spring game than it seemed he did all of last season (what exactly was the thinking on removing Shephard's redshirt and then using him so little!)
As much as I don't know what to make of LSU next year, I think the SEC West in general is just as unpredictable. Alabama will obviously great, but just how much better will Arkansas and Auburn me.
Some say Les Miles might be on the hotseat and I agree, and I just don't know if the current coaching arrangement is going to get LSU to the SEC championship game. For one, after last year's abysmal offensive showing why wasn't Gary Crowton fired? The team did bring Florida wide receiver's coach Billy Gonzales to be the "passing game coordinator", but I am much less heartened by this news than others. I don't know think bringing the wide receiver's coach from Florida is going to be a large enough move to get our offense where it needs to be.
That being said, I think the defense this year may be as good as it's been in a very long time. All the pieces are in place for us to be a real lock-down unit. And let's be honest, for as inconsistent as LSU was last year, they still won 9 games in the regular season. It stands to reason that if we're improved, that our record will improve. There is one problem: We're playing a top ten schedule this year, with games against North Carolina and West Virginia out of conference. Also, we have to go to Florida, Auburn, and Arkansas. Luckily, we get Alabama at home. And that game is perhaps the real test. No amount of coach shuffling is going to matter if LSU can't beat Alabama (as we haven't for the last two years, though the games have been close). Alabama has clearly replaced LSU as the preeminent team in the SEC West and I have a feeling Nick Saban is going to keep them there for a while. Now whether or not Alabama is forced to share the SEC West is up to LSU, and possibly Auburn (hell, possibly Arkansas). It isn't a good sign that Alabama has gone undefeated against the SEC West for the last two years. I absolutely believe we can beat Alabama (we almost did it in 2008 with our worst team in years).
So, one would think that Jordan Jefferson would be coming into this season the best he's ever been. Here are his numbers from the spring game: 8 of 23 for 94 yards and an interception. That doesn't look like improvement to me, and this is a SPRING GAME! I have to say, though, I am more optimistic about our running game this year. Steven Ridley will probably be a good go-to guy and apparently Michael Ford has the skills to get a lot of touches as a redshirt freshman. Also, Russel Shephard did more in this spring game than it seemed he did all of last season (what exactly was the thinking on removing Shephard's redshirt and then using him so little!)
As much as I don't know what to make of LSU next year, I think the SEC West in general is just as unpredictable. Alabama will obviously great, but just how much better will Arkansas and Auburn me.
Some say Les Miles might be on the hotseat and I agree, and I just don't know if the current coaching arrangement is going to get LSU to the SEC championship game. For one, after last year's abysmal offensive showing why wasn't Gary Crowton fired? The team did bring Florida wide receiver's coach Billy Gonzales to be the "passing game coordinator", but I am much less heartened by this news than others. I don't know think bringing the wide receiver's coach from Florida is going to be a large enough move to get our offense where it needs to be.
That being said, I think the defense this year may be as good as it's been in a very long time. All the pieces are in place for us to be a real lock-down unit. And let's be honest, for as inconsistent as LSU was last year, they still won 9 games in the regular season. It stands to reason that if we're improved, that our record will improve. There is one problem: We're playing a top ten schedule this year, with games against North Carolina and West Virginia out of conference. Also, we have to go to Florida, Auburn, and Arkansas. Luckily, we get Alabama at home. And that game is perhaps the real test. No amount of coach shuffling is going to matter if LSU can't beat Alabama (as we haven't for the last two years, though the games have been close). Alabama has clearly replaced LSU as the preeminent team in the SEC West and I have a feeling Nick Saban is going to keep them there for a while. Now whether or not Alabama is forced to share the SEC West is up to LSU, and possibly Auburn (hell, possibly Arkansas). It isn't a good sign that Alabama has gone undefeated against the SEC West for the last two years. I absolutely believe we can beat Alabama (we almost did it in 2008 with our worst team in years).
Monday, June 21, 2010
CEO's: Cunts Entrenched in Oil
I found out today that BP CEO Tony Hayward was so busy trying to correct his company's colossal fuck-up in the gulf that he had attended a yacht race. Apparently, corporate elitists are either too pathologically self-obsessed or simply too stupid to understand how callous they really act.
I might be able to tolerate Hayward's shocking insensitivity if it wasn't so clear that he and his company were still doing business as usual. Case in point: Hayward's testimony to Congress. Stonewalling, pure and simple. Based on his testimony, he's either the most inept ceo in the oil industry--a possibility I'm more than willing to entertain--or BP made a calculated decision to obstruct any congressional investigation in the oil spill and the disaster on the rig itself. Either way, it's indefensible.
Let's be honest though, the congressional interrogation of BP is most likely little more than a obligatory hand-wringing. Firm regulatory standards need to be established and enforced admisitration to administration. The reason why prior to this spill oil companies were allowed to do anything in the gulf is because there has been no continuity of environmental or energy police. Another reason that comes to mind is that the oil industry has economically handcuffed the people of the gulf coastal region. This is why Mary Landrieu doesn't have the guts to stand up to BP. And I don't mean by demanding they pay for their own mistake. I mean by demanding they cease oil production until it is verifiably clear that their drilling standards are safe. As long as senators like Landrieu are financially tied to the oil industry, real regulatory progress will be dificult.
I might be able to tolerate Hayward's shocking insensitivity if it wasn't so clear that he and his company were still doing business as usual. Case in point: Hayward's testimony to Congress. Stonewalling, pure and simple. Based on his testimony, he's either the most inept ceo in the oil industry--a possibility I'm more than willing to entertain--or BP made a calculated decision to obstruct any congressional investigation in the oil spill and the disaster on the rig itself. Either way, it's indefensible.
Let's be honest though, the congressional interrogation of BP is most likely little more than a obligatory hand-wringing. Firm regulatory standards need to be established and enforced admisitration to administration. The reason why prior to this spill oil companies were allowed to do anything in the gulf is because there has been no continuity of environmental or energy police. Another reason that comes to mind is that the oil industry has economically handcuffed the people of the gulf coastal region. This is why Mary Landrieu doesn't have the guts to stand up to BP. And I don't mean by demanding they pay for their own mistake. I mean by demanding they cease oil production until it is verifiably clear that their drilling standards are safe. As long as senators like Landrieu are financially tied to the oil industry, real regulatory progress will be dificult.
Sunday, June 20, 2010
Joe Carnahan Has No Clothes
Just to clarify, the title of this blogpost is a reference to "The Emperor has no clothes", but I would never call Joe Carnhan the emperor. Let me explain.
I recently saw Joe Carnhan's The A-Team, and while it wasn't terrible I couldn't help but thinking, "What happenned to the serious filmmaker in Joe Carnahan? The one who made Narc?"
It's becoming increasingly clear that Narc was just Carnahan's prestige bid so he could make action fluff like the A-Team and the visceral mess that was Smokin' Aces. After watching the A-Team, it occured to me that he's a grittier, American Guy Ritchie--and I don't mean that in a good way.
There are other filmmakers I can think of who have not delivered on their promise.
The first one that comes to mind is Richard Kelly. Obviously, I think Donnie Darko is a great film. It's original in both tone and content and is superbly well-made. Southland Tales is... not. There have been many theories as to why Southland Tales was such a failure. Yes, the film was packed with too many ambitious ideas for its own good. But that's a cop-out, as if one is trying to say that somewhere in Southland Tales is a good film. There isn't. It's cryptic, time-travel-themed plotlines could never rise above their own muck, and at the end of the day the casting was adventurous to a fault. I haven't seen The Box but I didn't hear good things.
Terry George is another filmmaker in this vein. Remember Hotel Rwanda? That was a terrific film. Brilliantly acted and with directed with great sincerity by George. What happenned with Reservation Road, a hopelessly muddled domestic drama that at the end of day was a collection of tragic cliches.
At this point, it's almost redundant to mention the Wachowski Brothers, but I will. Why? Because the Matrix is more than just a great film. It's a mindbending, groundbreaking, visually dazzling, transcendent sci-fi action film and one of my favorite of all time. The two sequels on the other hand are bad. Just bad. To say the series lacks a satisfying conclusion is beyond understatement. To put it simply, the Wachowski Brothers became too mired in the fathomless depth of the questions their films raised, the Matrix Reloaded and Reservations was the result.
Finally, there's Sam Mendez. This may surprise some people, but I haven't been impressed by Sam Mendez' post-American Beauty career. Road to Perdition was high on production value, but startlingly low on compelling characters; Jarhead was a mess of post-modern ideas on warfare that never led to anything. And I have to say, I didn't love Revolutionary Road. It was HIGHLY STAGEY--and by that I mean theater-like to a fault--and the themes were trite. Oddly enough, his best film since American Beauty may be the very entertaining Away We Go (and I certainly didn't think that was perfect).
I recently saw Joe Carnhan's The A-Team, and while it wasn't terrible I couldn't help but thinking, "What happenned to the serious filmmaker in Joe Carnahan? The one who made Narc?"
It's becoming increasingly clear that Narc was just Carnahan's prestige bid so he could make action fluff like the A-Team and the visceral mess that was Smokin' Aces. After watching the A-Team, it occured to me that he's a grittier, American Guy Ritchie--and I don't mean that in a good way.
There are other filmmakers I can think of who have not delivered on their promise.
The first one that comes to mind is Richard Kelly. Obviously, I think Donnie Darko is a great film. It's original in both tone and content and is superbly well-made. Southland Tales is... not. There have been many theories as to why Southland Tales was such a failure. Yes, the film was packed with too many ambitious ideas for its own good. But that's a cop-out, as if one is trying to say that somewhere in Southland Tales is a good film. There isn't. It's cryptic, time-travel-themed plotlines could never rise above their own muck, and at the end of the day the casting was adventurous to a fault. I haven't seen The Box but I didn't hear good things.
Terry George is another filmmaker in this vein. Remember Hotel Rwanda? That was a terrific film. Brilliantly acted and with directed with great sincerity by George. What happenned with Reservation Road, a hopelessly muddled domestic drama that at the end of day was a collection of tragic cliches.
At this point, it's almost redundant to mention the Wachowski Brothers, but I will. Why? Because the Matrix is more than just a great film. It's a mindbending, groundbreaking, visually dazzling, transcendent sci-fi action film and one of my favorite of all time. The two sequels on the other hand are bad. Just bad. To say the series lacks a satisfying conclusion is beyond understatement. To put it simply, the Wachowski Brothers became too mired in the fathomless depth of the questions their films raised, the Matrix Reloaded and Reservations was the result.
Finally, there's Sam Mendez. This may surprise some people, but I haven't been impressed by Sam Mendez' post-American Beauty career. Road to Perdition was high on production value, but startlingly low on compelling characters; Jarhead was a mess of post-modern ideas on warfare that never led to anything. And I have to say, I didn't love Revolutionary Road. It was HIGHLY STAGEY--and by that I mean theater-like to a fault--and the themes were trite. Oddly enough, his best film since American Beauty may be the very entertaining Away We Go (and I certainly didn't think that was perfect).
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Last Exam Today
After I take my cinematography exam at 3:30, my undergraduate studies will unofficially be over. However, I am not really that close to completely ending my academic career since I made the decision to attend graduate school. Where? The University of New Orleans. I know what you're thinking... Going to graduate school at the same college where you received your undergraduate education? But I assure you there are extenuating circumstances. For one, I have a severe inability to fund myself going to nearly any other graduate program. On the same note, UNO's graduate film department has agreed to give me a very generous scholarship.
I'm very excited. Being a graduate student at UNO will give me the opportunity, hopefully, to make some very good films. Speaking of films, I recently saw the Nightmare on Elm Street remake, which was possibly even worse than the universally negative reviews might have suggested. With all due respect to Jackie Earle Haley, what was going on with his performance? It's difficult to craft a successful horror film when your central villain is not remotely frightening, or that matter charismatic, on any level.
I'm very excited. Being a graduate student at UNO will give me the opportunity, hopefully, to make some very good films. Speaking of films, I recently saw the Nightmare on Elm Street remake, which was possibly even worse than the universally negative reviews might have suggested. With all due respect to Jackie Earle Haley, what was going on with his performance? It's difficult to craft a successful horror film when your central villain is not remotely frightening, or that matter charismatic, on any level.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Rachel Weisz is Jackie O?
Entertainment Weekly has reported that Academy Award winning actress and gift from the
Gods of beauty Rachel Weisz is set to play Jackie Kennedy in an upcoming film to be directed by Weisz's fiance, Darren Aronofsky. The film will explore the turbulent aftermath of the Kennedy assassination.
Personally, I have never been interested in the life of Jackie Kennedy Onassis, but based on the talent currently attached to the project, I'm already eagerly anticipating this film. Darren Aronofsky is a genius and Weisz is a tactical weapon of hotness and extreme acting skills. Weisz is the rare beauty that encompasses several dimensions of pure hotness.
Adventurous Rachel.
Gods of beauty Rachel Weisz is set to play Jackie Kennedy in an upcoming film to be directed by Weisz's fiance, Darren Aronofsky. The film will explore the turbulent aftermath of the Kennedy assassination.
Personally, I have never been interested in the life of Jackie Kennedy Onassis, but based on the talent currently attached to the project, I'm already eagerly anticipating this film. Darren Aronofsky is a genius and Weisz is a tactical weapon of hotness and extreme acting skills. Weisz is the rare beauty that encompasses several dimensions of pure hotness.
Adventurous Rachel.
Hayley Atwell to join Captain America cast
Captain America has just received its first major hotness boost.
According to the Hollywood Reporter, British Actress Haley Atwell of Brideshead Revisited and Cassandra's Dream fame has been cast as the patriotic super soldier's love interest, Peggy Carter. She'll star opposite Chris Evans, who was recently unveiled as the choice to play Steve Rogers, aka Captain America, in Joe Johnston's upcoming film.
I have to admit, initially I was not wowed by Haley Atwell's looks. Sure, she is pretty, but let's face it, most mainstream actresses are. Then I found this series of photos, which made me seriously my first impression.
I don't care what anyone says. That's certified hotness. Admittedly, I am a sucker for the understated, quietly sexy brunette, but look at those tasty milk duds.
Source: Celebrity Pictures
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Scarlett Johansson set to star in lost Stanley Kubrick script
Source: Dorkshelf.com 
If Stanley Kubrick were still alive, could anyone imagine him casting Scarlett Johansson in what can only be described as a grotesquely camp mystery centered around an escaped axe-murderer?
Well, it just happened--except for the part about Stanley Kubrick. He is neither alive, nor did he personally cast Johansson and her Boleyn Girls (I'm trying really hard to make that a thing), and let's be honest, would Kubrick even cast Johansson anyway? Before he featured Nicole Kidman in Eyes Wide Shut, the hottest actress he ever worked with was Sue Lyon who played Lolita (was it weird that I said that?).
According to cinematical.com, both Johansson and Sam Rockwell have signed on to star in an adaptation of a long-lost film treatment developed by Kubrick and pulp novelist Jim Thompson in the late 1950s. In 2006, the New York Times reported on the existence of a script adaptation of this titled Lunatic at Large, which was described as 1950s potboiler featuring a car chase and a macabre carnival set piece most likely filled with very spooky things.
Am I the only who thinks this sounds nothing remotely like a Stanley Kubrick film? And as far as Scarlett Johansson's luscious boobliness is concerned, maybe that's a good thing. Stanley Kubrick was a genius, but sexiness was one quality conspiculously absent from most of his films.
Hot or Not: Rebecca Hall
Recently, I learned that British actress Rebecca Hall has starred in some particularly steamy sex scenes in the acclaimed BBC production the RedRiding Trilogy. Although apparently she doesn't bare all, it can only help that she's finally decided to embrace her narrowly withheld sexuality. This development has, at least for myself, re-opened a debate of vital importance: is Rebecca Hall hot or not?
Her next major role was in Vicki Christina Barcelona, in which she yet again had to act opposite the unworldly hotness that is Scarlett Johannson and her Boleyn girls (that's my euphemism for Scarlett Johannson's boobs), not to mention Penelope Cruz (and her... Bandidas?). Despite that, she acquited herself well as Scarlet Johannson's more sexually conservative friend that Javier Bardem still bangs.
In Frost/Nixon, Hall finally plays a character that isn't a prude either because of choice or sex-sapping Victorian conventions. As the film's only real offering of sexuality, Hall seemingly relishes the opportunity to show off her sleek, deliciously well-proportioned body. That combined with her demure and hard-earned sensuality help to make this clearly her most attractive role to date (I'm a sucker for reserved British beauty, especially when packaged with such knowing seductiveness).
But if this were simply a question of sexiness of personality, then there wouldn't even be a debate. You decide.
Source: Aceshowbiz
Mainstream audiences were first introduced to Rebecca Hall in The Prestige, where she plays Christian Bale's tormented wife. Constantly made-up in frumpy Victorian garb--and a terribly worn-up hairdo that her naturally pretty face struggled to overcome--this role did little to endear me to her attractiveness. But one could still see there was more under the surface of her of intentionally understated appearance in The Prestige.
Her next major role was in Vicki Christina Barcelona, in which she yet again had to act opposite the unworldly hotness that is Scarlett Johannson and her Boleyn girls (that's my euphemism for Scarlett Johannson's boobs), not to mention Penelope Cruz (and her... Bandidas?). Despite that, she acquited herself well as Scarlet Johannson's more sexually conservative friend that Javier Bardem still bangs.In Frost/Nixon, Hall finally plays a character that isn't a prude either because of choice or sex-sapping Victorian conventions. As the film's only real offering of sexuality, Hall seemingly relishes the opportunity to show off her sleek, deliciously well-proportioned body. That combined with her demure and hard-earned sensuality help to make this clearly her most attractive role to date (I'm a sucker for reserved British beauty, especially when packaged with such knowing seductiveness).
But if this were simply a question of sexiness of personality, then there wouldn't even be a debate. You decide.
Source: Aceshowbiz
Monday, April 12, 2010
English Hottie Siena Miller and Jude Miller Engaged
Siena Miller is off the market... again... maybe.For the third time, the British actress and Jude Law have declared their marital intentions toward one another in an effort to create one of the ulimate power couples of hotness.
Although Siena Miller has apparently been wearing her engagement ring on the wrong hand in order to keep the engagement private (did it ever occur to her to not wear the engagement ring at all if secrecy was her main goal?), sources on Hollyscoop.com confirm that the couple is finally ready to tie the knot.
Some say that Siena Miller is the pre-eminent British hottie of her generation. Personally, I'm biased toward Emily Blunt, but this one photo provided by artistsgallery.blogspot.com is certainly making me reconsider my choice. Yikes.
Julianne Moore lezzing out again in The Kids Are All Right Trailer
Julianne Moore is returning for yet another ride on the lesbian train.
In the recently released trailer to The Kids Are All Right, Moore and Annette Bening star as a long-time couple whose children seek to reconnect with their sperm donor father (Marc Ruffalo), proving in the process that family transcends societal conventions and portrayals of middle-aged lesbianism have really never been the same since Claire of the Moon (obscure lesbian film reference? Get used to it).
Director Lisa Cholodenko has dabbled in this territory before with High Art, another exploration of complex lesbian relationships with a fair amount of explicit girl-on-girl action, and Laurel Canyon, an indie drama featuring one incredibly awkward threesome with Frances McDormand and Kate Beckinsale. Somewhere between then and now, Cholodenko has lost sight of the fact that representations of lesbianism devoid of erotic, male-centered pandering just doesn't cut it.
I mean... I watched the entire trailer and there wasn't even one teary make-out scene ala Chloe.
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
March Madness
Tomorrow, March Madness officially tips off with the start of the opening round games. Like many, I've been neurotically obsessing over my bracket ever since selection sunday.
My first impressions:
1. I don't like the upset bids this year -- As I look at the bracket, I certainly don't see much upset potential in the first round. There are a few popular upsets that many are predicting.
- (11)San Diego State over (6)Tennessee: Although San Diego is riding high after winning a competitive Mountain West, I don't like their chances in this game. They don't possess any athletic advantage over Tennessee, and in truth their shooting is just as inconsistent as Tennessee's. As long as Tennessee doesn't look past them, I like the Vols to advance.
- (11)UTEP over (5) Butler: This is probably the surest upset of the tournament. Although I
like Butler's team play and experience, UTEP's inside-outside athleticism and defense should win the day. This is one of the few upset picks I actually feel confident about.
- (13)Murray State over (4)Vanderbilt: In my opinion, you can never discount a team as hot as Murray State. A 30 win team, Murray State is athletic and aggressive on the defensive front, but I don't like their matchup. Vanderbilt is a team uniquely built for tournament success. They have size on the inside, an experienced point guard, and hot perimeter scoring. If Vandy can advance past Murray State, then I like them to make a sweet sixteen and maybe challenge Syracuse for a spot in the elite eight.
- (11) Minnesota over (6)Xavier: Minnesota is tough defensively and is generally a good shooting team, but I don't like picking a team coming off a desperation high. Prior to their big ten tournament run Minnesota was squarely off the bubble and was in a win to get in situation. Now they're in, but can they translate their big ten tourney intensity to the NCAA. I think the best thing they have going for them is Tubby Smith, who knows how to get maximum production from his team. But I like Xavier's overall team chemistry and consistency. They have size and shooting and I like them to win and go to the sweet sixteen in an upset over Pitt.
- (10)Florida over (7)BYU: In my opinion, many analysts (except Joe Lunardi) are seriously underrating BYU's potential in this year's tournament. Yes, they haven't advanced past the first round in years, but this is their best team in years and I expect Jimmer Fredette to explode on to the national scene as one of the MVPs in the tournament. I think BYU is good enough to upset Kansas State in the second round. Also, I like Florida is one of the weakest teams in the tournament. They have some athletes on the team, but they're so inconsistent, both offensively and defensively.
- (12)Cornell over (5)Temple: Thanks to Jay Billas' incessant stumping for Cornell, they've become a popular pick to not only upset Temple in the first round but also maybe make a run to the final four. Although I think Cornell is possibly the 12 seed best equipped to do that, I don't like their opening round matchup. Temple is smothering defensively and I think just a better team. Temple had no problem containing Villanova's talented shooting guards, and I think they will do the same to Cornell's. Temple is the possible sleeper to reach the elite eight if they can't get past Wisconsin in the next round.
- (11) Washington over (6)Marquette: You have to give Washington credit for buckling down and winning their conference tournament, but I just don't think they pose any significant matchup problems to Marquette. Certainly, Washington has a legitimate star in Quincy Poindexter and Marquette will need to find a way to contain him, but Marquette is an active defensive unit, and Washington's run-and-gun guard attack is nothing they haven't seen before.
- (12)Utah State over (5)Texas A&M: I think Utah is one of the best lower seeded teams in the tournament and if they had been matched up against Butler or Michigan State I probably would have picked them to advance, maybe to the Sweet Sixteen, but ultimately I like Texas A&M in this game. They're a scrappy defensive unit that's been prepared by their difficult Big 12 conference schedule. If Texas A&M does survive this opening round, I think it's very possible they could pull off a shocker against Duke in the sweet sixteen.
- (13)Siena over (4)Purdue: Before Robbie Hummel's injury I liked Purdue to compete for the
championship, but his absence has caused considerable chemistry problems for the boilermakers. They squeaked by their remaining conference schedule before being embarrassed by Minnesota in the big ten tournament. Siena on the other hand is coming into this game relatively rested and with their athleticism and tournament experience I like them to pull off the upset.
- (11)Old Dominion over (6)Notre Dame: These two teams are in reality much closer than their seeding. Before going on a ridiculous big east run, Notre Dame was barely in the tournament. After Luke Harangody's injury they are seemingly playing better, but their lineup and team strategy is still in flux, and I like a prepared, tight-knit Old Dominion team to beat them.
As you can see I'm only predicting three upsets in the first round (four if you count Missouri over Clemson). History indicates there will be more, but I think this may be a year where the majority of the upsets come in the later rounds.
2. Despite their difficult path to the final four, Kansas will still make it -- Put simply, Kansas is
the deepest, most experienced, most balanced, and most well-coached of the major seeds. In a lot of ways, they remind me of the 2006-2007 Florida team. Their commitment to defense, their paralyzingly consistent offense, and their overall team dynamic is just that impressive.
3. What team seeded 3 or lower can make a run to the finals? -- When you're talking about surprise final four teams, anything lower than a two seed usually qualifies.
- (4)Wisconsin: They didn't acquit themselves well in the big ten conference tournament but I think they have the pieces in place to make it to the final four. This is an extremely disciplined team that doesn't make mistakes or turn the ball over. That combined with their hard-nosed defense and great shooting could be the winning formula. In the very least, I like Wisconsin to give Kentucky a run for their money in the sweet sixteen.
- (4)Vanderbilt: The Commodores are a very talented team. They have size in the interior and effective perimeter shooting, which could be the blue print for beating Syracuse's 2-3 zone. After that, who knows?
- (3)Baylor: They have great size, athleticism, and good shooters. I think they're going to give any team they play major matchup problems, especially Villanova. It also doesn't hurt that they have arguably the easiest bracket to go through.
- (7)BYU: This is a dark, darkhorse pick, but I really like the Cougars this year. If they can get past Kansas State, then the rest of the bracket sets up pretty well. They could possibly play Pitt, or a team that upsets Pitt like Xavier or Minnesota. Either way, I'd like BYU to advance. Then, the best team they'd have to play is Syracuse, who may be dealing with lineup problems.
I'd also like the University of New Mexico's chances but they have too many elite teams to get through in a stacked East region.
My first impressions:
1. I don't like the upset bids this year -- As I look at the bracket, I certainly don't see much upset potential in the first round. There are a few popular upsets that many are predicting.
- (11)San Diego State over (6)Tennessee: Although San Diego is riding high after winning a competitive Mountain West, I don't like their chances in this game. They don't possess any athletic advantage over Tennessee, and in truth their shooting is just as inconsistent as Tennessee's. As long as Tennessee doesn't look past them, I like the Vols to advance.
- (11)UTEP over (5) Butler: This is probably the surest upset of the tournament. Although I
like Butler's team play and experience, UTEP's inside-outside athleticism and defense should win the day. This is one of the few upset picks I actually feel confident about.
- (13)Murray State over (4)Vanderbilt: In my opinion, you can never discount a team as hot as Murray State. A 30 win team, Murray State is athletic and aggressive on the defensive front, but I don't like their matchup. Vanderbilt is a team uniquely built for tournament success. They have size on the inside, an experienced point guard, and hot perimeter scoring. If Vandy can advance past Murray State, then I like them to make a sweet sixteen and maybe challenge Syracuse for a spot in the elite eight.
- (11) Minnesota over (6)Xavier: Minnesota is tough defensively and is generally a good shooting team, but I don't like picking a team coming off a desperation high. Prior to their big ten tournament run Minnesota was squarely off the bubble and was in a win to get in situation. Now they're in, but can they translate their big ten tourney intensity to the NCAA. I think the best thing they have going for them is Tubby Smith, who knows how to get maximum production from his team. But I like Xavier's overall team chemistry and consistency. They have size and shooting and I like them to win and go to the sweet sixteen in an upset over Pitt.
- (10)Florida over (7)BYU: In my opinion, many analysts (except Joe Lunardi) are seriously underrating BYU's potential in this year's tournament. Yes, they haven't advanced past the first round in years, but this is their best team in years and I expect Jimmer Fredette to explode on to the national scene as one of the MVPs in the tournament. I think BYU is good enough to upset Kansas State in the second round. Also, I like Florida is one of the weakest teams in the tournament. They have some athletes on the team, but they're so inconsistent, both offensively and defensively.
- (12)Cornell over (5)Temple: Thanks to Jay Billas' incessant stumping for Cornell, they've become a popular pick to not only upset Temple in the first round but also maybe make a run to the final four. Although I think Cornell is possibly the 12 seed best equipped to do that, I don't like their opening round matchup. Temple is smothering defensively and I think just a better team. Temple had no problem containing Villanova's talented shooting guards, and I think they will do the same to Cornell's. Temple is the possible sleeper to reach the elite eight if they can't get past Wisconsin in the next round.
- (11) Washington over (6)Marquette: You have to give Washington credit for buckling down and winning their conference tournament, but I just don't think they pose any significant matchup problems to Marquette. Certainly, Washington has a legitimate star in Quincy Poindexter and Marquette will need to find a way to contain him, but Marquette is an active defensive unit, and Washington's run-and-gun guard attack is nothing they haven't seen before.
- (12)Utah State over (5)Texas A&M: I think Utah is one of the best lower seeded teams in the tournament and if they had been matched up against Butler or Michigan State I probably would have picked them to advance, maybe to the Sweet Sixteen, but ultimately I like Texas A&M in this game. They're a scrappy defensive unit that's been prepared by their difficult Big 12 conference schedule. If Texas A&M does survive this opening round, I think it's very possible they could pull off a shocker against Duke in the sweet sixteen.
- (13)Siena over (4)Purdue: Before Robbie Hummel's injury I liked Purdue to compete for the
championship, but his absence has caused considerable chemistry problems for the boilermakers. They squeaked by their remaining conference schedule before being embarrassed by Minnesota in the big ten tournament. Siena on the other hand is coming into this game relatively rested and with their athleticism and tournament experience I like them to pull off the upset.
- (11)Old Dominion over (6)Notre Dame: These two teams are in reality much closer than their seeding. Before going on a ridiculous big east run, Notre Dame was barely in the tournament. After Luke Harangody's injury they are seemingly playing better, but their lineup and team strategy is still in flux, and I like a prepared, tight-knit Old Dominion team to beat them.
As you can see I'm only predicting three upsets in the first round (four if you count Missouri over Clemson). History indicates there will be more, but I think this may be a year where the majority of the upsets come in the later rounds.
2. Despite their difficult path to the final four, Kansas will still make it -- Put simply, Kansas is
the deepest, most experienced, most balanced, and most well-coached of the major seeds. In a lot of ways, they remind me of the 2006-2007 Florida team. Their commitment to defense, their paralyzingly consistent offense, and their overall team dynamic is just that impressive.
3. What team seeded 3 or lower can make a run to the finals? -- When you're talking about surprise final four teams, anything lower than a two seed usually qualifies.
- (4)Wisconsin: They didn't acquit themselves well in the big ten conference tournament but I think they have the pieces in place to make it to the final four. This is an extremely disciplined team that doesn't make mistakes or turn the ball over. That combined with their hard-nosed defense and great shooting could be the winning formula. In the very least, I like Wisconsin to give Kentucky a run for their money in the sweet sixteen.
- (4)Vanderbilt: The Commodores are a very talented team. They have size in the interior and effective perimeter shooting, which could be the blue print for beating Syracuse's 2-3 zone. After that, who knows?
- (3)Baylor: They have great size, athleticism, and good shooters. I think they're going to give any team they play major matchup problems, especially Villanova. It also doesn't hurt that they have arguably the easiest bracket to go through.
- (7)BYU: This is a dark, darkhorse pick, but I really like the Cougars this year. If they can get past Kansas State, then the rest of the bracket sets up pretty well. They could possibly play Pitt, or a team that upsets Pitt like Xavier or Minnesota. Either way, I'd like BYU to advance. Then, the best team they'd have to play is Syracuse, who may be dealing with lineup problems.
I'd also like the University of New Mexico's chances but they have too many elite teams to get through in a stacked East region.
4. What high-seeded team are poised for an upset?
- (2)Kansas State: KSU is a great team-athletic and with great shooting by Cliemente and Pullen, but I think they're going to face a drastically underseeded BYU in the second round that may be prime for an upset.
- (1)Duke: Although they've been blessed by a notoriously unbalanced region, I just don't love the Blue Devils this year. This may be their best team in years, but do they really have the skill to make it to the fina four? I don't think so. I don't buy into the athleticism of their big men or the clutch shooting of their main scorers. They're possibly the best coached team in the tournament, but I like them to get bounced out in the Sweet Sixteen or Elite Eight.
- (3)Pitt: The Panthers were an overachieving bunch this year, but they're still young and offensively inconsistent. I like them to be upset in the second round.
- (3)Georgetown: They have a lot of potential, but I don't buy that a team that didn't make the tournament last year is suddenly going to make a sustained run. They certainly have talent but because of their big east tournament run, everyone is forgetting about their flaws.
Monday, March 8, 2010
Post Academy Awards Analysis
And onto the next awards season.
I watched the Academy Awards last night, and while I always felt that the magnitude of the event was compelling, it was far from a perfect presentation. For one, the decision to have dual hosts in Steven Martin and Alec Baldwin did not bear the fruit we all hoped it would. There performance together seemed lacking in relevant content and disastrously ill-planned (where was Alec Baldwin's occasional British accent coming from). Also, how did two people as brilliantly funny as Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin settle on that opening monologue (I know there are two of them, but I'm calling it a monologue). There were actually some incredibly funny moments in there--Steve Martin's two favorite things: rugby and tension between blacks and whites; Meryl Streep's Hitler memorabilia; the wonderfully timed moments with George Clooney. But couldn't the comedy writers at the Academy Awards come up with anything more intelligently structured than, "Hey, it's (fill in with name of any celebrity).
In an attempt to broaden its popularity, the Academy made a few changes this year. For one, the nominated songs were not performed. Many were upset with this, but I still contend that this is the correct move. Sure, every now and then the musical performances contain something truly surprising and memorable (Falling Slowly, anyone?), but for every Falling Slowly there are ten overly bubbly songs from musicals or animated films that just drag the night down. Also, the showrunners were clearly making an effort to appeal to a younger, more genre-centric demographic, hence the Twilight Presenters and the oddly conceived tribute to horror films, which included such classics from the genre as Edward Scissorhands. I respect the Academy's attempt to showcase their appreciation for film history, but these montages are rarely as interesting they need to be warrant the time they take. Finally, did anyone really think the modern dance sequence set to the best score nominees was a good idea? The dancers looked like characters out of Step Up 2: The Streets, only they were performing to the cringingly out-of-place music from Up, The Hurt Locker, Avatar, Sherlock Holmes, and the Fantastic Mr. Fox.
A final note on the ceremony: Can we please dispense with the peer tutorials before the Best Actor and Actress awards. Tim Robbins did his best to liven them up, but other than him they were largely bloated, decorous statements lacking any real insight.
Now, let's talk about the Awards. Firstly, I'm very happy that Avatar had as poor of a night as it did, although I still think it shouldn't have won Best Cinematography, Best Art Direction, or Best Visual Effects. Yeah, I said it. But the awards generally went according to script. The one significant upset came in the Best Adapted Screenplay category, in which Precious surprisingly beat the favored Up in the Air. I was VERY PLEASED with this result. With all due respect to Up in the Air, it simply didnt have the emotional complexity or strengh of craft that Precious did. After this award, I thought Precious might have a chance to win big in other categories, like Best Actress, but obviously that didn't happen. I also want to say that I found Mo'Nique's acceptance to be very poignant, and I wonder if her words were also meant to indict Academy Awards voters for completely disregarding the soul-bearing intensity of Gabby Sidibe in Precious in favor of Meryl Streep and Sandra Bullock's coyer performances.
By the way, what was Christoph Waltz talking about in his acceptance speech? Quentin Tarantino was to his left and they wanted to discover a new continent, but they decided to move to their right and found anothe continent?
I watched the Academy Awards last night, and while I always felt that the magnitude of the event was compelling, it was far from a perfect presentation. For one, the decision to have dual hosts in Steven Martin and Alec Baldwin did not bear the fruit we all hoped it would. There performance together seemed lacking in relevant content and disastrously ill-planned (where was Alec Baldwin's occasional British accent coming from). Also, how did two people as brilliantly funny as Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin settle on that opening monologue (I know there are two of them, but I'm calling it a monologue). There were actually some incredibly funny moments in there--Steve Martin's two favorite things: rugby and tension between blacks and whites; Meryl Streep's Hitler memorabilia; the wonderfully timed moments with George Clooney. But couldn't the comedy writers at the Academy Awards come up with anything more intelligently structured than, "Hey, it's (fill in with name of any celebrity).
In an attempt to broaden its popularity, the Academy made a few changes this year. For one, the nominated songs were not performed. Many were upset with this, but I still contend that this is the correct move. Sure, every now and then the musical performances contain something truly surprising and memorable (Falling Slowly, anyone?), but for every Falling Slowly there are ten overly bubbly songs from musicals or animated films that just drag the night down. Also, the showrunners were clearly making an effort to appeal to a younger, more genre-centric demographic, hence the Twilight Presenters and the oddly conceived tribute to horror films, which included such classics from the genre as Edward Scissorhands. I respect the Academy's attempt to showcase their appreciation for film history, but these montages are rarely as interesting they need to be warrant the time they take. Finally, did anyone really think the modern dance sequence set to the best score nominees was a good idea? The dancers looked like characters out of Step Up 2: The Streets, only they were performing to the cringingly out-of-place music from Up, The Hurt Locker, Avatar, Sherlock Holmes, and the Fantastic Mr. Fox.
A final note on the ceremony: Can we please dispense with the peer tutorials before the Best Actor and Actress awards. Tim Robbins did his best to liven them up, but other than him they were largely bloated, decorous statements lacking any real insight.
Now, let's talk about the Awards. Firstly, I'm very happy that Avatar had as poor of a night as it did, although I still think it shouldn't have won Best Cinematography, Best Art Direction, or Best Visual Effects. Yeah, I said it. But the awards generally went according to script. The one significant upset came in the Best Adapted Screenplay category, in which Precious surprisingly beat the favored Up in the Air. I was VERY PLEASED with this result. With all due respect to Up in the Air, it simply didnt have the emotional complexity or strengh of craft that Precious did. After this award, I thought Precious might have a chance to win big in other categories, like Best Actress, but obviously that didn't happen. I also want to say that I found Mo'Nique's acceptance to be very poignant, and I wonder if her words were also meant to indict Academy Awards voters for completely disregarding the soul-bearing intensity of Gabby Sidibe in Precious in favor of Meryl Streep and Sandra Bullock's coyer performances.
By the way, what was Christoph Waltz talking about in his acceptance speech? Quentin Tarantino was to his left and they wanted to discover a new continent, but they decided to move to their right and found anothe continent?
Saturday, March 6, 2010
The Spirit Awards
Well, that settles it. Whatever chance Precious had of winning Best Picture at the Academy Awards has officially been erased. Last night at the Spirit Awards, Precious won five prizes, including Best Feature and Best Director, and at any other major awards show that might be a good thing. But the Independent Spirit Awards NEVER successfully predicts the best picture winner at the Oscars. Remember Brokeback Mountain and Little Miss Sunshine? Brokeback was considered the overwhelming favorite to win Best Picture and Little Miss Sunshine came into the Oscars riding a wave of momentum from SAG and Producer's Guild wins. Both films eventually won Best Feature at the Independent Spirit Awards and boths promptly lost out Crash and The Departed respectively at the Academy Awards.
Now, obviously I'm not saying that Spirit Awards has a direct impact on Academy voters preferences. I'm just saying that 100 percent of the time the Spirit Awards and the Oscars disagree on best picture. I'm not too upset about this, but Precious was my favorite of the ten nominated films at the Academy Awards. By the way, what happened to the love for Precious? Presumeably, the best picture race has boiled down to Hurt Locker vs. Avatar--although some would have you believe that Inglourious Basterds could win as well. Aren't there any Academy voters loyal to Precious?
Now, obviously I'm not saying that Spirit Awards has a direct impact on Academy voters preferences. I'm just saying that 100 percent of the time the Spirit Awards and the Oscars disagree on best picture. I'm not too upset about this, but Precious was my favorite of the ten nominated films at the Academy Awards. By the way, what happened to the love for Precious? Presumeably, the best picture race has boiled down to Hurt Locker vs. Avatar--although some would have you believe that Inglourious Basterds could win as well. Aren't there any Academy voters loyal to Precious?
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
Oscar Preview and Predictions, part 2
Best Supporting Actor
Who will win?
This might be the most statistically assured category of the night: Christoph Waltz will win for Inglourious Basterds. His closest competition is Woody Harrelson, who gives his best performance in years in The Messenger, but even he is not that close.
Who should win?
There's a reason Waltz has won everything in sight: as the delightfully menacing Han Landa, he's simply been the most outstanding supporting actor of the year (and this comes from someone whose been especially vocal about his dislike of Inglourious Basterds). On a seperate note, though, I would have liked to have seen Brad Pitt's equally immersive turn as Aldo Raine nominated. And why not one of the great comedic actors from In the Loop?
Best Supporting Actress
What will win?
Like Christoph Waltz, Mo'Nique looks to have this category sown up. As far as I can tell, there doesn't seem to be sufficient support for any of the other nominees to even a mount credible push to the top.
Who should win?
The reason no other nominee has been able to make a competant case for themselves is because they're just not as good as Mo'Nique in Precious, in which she manages to be both reviling and surprisingly vulnerable.
Best Actor
Who will win?
Although there still seems to be some goodwill for Colin Firth in A Single Man, he won't win this award, and for one reason: Jeff Bridges is nominated. Not only is Bridges' role as a fading country singer highly acclaimed, but there is consensus that it his time to win.
Who should win?
I haven't seen Crazy Heart, but I understand Jeff Bridges is brilliant in it. So, instead of who will win, I'll make this who should have been nominated. The first that comes to mind is A Serious Man's Michael Stuhlbarg who is wonderful as the Job-like Larry Gopnik.
Best Actress
Who will win?
Conventional wisdom would have you believe that awards season cinderella Sandra Bullock will win come Sunday for her sassy, southern turn in The Blind Slide. After all, she has won the Golden Globe and the SAG awards. But there are rumblings of Blind Side backlash that I predict will topple Bullock in the late stretch in favor of Meryl Streep in Julie and Julia.
Who should win?
Although I haven't seen either Bullock or Streeps' performances, I have to say I find them both grating in the previews. What I don't understand is why Gabby Sidibe in Precious has been completely ignored in this discussion. In my view, she delivered the rawest and most blisteringly human performance of the year.
Best Director
Who will win?
James Cameron brings an impressive technical pedigree to this award and is favored by many to win, but I think at the end of the day Kathryn Bigelow walks away with the prize for her visceral visual command of The Hurt Locker. The Academy just seems ready to give the award to a female director for the first time, and James Cameron has already won once.
Who should win?
Kathryn Bigelow does a terrific job of crafting a narrative that is both vividly stylized and realistic, but of the five nominated my choice for best director would actually be Lee Daniels, who is just as sensational in his direction of Precious.
Best Picture
What will win?
Avatar or The Hurt Locker? This queston has become more complicated with the recent news that a Hurt Locker producer sent an email to Academy voters criticizing Avatar and essentially stumping for votes. Prior to this I would have predicted The Hurt Locker winning the award. Did this email signal that The Hurt Locker's support is waning. Did the email turn off potential voters? Considering the Academy's new weighted voting system, I'm still predicting The Hurt Locker to win.
What should win?
The Hurt Locker is an electrifying war film; District 9 and A Serious Man are both brilliantly original; Avatar is a film with big, ploddingly simplistic ideas and many flaws. But the film that should win is Precious, which may be the most moving film of the year.
Who will win?
This might be the most statistically assured category of the night: Christoph Waltz will win for Inglourious Basterds. His closest competition is Woody Harrelson, who gives his best performance in years in The Messenger, but even he is not that close.
Who should win?
There's a reason Waltz has won everything in sight: as the delightfully menacing Han Landa, he's simply been the most outstanding supporting actor of the year (and this comes from someone whose been especially vocal about his dislike of Inglourious Basterds). On a seperate note, though, I would have liked to have seen Brad Pitt's equally immersive turn as Aldo Raine nominated. And why not one of the great comedic actors from In the Loop?
Best Supporting Actress
What will win?
Like Christoph Waltz, Mo'Nique looks to have this category sown up. As far as I can tell, there doesn't seem to be sufficient support for any of the other nominees to even a mount credible push to the top.
Who should win?
The reason no other nominee has been able to make a competant case for themselves is because they're just not as good as Mo'Nique in Precious, in which she manages to be both reviling and surprisingly vulnerable.
Best Actor
Who will win?
Although there still seems to be some goodwill for Colin Firth in A Single Man, he won't win this award, and for one reason: Jeff Bridges is nominated. Not only is Bridges' role as a fading country singer highly acclaimed, but there is consensus that it his time to win.
Who should win?
I haven't seen Crazy Heart, but I understand Jeff Bridges is brilliant in it. So, instead of who will win, I'll make this who should have been nominated. The first that comes to mind is A Serious Man's Michael Stuhlbarg who is wonderful as the Job-like Larry Gopnik.
Best Actress
Who will win?
Conventional wisdom would have you believe that awards season cinderella Sandra Bullock will win come Sunday for her sassy, southern turn in The Blind Slide. After all, she has won the Golden Globe and the SAG awards. But there are rumblings of Blind Side backlash that I predict will topple Bullock in the late stretch in favor of Meryl Streep in Julie and Julia.
Who should win?
Although I haven't seen either Bullock or Streeps' performances, I have to say I find them both grating in the previews. What I don't understand is why Gabby Sidibe in Precious has been completely ignored in this discussion. In my view, she delivered the rawest and most blisteringly human performance of the year.
Best Director
Who will win?
James Cameron brings an impressive technical pedigree to this award and is favored by many to win, but I think at the end of the day Kathryn Bigelow walks away with the prize for her visceral visual command of The Hurt Locker. The Academy just seems ready to give the award to a female director for the first time, and James Cameron has already won once.
Who should win?
Kathryn Bigelow does a terrific job of crafting a narrative that is both vividly stylized and realistic, but of the five nominated my choice for best director would actually be Lee Daniels, who is just as sensational in his direction of Precious.
Best Picture
What will win?
Avatar or The Hurt Locker? This queston has become more complicated with the recent news that a Hurt Locker producer sent an email to Academy voters criticizing Avatar and essentially stumping for votes. Prior to this I would have predicted The Hurt Locker winning the award. Did this email signal that The Hurt Locker's support is waning. Did the email turn off potential voters? Considering the Academy's new weighted voting system, I'm still predicting The Hurt Locker to win.
What should win?
The Hurt Locker is an electrifying war film; District 9 and A Serious Man are both brilliantly original; Avatar is a film with big, ploddingly simplistic ideas and many flaws. But the film that should win is Precious, which may be the most moving film of the year.
Oscar Preview and Predictions, part 1
As you probably know, the Academy Awards are being held this Sunday, and naturally I've been hard at work coming up with my predictions. I'll go over the main categories and what I think will win.
Best Score
What will win?
In my opinion, Michael Giacchino's charming, disney-throwback score for Up clearly has the inside track in this category, not only because the film has won for this category at the Golden Globes, but als because Giacchino produced an acclaimed score for Star Trek as well. This is his year.
What should win?
Although I do appreciate the saccharine tone of Giacchino's work in Up, I happen to think that the best score in this category is Alexandre Desplat's in The Fantastic Mr. Fox. It's sparkling, whimsical, and at times deeply moving.
Best Cinematography
What will win?
This is a slightly difficult category to predict. If voters are judging purely by the actual aesthetic and photographic virtues of the film, than the evocative black-and-white The White Ribbon could win. However, if they're placing a high priority on technical innovation than Avatar wins in a landslide. My personal belief, Avatar wins (although if the voting results were ever revealed, I bet The White Ribbon would be a close second).
What should win?
I've been a fan of the visual world David Yates has created with the latest Harry Potter films, and sure enough The The Half-Blood Price was beautifully filmed. However, my favorite film in this category is actually Inglourious Basterds, photographed with impeccable richness by Robert Richardson.
Best Film Editing
What will win?
The race is clearly between Avatar and The Hurt Locker. The Academy usually loves tensely edited films like the The Hurt Locker, but they also seem to love showering James Camerons' record-breaking box office successes with every technical oscar imaginabe. Although I sincerely hope Avatar doesn't win because I think it was poorly edited, in the end it will, since the Academy rarely honors well-structured, nuanced editing over fast-paced, epic action.
What should win?
Although I thought The Hurt Locker was exceptionally well-done, I think the best edited films in this category were Precious and District 9, and of the two I think District 9 should win. It's mix of documentary and thrilling sci-fi drama was brilliant.
Best Adapted Screenplay
What will win?
The awards season Gods seemed to have annointed Up in the Air as the heir apparent in this category. And why not? It's a wry and incisive character-driven drama, and the Academy loves to honor those films for their screenplays.
What should win?
I'm not nearly as enamored of Up in the Air as others. I found George Clooney's performance to be merely adequate and the film's overall message to be trite. I don't know why other more adventurous and poignant films are constantly being igored, like Precious and the In the Loop. I would be greatly surprised if either of these two won the award, which is a shame. In the Loop is one of the most interesting comedies in recent memory and Precious presents a level of human grittiness that is truly exceptional.
Best Original Screenplay
What will win?
There are three films in this category that could potentially walk away the award. The first, and decidedly least likely, is the Coen Bros. grimly offbeat A Serious Man. At the start of the awards season, this film won every major critics prize for best original screenplay, but recently it's momentum, slim as it was, has stymied. However, you can't count out the Coen brothers. The favorites are certainly The Hurt Locker, a upstart as of late, and Inglourious Basterds. If you had asked me a few weeks ago which would win, I would say Inglourious Basterds in a heartbeat; however, The Hurt Locker's recent wins at the Writers Guild and BAFTA awards prove how close this race has become (although in fairness, Inglourious Basterds wasn't nominated at the WGA). Although The Hurt Locker has narrowed the gap, I still think Inglourious Basterds will win. It has a great deal of goodwill in the Academy and it has another advantage as well: It was written by Quentin Tarantino. With his uniquely, dialogue heavy work, this is the category he's supposed to win for.
What should win?
A Serious Man is everything a winner in this category should be: unique, layered, finely detailed, and resonant.
Best Score
What will win?
In my opinion, Michael Giacchino's charming, disney-throwback score for Up clearly has the inside track in this category, not only because the film has won for this category at the Golden Globes, but als because Giacchino produced an acclaimed score for Star Trek as well. This is his year.
What should win?
Although I do appreciate the saccharine tone of Giacchino's work in Up, I happen to think that the best score in this category is Alexandre Desplat's in The Fantastic Mr. Fox. It's sparkling, whimsical, and at times deeply moving.
Best Cinematography
What will win?
This is a slightly difficult category to predict. If voters are judging purely by the actual aesthetic and photographic virtues of the film, than the evocative black-and-white The White Ribbon could win. However, if they're placing a high priority on technical innovation than Avatar wins in a landslide. My personal belief, Avatar wins (although if the voting results were ever revealed, I bet The White Ribbon would be a close second).
What should win?
I've been a fan of the visual world David Yates has created with the latest Harry Potter films, and sure enough The The Half-Blood Price was beautifully filmed. However, my favorite film in this category is actually Inglourious Basterds, photographed with impeccable richness by Robert Richardson.
Best Film Editing
What will win?
The race is clearly between Avatar and The Hurt Locker. The Academy usually loves tensely edited films like the The Hurt Locker, but they also seem to love showering James Camerons' record-breaking box office successes with every technical oscar imaginabe. Although I sincerely hope Avatar doesn't win because I think it was poorly edited, in the end it will, since the Academy rarely honors well-structured, nuanced editing over fast-paced, epic action.
What should win?
Although I thought The Hurt Locker was exceptionally well-done, I think the best edited films in this category were Precious and District 9, and of the two I think District 9 should win. It's mix of documentary and thrilling sci-fi drama was brilliant.
Best Adapted Screenplay
What will win?
The awards season Gods seemed to have annointed Up in the Air as the heir apparent in this category. And why not? It's a wry and incisive character-driven drama, and the Academy loves to honor those films for their screenplays.
What should win?
I'm not nearly as enamored of Up in the Air as others. I found George Clooney's performance to be merely adequate and the film's overall message to be trite. I don't know why other more adventurous and poignant films are constantly being igored, like Precious and the In the Loop. I would be greatly surprised if either of these two won the award, which is a shame. In the Loop is one of the most interesting comedies in recent memory and Precious presents a level of human grittiness that is truly exceptional.
Best Original Screenplay
What will win?
There are three films in this category that could potentially walk away the award. The first, and decidedly least likely, is the Coen Bros. grimly offbeat A Serious Man. At the start of the awards season, this film won every major critics prize for best original screenplay, but recently it's momentum, slim as it was, has stymied. However, you can't count out the Coen brothers. The favorites are certainly The Hurt Locker, a upstart as of late, and Inglourious Basterds. If you had asked me a few weeks ago which would win, I would say Inglourious Basterds in a heartbeat; however, The Hurt Locker's recent wins at the Writers Guild and BAFTA awards prove how close this race has become (although in fairness, Inglourious Basterds wasn't nominated at the WGA). Although The Hurt Locker has narrowed the gap, I still think Inglourious Basterds will win. It has a great deal of goodwill in the Academy and it has another advantage as well: It was written by Quentin Tarantino. With his uniquely, dialogue heavy work, this is the category he's supposed to win for.
What should win?
A Serious Man is everything a winner in this category should be: unique, layered, finely detailed, and resonant.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Shutter Island
While I was in Baton Rouge between Thursday and Friday, I saw Shutter Island and unfortunatley I didn't like it. Without revealing key aspects of the plot, I'll simply say that I found the film's twists and turns to be fairly predictable, and in the rare instances when the film did manage to surprise me, it did so only by going to incomprehensibly ridiculous lengths.
Overall, the narrative seemed like nothing more than an excuse for Scorcese to experiment in lushly stylized gothic horror. In that respect the film excells, but almost too much. Shutter Island replicates numerous gothic conventions--spooky mansions, dungeons, violent storms--and it does so with the highest degree of grotesque, atmospheric detail, but the film doesn't contribute anything new, so the impressive production value illicits little visceral emotion.
Considering the film's psycho-horror aspirations, it is surprisingly uninvolving. This is partially due to the frustratingly one-dimensional characterization of the main character, Teddy Daniels, played by Leonardo Dicaprio. As a federal marshall haunted not only by the death of his wife but also his memories of liberating the Dachau concentration camp in World War 2, this could have been a much more interesting character. Unfortunately, Leo does very little with Teddy other than constantly furrow his brow in either anger, confusion, or mere masculine intensity, and also just generally appear paranoid.
Overall, the narrative seemed like nothing more than an excuse for Scorcese to experiment in lushly stylized gothic horror. In that respect the film excells, but almost too much. Shutter Island replicates numerous gothic conventions--spooky mansions, dungeons, violent storms--and it does so with the highest degree of grotesque, atmospheric detail, but the film doesn't contribute anything new, so the impressive production value illicits little visceral emotion.
Considering the film's psycho-horror aspirations, it is surprisingly uninvolving. This is partially due to the frustratingly one-dimensional characterization of the main character, Teddy Daniels, played by Leonardo Dicaprio. As a federal marshall haunted not only by the death of his wife but also his memories of liberating the Dachau concentration camp in World War 2, this could have been a much more interesting character. Unfortunately, Leo does very little with Teddy other than constantly furrow his brow in either anger, confusion, or mere masculine intensity, and also just generally appear paranoid.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
NCAA Basketball con't
Other mid-majors to watch out for
In my opinion, the mid major to watch besides Temple is BYU. They have a great scoring leader and distributor in Jimmer Fredette, and this team is simply used to winning. They've reached 25 victories three years in a row. BYU has been narrowly bounced out of the NCAA tournament threes now and I think they're finally ready to make a run.
Also, keep an eye on Richmond from the Atlantic 10. They might be playing the best basketball in the Atlantic 10 right now and they've more than held their own against major conference competition.
Major Conference Teams Under the Radar
Wisconsin: They're ranked in the top twenty five right now but Purdue, Michigan State and Ohio State have been getting all the attention. However, other than Purdue I think this might be the Big Ten team to make a splash. They're a great shooting team that's playing better defense this year. Don't forget, they made some noise last year as a 12 seed and they've only gotten better.
Texas A&M: The Aggies are a great shooting team and they have recent tournament experience. Their record doesn't necessarily bear out that they can beat anyone, but I think they have a good shot against anyone.
Good Teams I Don't Like
Duke: Coach K's team hasn't done much to improve my perception of them this year besides the fact that they've thoroughly dominated a down ACC. They're not athletic enough and still rely too much on hot perimeter shooting. I forsee another sweet sixteen upset.
Georgetown: The Hoyas are balanced scoring team, but where did they come from this year? I don't see this team going from missing a tournament bid last year to making a deep run in the tournament.
Gonzaga: I'm not awed by their guard attack this year. Reputation and a dominating a weak West Coast Conference have lead to their top fifteen ranking.
Tennessee: Besides Wayne Chisum I don't think this team has the firepower this year.
Pittsburgh: Pitt is on the rise right now but I don't see their grind-it-out style taking them very far.
In my opinion, the mid major to watch besides Temple is BYU. They have a great scoring leader and distributor in Jimmer Fredette, and this team is simply used to winning. They've reached 25 victories three years in a row. BYU has been narrowly bounced out of the NCAA tournament threes now and I think they're finally ready to make a run.
Also, keep an eye on Richmond from the Atlantic 10. They might be playing the best basketball in the Atlantic 10 right now and they've more than held their own against major conference competition.
Major Conference Teams Under the Radar
Wisconsin: They're ranked in the top twenty five right now but Purdue, Michigan State and Ohio State have been getting all the attention. However, other than Purdue I think this might be the Big Ten team to make a splash. They're a great shooting team that's playing better defense this year. Don't forget, they made some noise last year as a 12 seed and they've only gotten better.
Texas A&M: The Aggies are a great shooting team and they have recent tournament experience. Their record doesn't necessarily bear out that they can beat anyone, but I think they have a good shot against anyone.
Good Teams I Don't Like
Duke: Coach K's team hasn't done much to improve my perception of them this year besides the fact that they've thoroughly dominated a down ACC. They're not athletic enough and still rely too much on hot perimeter shooting. I forsee another sweet sixteen upset.
Georgetown: The Hoyas are balanced scoring team, but where did they come from this year? I don't see this team going from missing a tournament bid last year to making a deep run in the tournament.
Gonzaga: I'm not awed by their guard attack this year. Reputation and a dominating a weak West Coast Conference have lead to their top fifteen ranking.
Tennessee: Besides Wayne Chisum I don't think this team has the firepower this year.
Pittsburgh: Pitt is on the rise right now but I don't see their grind-it-out style taking them very far.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
A Seriously Good Film; Early Predictions on March Madness
I finally had an opportunity to watch A Serious Man, and I have to say I was extremely impressed. This may be one of the most complex, evocative, and tonally unique films of the Coen Brothers career. In fact, I would even say that it's their best film since 1998's The Big Lebowski.
I truly hope that A Serious Man wins best original screenplay at the Academy Awards over Quentin Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds, a film I have made no secret of criticizing as being disconnected, meandering, and intellectually vacant.
... Now onto basketball.
March Madness is quickly approaching and I'm going to give a preliminary rundown on the teams I like and don't heading into the tournament this year.
Like:
1. Villanova: Don't be fooled by their recent loss to UCONN, a team that increasingly looks on it's way out. This is an elite team and they play in the best conference in America. They could easily drop three of their next five to Syracuse, Pitt, and West Virginia and drop to 2 or a 3 seed in the NCAA tournament and I would still favor them over almost anyone. Remember that 2006-2007 Florida team? They faltered down the stretch of the regular season too, but they dominated in the tournament.
2. Purdue: I love what Coach Painter has done at Purdue and this is clearly the most capable team he's ever had. These boilermakers have some of the best team chemistry of anyone in the NCAA and they play tough, big-ten defense. They're still in contention for a number 1 seed, but a two seems more likely. Even so, I'm looking for them to possibly make a run to the finals.
3. Kansas: I know, they're the number 1 team. But they're number one for a reason... they're fantastic. On paper, Kansas is the most complete team in the country. With their mix of size, athleticism, and hot shooting, no one matches up with them well. Right now, they look unstoppable in their quest for a number one overall seed in the tournament.
4. Temple: This is obviously a wild card choice. Right now Temple is ranked in the top 25 but they appear to be on a bit of a skid. You might ask yourself, why should you care about a mid-major that just got waxed 71-54 by conference rival Richmond. First, although Temple may play in a mid-major conference (Atlantic 10), it's arguably the best mid-major conference in the country and will most get five to six tournament bids (will the SEC be able to say as much come selectio time?) Secondly, teams always show a little wear late in their conference schedules. What's important is that they make sure to be ready for the tournaent. If Temple plays at their best, they can potentially beat anyone in the country. Earlier in the season they lost a grind-it-out squeaker to Georgetown 46-45, the same Georgetown that's now ranked in the top ten, and they beat Villanova 74-65. This is a team that has tournament experience and I think they're finally ready to break out.
I truly hope that A Serious Man wins best original screenplay at the Academy Awards over Quentin Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds, a film I have made no secret of criticizing as being disconnected, meandering, and intellectually vacant.
... Now onto basketball.
March Madness is quickly approaching and I'm going to give a preliminary rundown on the teams I like and don't heading into the tournament this year.
Like:
1. Villanova: Don't be fooled by their recent loss to UCONN, a team that increasingly looks on it's way out. This is an elite team and they play in the best conference in America. They could easily drop three of their next five to Syracuse, Pitt, and West Virginia and drop to 2 or a 3 seed in the NCAA tournament and I would still favor them over almost anyone. Remember that 2006-2007 Florida team? They faltered down the stretch of the regular season too, but they dominated in the tournament.
2. Purdue: I love what Coach Painter has done at Purdue and this is clearly the most capable team he's ever had. These boilermakers have some of the best team chemistry of anyone in the NCAA and they play tough, big-ten defense. They're still in contention for a number 1 seed, but a two seems more likely. Even so, I'm looking for them to possibly make a run to the finals.
3. Kansas: I know, they're the number 1 team. But they're number one for a reason... they're fantastic. On paper, Kansas is the most complete team in the country. With their mix of size, athleticism, and hot shooting, no one matches up with them well. Right now, they look unstoppable in their quest for a number one overall seed in the tournament.
4. Temple: This is obviously a wild card choice. Right now Temple is ranked in the top 25 but they appear to be on a bit of a skid. You might ask yourself, why should you care about a mid-major that just got waxed 71-54 by conference rival Richmond. First, although Temple may play in a mid-major conference (Atlantic 10), it's arguably the best mid-major conference in the country and will most get five to six tournament bids (will the SEC be able to say as much come selectio time?) Secondly, teams always show a little wear late in their conference schedules. What's important is that they make sure to be ready for the tournaent. If Temple plays at their best, they can potentially beat anyone in the country. Earlier in the season they lost a grind-it-out squeaker to Georgetown 46-45, the same Georgetown that's now ranked in the top ten, and they beat Villanova 74-65. This is a team that has tournament experience and I think they're finally ready to break out.
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Academy Award Nominations
First of all... Sorry I haven't posted recently, but I was extremely busy helping Sean Price film his first real movie for UNO. I was the director of photography and it was a really fun experience.
Now... the Academy Award nominations came out today. There were very few surprises, but the surprises that were there were either not interesting or simply stupid. For instance:
BLIND SIDE got a best picture nom!
We all knew that Sandra Bullock was going to be nominated for best actress (and strangely enough she seems to be the front runner, which still perplexes me), but Blind Side for best picture? I don't get it. This was not a highly acclaimed film, and yet all of the support for Sandra Bullock's performance appears to have snowballed into a massive awards season mindfuck.
Other surprises included Maggie Gylenhaal being nominated for Best Supporting Actress and
The Messenger being nominated for Best Original Screenplay. Shocking, right?
Here are a list of things I would have liked to have seen from the Academy Award nominations
1. The Fantastic Mr. Fox nominated for Best Picture and Best Adapted Screenplay
How can I say this? The Fantastic Mr. Fox is simply the BEST animated film I've seen in years. Not only is it visually dazzling, but it is almost incomprehensibly clever and funny.
2. Gabby Sidibe being given the Best Actress Award in advance
I know this is an unrealistic request, but I'm just not prepared to see either Meryl Streep or Sandra Bullock win for their coy, possibly stupid performances. Admittedly, I haven't actually seen either of these performances, but could they really be better than Gabby Sidible's raw, vulnerable and emotionally devastating turn as Precious?
3. Better nominees for best director
Other than Kathryn Bigelow and Lee Daniels, whom I both thought directed wonderful films, I thought the best director category could have been much stronger, although I'm inclined to give Quentin Tarantino a break here since I did think that Inglourious Basterds was one of his most visually interesting film in years. And James Cameron for Avatar? Although on an effects level, Avatar was superb, Cameron's direction itself was not as outstanding. And Jason Reitman's direction in Up in the Air was nothing more than the pinnacle of above-average competence. What about Wes Anderson, or Ramin Bahrin's poignant work in Goodbye, Solo?
Now... the Academy Award nominations came out today. There were very few surprises, but the surprises that were there were either not interesting or simply stupid. For instance:
BLIND SIDE got a best picture nom!
We all knew that Sandra Bullock was going to be nominated for best actress (and strangely enough she seems to be the front runner, which still perplexes me), but Blind Side for best picture? I don't get it. This was not a highly acclaimed film, and yet all of the support for Sandra Bullock's performance appears to have snowballed into a massive awards season mindfuck.
Other surprises included Maggie Gylenhaal being nominated for Best Supporting Actress and
The Messenger being nominated for Best Original Screenplay. Shocking, right?
Here are a list of things I would have liked to have seen from the Academy Award nominations
1. The Fantastic Mr. Fox nominated for Best Picture and Best Adapted Screenplay
How can I say this? The Fantastic Mr. Fox is simply the BEST animated film I've seen in years. Not only is it visually dazzling, but it is almost incomprehensibly clever and funny.
2. Gabby Sidibe being given the Best Actress Award in advance
I know this is an unrealistic request, but I'm just not prepared to see either Meryl Streep or Sandra Bullock win for their coy, possibly stupid performances. Admittedly, I haven't actually seen either of these performances, but could they really be better than Gabby Sidible's raw, vulnerable and emotionally devastating turn as Precious?
3. Better nominees for best director
Other than Kathryn Bigelow and Lee Daniels, whom I both thought directed wonderful films, I thought the best director category could have been much stronger, although I'm inclined to give Quentin Tarantino a break here since I did think that Inglourious Basterds was one of his most visually interesting film in years. And James Cameron for Avatar? Although on an effects level, Avatar was superb, Cameron's direction itself was not as outstanding. And Jason Reitman's direction in Up in the Air was nothing more than the pinnacle of above-average competence. What about Wes Anderson, or Ramin Bahrin's poignant work in Goodbye, Solo?
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Decade Awards con't - Good Movies with Bad Endings
Let me preface by saying that there will clearly be SPOILERS in this post.
This might be a controversial choice, because Bill Paxton's debut film has many defenders... including myself. I happen to think that Frailty is a very interesting and well-made horror film, but it has one of the most ham-handed twist endings in recent memory. In the film, Matthew McConaughey plays Fenton Meiks, a small town ne'er-do-well who tells FBI Agent Wesley Doyle (Powers Boothe) that his brother, Adam, is the prolific God's Hands killer. Fenton then proceeds to explain that he when he and his brother were children their father told them that he had received divine instructions to be a "demon" killer. According to Fenton, he and Adam were forced to aid their father in killing numerous "demon"s, although as far as Fenton was concerned they were simply regular people they were murdering. Now years later, Fenton believes that Adam has taken up his father's mantle. Fenton takes Agent Doyle to the rose garden where he believes his brother has been hiding his victims. While there, Doyle remarks that something about Fenton's story doesn't make sense, to which Fenton replies, "It does if the person standing in front of you is Adam Meiks." What the fuck? You mean the person guiding the audience through this narrative wasn't Fenton, but Adam? I've never seen that kind of twist before!! I've also never seen that twist executed so haphazardly. Imagine watching the Usual Suspects and at the end of Agent Kujan's interrogation of Verbal Kint, Verbal says, "Wouldn't it blow your mind if I was Keyser Soze?!" Yeah, that would have been awesome.
Timur Bekmambetov's record-breaking Russian film is an imperfect but highly cinematic experience. Unfortunately, it falters under the weight of an impossibly convoluted narrative and its attempts to craft a horror ensemble film. The film begins with a deceptively simple premise: the forces of light and dark are locked in an age-old truce, but it is prophecized that a human child will shift the balance of power. From here, however, the film becomes embroiled in a clusterfuck of occult minutaie and dizzying action sequences, all leading up to a truly confusing, what-the-fuck ending, and not in a good way. In the film's climactic last scenes, the main characters rush to... do something to a... vortex, or a portal, or something? Honestly, I still don't know exactly what it was, or how it connected to the narrative.
Its ending not withstanding, I was never a huge fan of this film to begin with. However, in addition to solid supporting roles by Sam Rockwell and Alison Lohman, this film presented a rare occurence for cinema in the 21st century: Nicholas Cage actually trying to give a good performance. Did he succeed? Yes and no. Playing Roy Waller, an obsessive-compulsive con man who finds out he has a teen aged daughter, Cage's performance occasionally steps into vastly overdone territory, but it is to Cage's credit that the character never fully succumbs to caricature. Rather, Cage adds layers of disconnection to Roy that are both poignant and tragic. Unfortunately, Ridley Scott wouldn't allow this film to simply be an engaging character story; it had to be a con artist movie. And so, like almost every con artist movie, it ends with the obligatory "everything was a con" twist. Put simply... during the course of the film, Roy develops an unexpected relationship with his estranged teen aged daughter and eventually involves her in a major con. Of course, the con goes terribly wrong and Roy's daughter has to go into hiding. He gives her everything he has ever earned as a con man, only to find out later... the con was on him. Big surprise? Only to anyone whose never seen a con movie.
This is not only the best film on the list, but it is also, possibly, the most frustratingly inartful with its ending. The film follows Marie and Alex, two college girls who come to the country house of Alex's family to study for their upcoming exams. All is well until a mysterious psychopath invades the family's home, murdering Alex's mother, father, and brother, and kidnapping Alex. Marie escapes death by hiding in the house, but she goes after the killer to rescue Alex. This leads to a thrilling climax in which Marie, harnessing all her primal energy, turns the tables on the crazed murderer, eventually killing him. End of story, right? No. Although if that had been the end, I probably would have thought that High Tension was the best pure horror film of the 21st century. Unfortunately, High Tension made a classic mistake: it over thought itself into oblivion. Flashback to the beginning of the film: Marie dreams she's being violently chased through the woods. When Alex asks who was chasing her, Marie replies that she was chasing herself. When I first saw this scene in theaters, I said to myself, "Is this going to be another ridiculous multiple personality movie?" Well... sure enough, at the end of the film after Marie has killed the psychopath, she frees Alex. But Alex recoils from Marie, completely terrified. This is when it comes all too apparent to the audience what is happening: Marie was the killer all along. Seriously? Yes, seriously. It wasn't cool.
Good Movies with Bad Endings
5. Frailty (2001, dir. Bill Paxton)
This might be a controversial choice, because Bill Paxton's debut film has many defenders... including myself. I happen to think that Frailty is a very interesting and well-made horror film, but it has one of the most ham-handed twist endings in recent memory. In the film, Matthew McConaughey plays Fenton Meiks, a small town ne'er-do-well who tells FBI Agent Wesley Doyle (Powers Boothe) that his brother, Adam, is the prolific God's Hands killer. Fenton then proceeds to explain that he when he and his brother were children their father told them that he had received divine instructions to be a "demon" killer. According to Fenton, he and Adam were forced to aid their father in killing numerous "demon"s, although as far as Fenton was concerned they were simply regular people they were murdering. Now years later, Fenton believes that Adam has taken up his father's mantle. Fenton takes Agent Doyle to the rose garden where he believes his brother has been hiding his victims. While there, Doyle remarks that something about Fenton's story doesn't make sense, to which Fenton replies, "It does if the person standing in front of you is Adam Meiks." What the fuck? You mean the person guiding the audience through this narrative wasn't Fenton, but Adam? I've never seen that kind of twist before!! I've also never seen that twist executed so haphazardly. Imagine watching the Usual Suspects and at the end of Agent Kujan's interrogation of Verbal Kint, Verbal says, "Wouldn't it blow your mind if I was Keyser Soze?!" Yeah, that would have been awesome.4. Night Watch (2004, dir. Timur Bekmambetov)
Timur Bekmambetov's record-breaking Russian film is an imperfect but highly cinematic experience. Unfortunately, it falters under the weight of an impossibly convoluted narrative and its attempts to craft a horror ensemble film. The film begins with a deceptively simple premise: the forces of light and dark are locked in an age-old truce, but it is prophecized that a human child will shift the balance of power. From here, however, the film becomes embroiled in a clusterfuck of occult minutaie and dizzying action sequences, all leading up to a truly confusing, what-the-fuck ending, and not in a good way. In the film's climactic last scenes, the main characters rush to... do something to a... vortex, or a portal, or something? Honestly, I still don't know exactly what it was, or how it connected to the narrative.3. Matchstick Men (2003, dir. Ridley Scott)
Its ending not withstanding, I was never a huge fan of this film to begin with. However, in addition to solid supporting roles by Sam Rockwell and Alison Lohman, this film presented a rare occurence for cinema in the 21st century: Nicholas Cage actually trying to give a good performance. Did he succeed? Yes and no. Playing Roy Waller, an obsessive-compulsive con man who finds out he has a teen aged daughter, Cage's performance occasionally steps into vastly overdone territory, but it is to Cage's credit that the character never fully succumbs to caricature. Rather, Cage adds layers of disconnection to Roy that are both poignant and tragic. Unfortunately, Ridley Scott wouldn't allow this film to simply be an engaging character story; it had to be a con artist movie. And so, like almost every con artist movie, it ends with the obligatory "everything was a con" twist. Put simply... during the course of the film, Roy develops an unexpected relationship with his estranged teen aged daughter and eventually involves her in a major con. Of course, the con goes terribly wrong and Roy's daughter has to go into hiding. He gives her everything he has ever earned as a con man, only to find out later... the con was on him. Big surprise? Only to anyone whose never seen a con movie.2. Unbreakable (2000, dir. M. Night Shyamalan)
It's strange to think that M. Night Shyamalan's films used to be highly anticipated because we thought they would be good. However, I think that officially ended after Lady in the Water. Despite the fact that his reputation has diminished recently because of a string of laughably, utterly bad films, it should be said that he does have a few good movies to his credit, including this potently atmospheric tale of a ordinary man who seemingly can't be harmed. After emerging unscathed from a catastrophic train accident, David Dunn (Bruce Willis) meets Elijah Price, a comic book enthusiast with a rare condition that makes his bones extremely fragile. Elijah believes David to be a superhero of sorts, a fact that David think is crazy. Over the course of the film, however, he comes to accept his special abilities and their potential to help people. For most of the film, Shyamalan demonstrates an impressive visual and tonal command. Unfortunately, in the film's ending Shyamalan lets his more ridiculous side get the better of him. In Unbreakable's final scene, David finds out that Elijah not only purposefully caused the train accident that revealed David's abilities, but he was also responsible for numerous other disasters. This twist is actually quite effective, but what happens after is not. First, Elijah senselessly babbles on about knowing one's place in the world and how to spot the archvillian in a comic book? What? Then, as David stalks away, Elijah calls out to him, "I should have known way back when. You know why, David? Because of the kids! They called me Mr. Glass!" Finally, a title scroll appears, explaining that David would later lead police to Elijah and that he would be admitted to a mental institution for the criminally insane. And with that, what had been a darkly realistic take on a superhero story turned into Shyamalan farce.
1. High Tension (2003, dir. Alexandre Aja)
This is not only the best film on the list, but it is also, possibly, the most frustratingly inartful with its ending. The film follows Marie and Alex, two college girls who come to the country house of Alex's family to study for their upcoming exams. All is well until a mysterious psychopath invades the family's home, murdering Alex's mother, father, and brother, and kidnapping Alex. Marie escapes death by hiding in the house, but she goes after the killer to rescue Alex. This leads to a thrilling climax in which Marie, harnessing all her primal energy, turns the tables on the crazed murderer, eventually killing him. End of story, right? No. Although if that had been the end, I probably would have thought that High Tension was the best pure horror film of the 21st century. Unfortunately, High Tension made a classic mistake: it over thought itself into oblivion. Flashback to the beginning of the film: Marie dreams she's being violently chased through the woods. When Alex asks who was chasing her, Marie replies that she was chasing herself. When I first saw this scene in theaters, I said to myself, "Is this going to be another ridiculous multiple personality movie?" Well... sure enough, at the end of the film after Marie has killed the psychopath, she frees Alex. But Alex recoils from Marie, completely terrified. This is when it comes all too apparent to the audience what is happening: Marie was the killer all along. Seriously? Yes, seriously. It wasn't cool. Sunday, January 17, 2010
Decade Awards con't - Most Memorable "Mini-role"
This is a particularly fun category, because sometimes the richest and most interesting performances in a film are those with such little screen time. You know what I'm talking about... those little roles that pop in for one or two scenes but can still leave you completely stunned.
Most Memorable Mini-roles
5. Christopher McDonald in Requiem for a Dream (2000)
via videosift.com
Possibly the best role of Christopher McDonald's unheralded career is his brief turn as Tabby Tibbons, an infomercial personality in Requiem for a Dream. Except for a terrifying halucination, Tabby never appears as anything but a character in Sara Goldfarb's television and yet his presence in the film is unmistakable, funny, and always captivating.
4. William Sadler in Kinsey (2004)
William Sadler's truly unsettling performance in Kinsey is such a mini-role that I couldn't find any video of it or even his image in the film, but this is a great one-scene performance from a character actor who has excelled in supporting roles. In the film, Sadler plays Kenneth Braun, a mousy, sickeningly self-satisfied sexual deviant who claims to have had sex with hundreds of adolescent boys and girls. He attempts to share his "research" with Professor Kinsey, but he does it with such unrepentant glee that one of the Kinsey's assistant refuses to participate in the interview. Sadler imbues the character with both a clinical coldness and a sociopathic lack of guilt and self-consciousness that is remarkably effective.
3. William Baldwin in Forgetting Sarah Marshall (2008)
William Baldwin may have reached the peak of his career in the mid 1990's when he was the go-to actor for sexually charged thrillers like Sliver and Fair Game (OK, so this isn't exactly a sexually charged thriller, but he bangs Cindy Crawford in it). Recently, however, Baldwin seems to have recognized his talent for comedy, both as Ivan the tennis instructor with a penchant for calling everyone "brother" in The Squid and the Whale and as the actor who plays Detective Hunter Rush in the fictional tv series Crime Scene: Scene of the Crime in Forgetting Sarah Marshall. The audience only gets a few glimses of this show in Forgetting Sarah Marshall, but each moment William Baldwin graces the screen as Detective Rush is comedy magic. I really wish the filmmakers had actually shot an episode of Crime Scene: Scene of the Crime for the dvd special features.
2. Bill Murray in Zombieland (2009)
One of the most rewarding sequences in Zombieland is when the main characters visit the seemingly abandoned mansion of Bill Murray. While searching through the actor's palatial home, they encounter what looks like zombie Bill Murray, but is really just Bill Murray acting like a zombie to fool the other zombies. For some reason, Bill Murray acting like Bill Murray post-Zombie apocalypse is spectacularly funny, and Murray himself gives one of the most entertaining supporting performances of his career.
Most Memorable Mini-roles
5. Christopher McDonald in Requiem for a Dream (2000)
via videosift.com
Possibly the best role of Christopher McDonald's unheralded career is his brief turn as Tabby Tibbons, an infomercial personality in Requiem for a Dream. Except for a terrifying halucination, Tabby never appears as anything but a character in Sara Goldfarb's television and yet his presence in the film is unmistakable, funny, and always captivating.
4. William Sadler in Kinsey (2004)
William Sadler's truly unsettling performance in Kinsey is such a mini-role that I couldn't find any video of it or even his image in the film, but this is a great one-scene performance from a character actor who has excelled in supporting roles. In the film, Sadler plays Kenneth Braun, a mousy, sickeningly self-satisfied sexual deviant who claims to have had sex with hundreds of adolescent boys and girls. He attempts to share his "research" with Professor Kinsey, but he does it with such unrepentant glee that one of the Kinsey's assistant refuses to participate in the interview. Sadler imbues the character with both a clinical coldness and a sociopathic lack of guilt and self-consciousness that is remarkably effective.
3. William Baldwin in Forgetting Sarah Marshall (2008)
William Baldwin may have reached the peak of his career in the mid 1990's when he was the go-to actor for sexually charged thrillers like Sliver and Fair Game (OK, so this isn't exactly a sexually charged thriller, but he bangs Cindy Crawford in it). Recently, however, Baldwin seems to have recognized his talent for comedy, both as Ivan the tennis instructor with a penchant for calling everyone "brother" in The Squid and the Whale and as the actor who plays Detective Hunter Rush in the fictional tv series Crime Scene: Scene of the Crime in Forgetting Sarah Marshall. The audience only gets a few glimses of this show in Forgetting Sarah Marshall, but each moment William Baldwin graces the screen as Detective Rush is comedy magic. I really wish the filmmakers had actually shot an episode of Crime Scene: Scene of the Crime for the dvd special features.
2. Bill Murray in Zombieland (2009)
One of the most rewarding sequences in Zombieland is when the main characters visit the seemingly abandoned mansion of Bill Murray. While searching through the actor's palatial home, they encounter what looks like zombie Bill Murray, but is really just Bill Murray acting like a zombie to fool the other zombies. For some reason, Bill Murray acting like Bill Murray post-Zombie apocalypse is spectacularly funny, and Murray himself gives one of the most entertaining supporting performances of his career.
1. Ralph Fiennes in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire (2005)
Casting the luminous Ralph Fiennes as Lord Voldemort was one of the best decisions the Harry Potter filmmakers ever made. If someone else had assumed this role, someone less capable of conveying the character's preternatural malice and dark command, then the fourth film would have failed. It is this climactic scene where Harry Potter confronts Voldemort in human form for the first time that makes the film so compelling. Ralph Fiennes has less than ten minutes of screen time, but his full-forced immersion into the role of Lord Voldemort was worthy of an Academy Award nomination. Every aspect of his performance, his rangy, idiosyncratic movement, the dominant inflections of his eyes, is beautifully and frighteningly pronounced.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)