SUCKERPUNCH
(2011, "directed" by Zack Snyder)
GEEK / NOT GEEK
It's kind of difficult to comment on the movie, without just writing, "Terrible," and clicking the submit button. To write a good comment, one must write WHY it is terrible... but where to begin? If someone came into your home, and took a shit in the middle of your living room, would you need to explain in a calm manner, three reasons why the person was wrong for doing such a deed? No. You'd toss them by their ear out onto the street, left with the unenviable task of having to clean up. Perhaps you'd even call the police.
If, on the other hand, you spent $50 million (or whatever the budget was; it was too high, in any event) to have someone take a CGI dump in your living room... is that any better? There are three actors in this movie, and only three: Scott Glenn, Jena Malone, and Carla Gugino. Four, if you count Jon Hamm, but he's not in the movie long enough to matter. There are these three, and everything else is there to talk until it's time for another special effect. Jena Malone isn't even required to do any of these things (i.e. act), but because she has actual experience as an actress, bothered to create a character and reflect an emotional state during the 'story.' Everyone else just showed up, put on the costumes, and talked until the director said 'cut.' Vanessa Hudgens should have been a clue.
Even if the story is awful, unmemorable, or predictable (Suckerpunch is all three), other Hollywood movies may rely on memorable action sequences or visuals. In a movie roughly 100 minutes long, these action sequences take up roughly five minutes of screen time. Then Snyder detonates an explosive in New York. Again.
It's not so much that Zack Snyder hates audiences, it's just that he's incredibly naive, like a 12-year-old suddenly given the keys to his dads liquor cabinet. He wants you to like a character, he makes them female and puts them in a low-cut top. He wants you to hate a character, he makes that character a rapist or molester of children. He does this again and again; these appear in every movie he's ever made, save for his first (and best) film, Dawn of the Dead, which was written by someone else entirely. Someone who understands subtlety and character development. Realize, too, that I'm saying this about a movie where a smarmy rich dude accidentally chainsaws his most recent sexual partner.
Whatever fancy visuals made it to the trailer for Suckerpunch, the movie is this: Zack Snyder wrote a script with his camera-man, and it is neither funny nor exciting. It's a 100-minute demo reel, and considering this is his fifth movie, he really should have actually created something with weight, by this point.
I went in with low expectations (especially after his shitty cover version of Watchmen and a movie about CGI owls that was so bad, even the trailer couldn't give it life), expecting that even if the movie rose slightly above these expectations, I'd have something to show for it. I paid half-price for a matinee, and not only do I feel ripped off, I feel physically violated.
I'm not going to call the police, but I am going to be mad for a week, because even though I've cleaned my floor, the smell lingers on. 3/10.
Friday, March 25, 2011
Saturday, March 19, 2011
I Will Not Apologize for Disliking Halo
NOT GEEK
I suck at video games. I used to be good-- when the NES was still a thing-- but then I got distracted for a few years by college and girls and learning to drive. Also beer. Suddenly I pick up a controller again and I'm supposed to know complex military tactics. Fuck you. THAT'S why I have Uno and Pac-Man on my XBox.
GEEK
The XBox has been in my apartment about two years, and the games I have enjoyed most, INITIALLY (I stress that point), are....
1) Wet
2) Borderlands
3) Left 4 Dead (both)
I am aware-- Anyone who knows anything about games, knows that "Wet" sucks. A hardcore gamer here in town told me it reminded him of John Woo's "Stranglehold," which I then checked out just to see if the comparison was apt. Strangehold came out when I was still working at Borders (so 2004-5 roughly), and by 2010 standards, it was pretty crap. Your character hit more targets only if you were jumping through the air in slow-motion. That got repetitive and boring after five minutes. I quit the game after ten and sent it back. "Wet" was exactly like this, except you could also run up walls and do flips. That only took about 10-15 hours to tire of, or maybe I kept expecting boobs.
Borderlands was spectacular, with a levelling system, and a crazy variety of guns that actually forced you to think about what you were going to keep vs. drop. I played it for like a month straight, then I went back to start again with a second character, since you're given four to choose from. The second time through, it felt boring and frustrating, because I'd already beaten all those levels, and it took so long to level up. So.... I went back to my original character. Soon after, I don't know if the game got too hard, or if it reached the upper limits of my skill, but I had to quit. Still, really, really fun up until that point.
I don't play Halo, because going online, it's even harder to find a good game than it would be on a PC. I've beaten 1 & 2, but Halo seems to be more about the culture than the individual gameplay. It's all about going online and playing versus other people in an arena mode, and I spent college doing that with Counterstrike (which had a superior vs-mode, because it contained actual objectives, not just 'kill or be killed'). Halo online is just point and blast. It reminds me of Quake. Which was also repetitive and dull.
Left 4 Dead is more co-op, which I appreciate. The game's AI decides whether or not you're getting a grenade here or more ammo there, so after over a year I haven't tired of it.
The gaming industry is more interested in safely making lots of money, than being innovative or creating something interesting, but ultimately they'll have to listen to the geeks-- not the accountants-- if they want to remain successful. For every big, stupid, shallow money-maker like the "Bayformers" movies, it's always something with actual thought put into it, that drives the genre forward and spawns new creative ideas for both the artists, and the consumers, to enjoy.
I'm not going to claim "Iron Man" or "Batman Begins" were great intellectual achievements, but in the case of the latter, literally no one previous had ever had the balls to take the comic book genre so dead seriously, and make a movie as dark as they could. It worked. Because it's all about taking risks.
"Call of Duty Five: Modern Warfare Seven: This Time With Grenades 3" is not taking a fucking risk.
There's a reason Pac-Man single-handedly spawned this industry in the first place. And to do so, it didn't need an online option to let your friends play as ghosts.
I suck at video games. I used to be good-- when the NES was still a thing-- but then I got distracted for a few years by college and girls and learning to drive. Also beer. Suddenly I pick up a controller again and I'm supposed to know complex military tactics. Fuck you. THAT'S why I have Uno and Pac-Man on my XBox.
GEEK
The XBox has been in my apartment about two years, and the games I have enjoyed most, INITIALLY (I stress that point), are....
1) Wet
2) Borderlands
3) Left 4 Dead (both)
I am aware-- Anyone who knows anything about games, knows that "Wet" sucks. A hardcore gamer here in town told me it reminded him of John Woo's "Stranglehold," which I then checked out just to see if the comparison was apt. Strangehold came out when I was still working at Borders (so 2004-5 roughly), and by 2010 standards, it was pretty crap. Your character hit more targets only if you were jumping through the air in slow-motion. That got repetitive and boring after five minutes. I quit the game after ten and sent it back. "Wet" was exactly like this, except you could also run up walls and do flips. That only took about 10-15 hours to tire of, or maybe I kept expecting boobs.
Borderlands was spectacular, with a levelling system, and a crazy variety of guns that actually forced you to think about what you were going to keep vs. drop. I played it for like a month straight, then I went back to start again with a second character, since you're given four to choose from. The second time through, it felt boring and frustrating, because I'd already beaten all those levels, and it took so long to level up. So.... I went back to my original character. Soon after, I don't know if the game got too hard, or if it reached the upper limits of my skill, but I had to quit. Still, really, really fun up until that point.
I don't play Halo, because going online, it's even harder to find a good game than it would be on a PC. I've beaten 1 & 2, but Halo seems to be more about the culture than the individual gameplay. It's all about going online and playing versus other people in an arena mode, and I spent college doing that with Counterstrike (which had a superior vs-mode, because it contained actual objectives, not just 'kill or be killed'). Halo online is just point and blast. It reminds me of Quake. Which was also repetitive and dull.
Left 4 Dead is more co-op, which I appreciate. The game's AI decides whether or not you're getting a grenade here or more ammo there, so after over a year I haven't tired of it.
The gaming industry is more interested in safely making lots of money, than being innovative or creating something interesting, but ultimately they'll have to listen to the geeks-- not the accountants-- if they want to remain successful. For every big, stupid, shallow money-maker like the "Bayformers" movies, it's always something with actual thought put into it, that drives the genre forward and spawns new creative ideas for both the artists, and the consumers, to enjoy.
I'm not going to claim "Iron Man" or "Batman Begins" were great intellectual achievements, but in the case of the latter, literally no one previous had ever had the balls to take the comic book genre so dead seriously, and make a movie as dark as they could. It worked. Because it's all about taking risks.
"Call of Duty Five: Modern Warfare Seven: This Time With Grenades 3" is not taking a fucking risk.
There's a reason Pac-Man single-handedly spawned this industry in the first place. And to do so, it didn't need an online option to let your friends play as ghosts.
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Furiouser and Furiouser
#ff - Go read the blog known only as SHAN! SHAN! SHAN! I have been totally one-upped this week by one of my friends getting to a Kurosawa movie before me, and I take full responsibility. I have no excuse other than I am a fat, lazy American.
(who's the sex machine that gets all the chicks? SHAN! then I can dig it).
I've seen a handful of Kurosawa movies, the best of which was "Rashomon" which I recommend to everybody. It's a familiar concept (one story told from four perspectives) and while in 2011 you might think it's played out.... KUROSAWA INVENTED IT. I've only ever had, like, three movies that put my jaw on the floor, and this was one of them.
So as long as we're talking about cinematic masterpieces that will span generations and have redefined all cinema that would follow it...........
FAST AND FURIOUS
(2009, dir. Justin Lin)
NOT GEEK
I saw the first one when it came out, because as hard as you may find it to believe, there was a time when Vin Diesel was not a punchline. To his credit, he's managed to ride that one-note concept for near-on a decade now, without slipping into self-parody (sup, Chuck Norris. sup, Ben Affleck. Sup, Kevin Costner. Sup, Russell Crowe).
No interest in the second two (part 2: Paul Walker sucks. part 3: Lucas Black sucks more), but the fourth one got good reviews and Netflix essentially makes them free, so I figured, what the hell.
The opening action sequence is not only exciting, it makes sense and is not ruined by ShakyCam. The last two seconds of it are enough to either chase you out of the room, or make you reach for the popcorn. If you like popcorn, read on...
It's a five-act structure, and the cast of characters are all given their moments, even characters who haven't been around since the first movie. The acting is good (except for Paul Walker). I'm not claiming Vin Diesel is a great actor, but in this movie he plays only to his strengths, meaning he (a) doesn't say much, and (b) constantly looks ready to do violence. It works for him. Meanwhile, Paul Walker in a suit looks like a penguin in a sarong.
In a bad action movie, shit happens for no reason, we don't care about the characters enough to remember their names, the explosions take place for no other reason than because nothing has blown up in a while, and there is One Good Guy, and One Bad Guy. Here, suddenly, none of that is true. It's an 8/10 easily, unless you just hate Vin Diesel on general principal, in which case there's always The Rock.
GEEK
Fuck.
Putting aside the fact, for a moment, that Justin Lin directed the third movie, let us also remember that he directed three episodes of "Community," including the 'Modern Warfare' episode. It was because of that and that alone I saw "Fast and Furious." The man knows his shit. He has one indie hit ("Better Luck Tomorrow") and two shitty studio movies where I'm sure he had little creative control, but then with this and the television, here he emerges, capable of doing talking scenes and action scenes with equal flair.
The movie was written by Chris Morgan, who wrote the third movie, sure, but also wrote "Wanted." Over the top, I know, but other than that bullshit about the Loom, everything was just fun ridiculousness.
Even from a geek standpoint, this film has no right to be good, but it is. The action is satisfying, the dialogue isn't retarded, the film is purdy to look at.
My lone complaint (other than Paul "I'd Much Rather Be Smoking Weed on a Beach" Walker): It's PG-13.
Ordinarily I don't care WHAT the rating is, but this is one of several movies in the last few years where the rating felt like a lie.
There's a sequence in the first third of the movie, where both O'Connor (Walker) and Torretto (Diesel) have to "Try out" for a drug runner, given a GPS map and a finish line and told the first person across that line gets the job. Four contestants start the race.
And the race starts off, and it's exciting and you are shown that each of the four is competent, and why they are worthy of being considered. And then I remember thinking, "This shit is so fucking dangerous. This only makes sense if at least one of these guys dies, to show the audience that shit is serious."
Then one of the cars is T-boned by a minivan.
I say "cars" because that's what happens. We see the driver look surprised, then we see one car hit another car, then the scene cuts back to the race. The accident is never shown or talked about again.
This is ridiculous. If you're showing an illegal race IN TRAFFIC, and one of your racers crashes, if you don't show his broken, bleeding body hanging out the window, then you are being dishonest, and you're cheating the audience. You are editing out Life so you can get a PG-13 rating, and thus (so they say) sell more tickets, all of them to males ages 13-17. Who now see illegal street racing without consequences.
I'm not trying to be conservative about this, I'm just saying that I'm a fucking adult, and if cars are going to speed at 80 miles an hour through busy LA streets, and if there's a crash, I want severed limbs and fireballs. I don't want a dented fender and a quick cutaway just because the producers want to sell tickets to a kid who was three years old when the first movie came out.
Some of the CG is questionable, this movie needed more nekkid women in it. I was entertained enough that I did not feel the need to shout out at the television. The story kept moving, there was more than just One Good Guy and One Bad Guy. I can recommend this. Even the ending left it open to another movie...
.... another movie that comes out next month.
With the Rock.
Vin Diesel vs. The Rock.
Fuck you, Hollywood.
Take my money.
(who's the sex machine that gets all the chicks? SHAN! then I can dig it).
I've seen a handful of Kurosawa movies, the best of which was "Rashomon" which I recommend to everybody. It's a familiar concept (one story told from four perspectives) and while in 2011 you might think it's played out.... KUROSAWA INVENTED IT. I've only ever had, like, three movies that put my jaw on the floor, and this was one of them.
So as long as we're talking about cinematic masterpieces that will span generations and have redefined all cinema that would follow it...........
FAST AND FURIOUS
(2009, dir. Justin Lin)
NOT GEEK
I saw the first one when it came out, because as hard as you may find it to believe, there was a time when Vin Diesel was not a punchline. To his credit, he's managed to ride that one-note concept for near-on a decade now, without slipping into self-parody (sup, Chuck Norris. sup, Ben Affleck. Sup, Kevin Costner. Sup, Russell Crowe).
No interest in the second two (part 2: Paul Walker sucks. part 3: Lucas Black sucks more), but the fourth one got good reviews and Netflix essentially makes them free, so I figured, what the hell.
The opening action sequence is not only exciting, it makes sense and is not ruined by ShakyCam. The last two seconds of it are enough to either chase you out of the room, or make you reach for the popcorn. If you like popcorn, read on...
It's a five-act structure, and the cast of characters are all given their moments, even characters who haven't been around since the first movie. The acting is good (except for Paul Walker). I'm not claiming Vin Diesel is a great actor, but in this movie he plays only to his strengths, meaning he (a) doesn't say much, and (b) constantly looks ready to do violence. It works for him. Meanwhile, Paul Walker in a suit looks like a penguin in a sarong.
In a bad action movie, shit happens for no reason, we don't care about the characters enough to remember their names, the explosions take place for no other reason than because nothing has blown up in a while, and there is One Good Guy, and One Bad Guy. Here, suddenly, none of that is true. It's an 8/10 easily, unless you just hate Vin Diesel on general principal, in which case there's always The Rock.
GEEK
Fuck.
Putting aside the fact, for a moment, that Justin Lin directed the third movie, let us also remember that he directed three episodes of "Community," including the 'Modern Warfare' episode. It was because of that and that alone I saw "Fast and Furious." The man knows his shit. He has one indie hit ("Better Luck Tomorrow") and two shitty studio movies where I'm sure he had little creative control, but then with this and the television, here he emerges, capable of doing talking scenes and action scenes with equal flair.
The movie was written by Chris Morgan, who wrote the third movie, sure, but also wrote "Wanted." Over the top, I know, but other than that bullshit about the Loom, everything was just fun ridiculousness.
Even from a geek standpoint, this film has no right to be good, but it is. The action is satisfying, the dialogue isn't retarded, the film is purdy to look at.
My lone complaint (other than Paul "I'd Much Rather Be Smoking Weed on a Beach" Walker): It's PG-13.
Ordinarily I don't care WHAT the rating is, but this is one of several movies in the last few years where the rating felt like a lie.
There's a sequence in the first third of the movie, where both O'Connor (Walker) and Torretto (Diesel) have to "Try out" for a drug runner, given a GPS map and a finish line and told the first person across that line gets the job. Four contestants start the race.
And the race starts off, and it's exciting and you are shown that each of the four is competent, and why they are worthy of being considered. And then I remember thinking, "This shit is so fucking dangerous. This only makes sense if at least one of these guys dies, to show the audience that shit is serious."
Then one of the cars is T-boned by a minivan.
I say "cars" because that's what happens. We see the driver look surprised, then we see one car hit another car, then the scene cuts back to the race. The accident is never shown or talked about again.
This is ridiculous. If you're showing an illegal race IN TRAFFIC, and one of your racers crashes, if you don't show his broken, bleeding body hanging out the window, then you are being dishonest, and you're cheating the audience. You are editing out Life so you can get a PG-13 rating, and thus (so they say) sell more tickets, all of them to males ages 13-17. Who now see illegal street racing without consequences.
I'm not trying to be conservative about this, I'm just saying that I'm a fucking adult, and if cars are going to speed at 80 miles an hour through busy LA streets, and if there's a crash, I want severed limbs and fireballs. I don't want a dented fender and a quick cutaway just because the producers want to sell tickets to a kid who was three years old when the first movie came out.
Some of the CG is questionable, this movie needed more nekkid women in it. I was entertained enough that I did not feel the need to shout out at the television. The story kept moving, there was more than just One Good Guy and One Bad Guy. I can recommend this. Even the ending left it open to another movie...
.... another movie that comes out next month.
With the Rock.
Vin Diesel vs. The Rock.
Fuck you, Hollywood.
Take my money.
Thursday, March 3, 2011
I'll be right back, I've gotta go Dwayne The Rock Johnson
Faster (2010, d. George Tillman, Jr).
NOT GEEK
This was marketed as an action movie last December. It's isn't one. I can't tell if that was accidental or not: I can see where action scenes are SUPPOSED to take place, but then none do. The lead character, named Driver (Dwayne Johnson), will walk into a room, shoot a person, and then walk out. Occasionally he meets resistance, and in that case we get several bullets instead of just one.
What I cannot figure out was, are such sequences (a) attempted action sequences, just done really horrifically badly, or (b) not supposed to be action sequences at all, but rather emotionally tense dramatic moments?
If it's (a) then the director should cash his paycheck quickly, go home, and never embarrass himself again. If it's (b) then this was a spectacularly bad decision, again on the part of the director, because the characters aren't interesting or deep enough to invest in emotionally. Without emotional investment, there can be no drama. Only shit blowing up.
The story is interesting enough (Driver gets out of prison, after ten years... we find out in short order he has nothing else on his mind than killing the people who, ten years before, had killed his brother right in front of him). Actual thought WAS put into how things would be revealed and when.
But not any into the execution.
GEEK
"Faster" was directed by George Tillman Jr., director of the critically acclaimed but dramatically generic "Men of Honor," which starred Cuba Gooding Jr. when he was still getting work. More interestingly, it was written by Tony Gayton and his brother Joe, the former of which wrote "The Salton Sea" starring Val Kilmer (before he was fat) and "Murder by Numbers" starring Sandra Bullock (before she won an Oscar). Both of those films are spectacularly written and featuring compelling stories and characters. The latter was marketed poorly when it first came out. The former wasn't marketed at all.
There's not a large percentage people who will say, "I want to see that movie because of the screenwriter," but that, I suppose, is what makes me a geek. I waited patiently for the DVD, because "Faster" didn't seem like it would be worth a full-priced movie ticket... and it wasn't. But it was an interesting failure nonetheless.
George Tilliman Jr. isn't a particularly good director, but he was a last minute replacement for Phil Joanou (who is a decent director of actors, but every film he's ever made feels like it's four hours long). He wanted to direct something more mainstream, I guess, and he did. He failed and probably won't get much more film work, but failed film directors get TV work all the time.
Carla Gugino is in the movie, one of the two cops on Driver's trail (the other is Billy Bob Thornton). She was a last-minute replacement for Salma Hayek. As this isn't a soap opera, Carla Gugino was the better choice, but ultimately it doesn't matter either way. That characters role isn't given much to do. None of the characters are given much to do, at all, except Driver.
.
.
.
This is why the "Five-Star" system on Netflix doesn't work: because two stars is "didn't like it" and three stars is "liked it." In this case, for me anyway, neither is accurate. I found the movie engaging enough, and unfolding at a fast enough pace, to remain interesting, but I cannot recommend it to anyone. The action is non-existent, but the drama is the shallow sort usually reserved for action movies. There's no reason for this movie to exist.
Skip it.
NOT GEEK
This was marketed as an action movie last December. It's isn't one. I can't tell if that was accidental or not: I can see where action scenes are SUPPOSED to take place, but then none do. The lead character, named Driver (Dwayne Johnson), will walk into a room, shoot a person, and then walk out. Occasionally he meets resistance, and in that case we get several bullets instead of just one.
What I cannot figure out was, are such sequences (a) attempted action sequences, just done really horrifically badly, or (b) not supposed to be action sequences at all, but rather emotionally tense dramatic moments?
If it's (a) then the director should cash his paycheck quickly, go home, and never embarrass himself again. If it's (b) then this was a spectacularly bad decision, again on the part of the director, because the characters aren't interesting or deep enough to invest in emotionally. Without emotional investment, there can be no drama. Only shit blowing up.
The story is interesting enough (Driver gets out of prison, after ten years... we find out in short order he has nothing else on his mind than killing the people who, ten years before, had killed his brother right in front of him). Actual thought WAS put into how things would be revealed and when.
But not any into the execution.
GEEK
"Faster" was directed by George Tillman Jr., director of the critically acclaimed but dramatically generic "Men of Honor," which starred Cuba Gooding Jr. when he was still getting work. More interestingly, it was written by Tony Gayton and his brother Joe, the former of which wrote "The Salton Sea" starring Val Kilmer (before he was fat) and "Murder by Numbers" starring Sandra Bullock (before she won an Oscar). Both of those films are spectacularly written and featuring compelling stories and characters. The latter was marketed poorly when it first came out. The former wasn't marketed at all.
There's not a large percentage people who will say, "I want to see that movie because of the screenwriter," but that, I suppose, is what makes me a geek. I waited patiently for the DVD, because "Faster" didn't seem like it would be worth a full-priced movie ticket... and it wasn't. But it was an interesting failure nonetheless.
George Tilliman Jr. isn't a particularly good director, but he was a last minute replacement for Phil Joanou (who is a decent director of actors, but every film he's ever made feels like it's four hours long). He wanted to direct something more mainstream, I guess, and he did. He failed and probably won't get much more film work, but failed film directors get TV work all the time.
Carla Gugino is in the movie, one of the two cops on Driver's trail (the other is Billy Bob Thornton). She was a last-minute replacement for Salma Hayek. As this isn't a soap opera, Carla Gugino was the better choice, but ultimately it doesn't matter either way. That characters role isn't given much to do. None of the characters are given much to do, at all, except Driver.
.
.
.
This is why the "Five-Star" system on Netflix doesn't work: because two stars is "didn't like it" and three stars is "liked it." In this case, for me anyway, neither is accurate. I found the movie engaging enough, and unfolding at a fast enough pace, to remain interesting, but I cannot recommend it to anyone. The action is non-existent, but the drama is the shallow sort usually reserved for action movies. There's no reason for this movie to exist.
Skip it.
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Blah Blah Oscars Blah
As a cultural milestone, the Oscars aren't really all that important; sure, we can forever look up who won what in a given year; but the ceremonies themselves are generally forgotten unless something really amazing happens, like a streaker, or a really great one-liner ("You like me, you really like me."). So even though last weekends Oscars are fresh in our minds, the ceremony itself wasn't all that important. Presenters, hosts, all were picked for business reasons, to raise their visibility in a ceremony that, in theory anyway, should be free of outside influence (at least as far as who wins).
NOT GEEK
I was bored, by and large. Anne Hathaway is multi-talented... attractive, yes, which doesn't hurt your chances of being a movie star, but at any given moment she looked poised, comfortable, and energetic. James Franco looked like he'd just been hanging out with Charlie Sheen.
Unlike Neil Patrick Harris, who had a much-deserved career renaissance in the last few years, James Franco's career arrived and died between 1999 and 2002. By the time "Spider-Man 2" came out, his career was over. But kudos to him, Harvard student that he is... he worked hard, applied himself, picked some wise projects, got his name back into the public spotlight, and used his most endearing quality-- weirdness-- to climb back into the public perception. For Round One, it was "let's make him a heart-throb." That didn't work, so now he's something else. And, it should be noted, he IS a talented actor... just not a charismatic one. Which is why he shouldn't host awards shows.
What else can any non-geek say about the evening? It was long, the speeches ranged from boring to okay, with nothing to write home about (except for the one bleep), studio execs and agents got their "products" in front of a camera for a night. Was "The King's Speech" the best movie of the year? It was really, really good.... nothing except it, The Social Network, or Black Swan really had a chance. I didn't see "Winter's Bone." No one did. No one saw "The Shawshank Redemption" in 1994, either. History tends to repeat itself.
GEEK
The most common complain the next day was, "The Social Network got ROBBED!"
Look.
There are ten nominees for best picture, for the second year in a row. We're still feeling the after-effects of the writers strike, because it was two years ago and it takes two years to make a movie. 2009 and 2010 were thin years, cinematically speaking. So you get certain movies that, while good, certainly aren't deserving of a best picture nominee (I actually did watch "The Kids Are All Right," and I stand by my statement). Good movies, but not ones that have a chance of winning. "Winter's Bone" was this years "Precious" in the sense that it was an extremely good film, and well made, but it lacked that... something, that grandiosity, that .... commercial appeal... that will win you the award. Worth watching. But not the "It" movie.
So amongst those left-- The King's Speech, Black Swan, The Social Network, 127 Hours, and I guess even Inception... you have four movies made for the younger demographic, or rather, the same demographic that Hollywood has been making movies for, and only for, since the mid 1980s. And a fifth, The King's Speech, which your grandmother would go see, and enjoy. Also your parents. I enjoyed it, too. Nothing exploded and no one got shot, but it was still a quality film. Beautiful to look at, beautifully acted, and a lovely time at the movies.
So if you're young and hip, you voted for one of the other four, or maybe the fifth. Your vote is spread out five ways.
If you're old and traditional, you vote for The King's Speech.
Which is how we got a winner.
But to be fair, the other films were not perfect. "The Social Network" had an overabundance of CGI and too little attention paid to the performances, specifically Andrew Garfield, who is generic in every way, and Justin Timberlake, of whom the audience is always quite aware, throughout the movie, "Hey, that's Justin Timberlake."
"Black Swan" had a powerful, jaw-dropping performance at its center, but was a bit fuzzy around the edges. The conceit of re-telling the ballet "Swan Lake" was clever, but outside of that, it wasn't much different from "The Wrestler." It was an old story, re-told in a brilliant way, but you'll notice the last couple years the Academy is choosing uplifting movies for Best Picture, especially post-Obama. Black Swan is an actress' dream job, but the movie itself is a bigger picture, and a fuzzier one.
Same with "127 Hours."
The ACTUAL best movies of the year, and it's been true for as long as I can remember-- instead of looking at the Best Picture winner, look to the winners of Best Original Screenplay, and Best Adapted Screenplay. THOSE are the actual best movies of the year. Those are the best stories, the most wonderfully realized, the most fun movies to watch.
Best Picture is something entirely different. Everything must come together: EVERYTHING. Not just the plot, but the dialogue to tell it. The actors realization of the characters. The lighting, the costumes, the shot selection, the blocking of the actors. Music. Locations. Truly everything.
And I can't think of anyone who cares about all that stuff. *I* don't. I'm a film geek, and I'm watching the cinematography and the costumes and the lighting and the makeup, but... what makes one better than the other? No idea. I don't do their jobs.
But Hollywood people do.
"The Social Network" did not win, in part because of what I said before, but also because David Fincher cannot direct actors. He's part of the new and current school of filmmakers, who are brilliant with effects and shot composition, but have no idea what to do with actors, how to get a good performance out of them, or where to have them stand or move. Was the movie nominated for acting awards? Yes. It's Aaron Sorkin writing the dialogue, and if you can't act, you won't survive the first sixty seconds. So you hire an actor and let them say the lines. Which is what happens in the movie. And then Andrew Garfield looks confused, Jesse Eisenberg looks cranky, Armie Hammer looks angry, and Rooney Mara cries. Cut, print, how did the lighting look?
I don't say all that in ignorance: I'm perfectly aware that the opening scene, where Zuckerberg breaks up with his girlfriend, required 98 or 99 takes. At that point, I am convinced, it is NOT about the performance. It's about the placement of the actors, who moves his or her head when, what is happening in the background. By take 15, the performance is rote. There is nothing new to learn. You don't get to take 99 unless you're micro-managing, or are looking at other things.
But I digress. I fucking loved the movie and I fucking loved all the Best Picture nominees that I saw (7 out of 10, with Winter's Bone still to be crossed off the list... probably The Fighter, too).
Just I see all these rants the next day, every year, going "(blah) got robbed!!"
I've been watching the Oscars a long time, and even when something goes wrong (which happens less often then the pop culture would lead you to believe), there's a reason for it.
In 1995, Best Supporting Actor went to Kevin Spacey for "The Usual Suspects." I maintain then, as I do now, that he won the award because of some perceived masterwork he did in hiding his true identity from the audience. In all reality, he was just saying the lines, and the secret being hidden is due in no small part to the talent of the director and screenwriter, not Spacey. And his career since then will back me up on that. Meanwhile, Brad Pitt was nominated for "12 Monkeys," was brilliant in it, but lost because he was perceived as a generic pretty-boy, and also no one saw his movie. "The Usual Suspects" was more popular, and seen by more Academy members than "12 Monkeys," so that was that.
In 2001, "A Beautiful Mind" won Best Picture, despite being (1) not Ron Howards best movie, and (2) not a very good movie anyway. It did not follow its own internal logic, and the screenwriter stole everything that was 'clever' about it from other genres. The screenwriter who, by the way, also wrote "Batman and Robin." This is not a talented man. Just one with friends in the business.
The point? No, the Best So-and-So doesn't always win, but there's never NOT a reason for it. Ron Howard won because he'd been making brilliant movies for over a decade; Kevin Spacey won because his movie was damn good, and he was given more to do than Gabriel Byrne.
But no one remembers that. They remember who won, and if the movie was good or not.
So in a year, or more likely, in a week, we'll have forgotten everything about that rushed, over-produced, over-long show. But the facts are these: "The Social Network" was the best story adapted from another medium, "The King's Speech" was the best original story. I loved them both. You probably did, too.
Or, y'know, if you didn't, then there's always "Drive Angry 3-D." Shit blows up, and there's nekkid women in it.
We are officially OUT of awards season. And there's something for everybody here.
NOT GEEK
I was bored, by and large. Anne Hathaway is multi-talented... attractive, yes, which doesn't hurt your chances of being a movie star, but at any given moment she looked poised, comfortable, and energetic. James Franco looked like he'd just been hanging out with Charlie Sheen.
Unlike Neil Patrick Harris, who had a much-deserved career renaissance in the last few years, James Franco's career arrived and died between 1999 and 2002. By the time "Spider-Man 2" came out, his career was over. But kudos to him, Harvard student that he is... he worked hard, applied himself, picked some wise projects, got his name back into the public spotlight, and used his most endearing quality-- weirdness-- to climb back into the public perception. For Round One, it was "let's make him a heart-throb." That didn't work, so now he's something else. And, it should be noted, he IS a talented actor... just not a charismatic one. Which is why he shouldn't host awards shows.
What else can any non-geek say about the evening? It was long, the speeches ranged from boring to okay, with nothing to write home about (except for the one bleep), studio execs and agents got their "products" in front of a camera for a night. Was "The King's Speech" the best movie of the year? It was really, really good.... nothing except it, The Social Network, or Black Swan really had a chance. I didn't see "Winter's Bone." No one did. No one saw "The Shawshank Redemption" in 1994, either. History tends to repeat itself.
GEEK
The most common complain the next day was, "The Social Network got ROBBED!"
Look.
There are ten nominees for best picture, for the second year in a row. We're still feeling the after-effects of the writers strike, because it was two years ago and it takes two years to make a movie. 2009 and 2010 were thin years, cinematically speaking. So you get certain movies that, while good, certainly aren't deserving of a best picture nominee (I actually did watch "The Kids Are All Right," and I stand by my statement). Good movies, but not ones that have a chance of winning. "Winter's Bone" was this years "Precious" in the sense that it was an extremely good film, and well made, but it lacked that... something, that grandiosity, that .... commercial appeal... that will win you the award. Worth watching. But not the "It" movie.
So amongst those left-- The King's Speech, Black Swan, The Social Network, 127 Hours, and I guess even Inception... you have four movies made for the younger demographic, or rather, the same demographic that Hollywood has been making movies for, and only for, since the mid 1980s. And a fifth, The King's Speech, which your grandmother would go see, and enjoy. Also your parents. I enjoyed it, too. Nothing exploded and no one got shot, but it was still a quality film. Beautiful to look at, beautifully acted, and a lovely time at the movies.
So if you're young and hip, you voted for one of the other four, or maybe the fifth. Your vote is spread out five ways.
If you're old and traditional, you vote for The King's Speech.
Which is how we got a winner.
But to be fair, the other films were not perfect. "The Social Network" had an overabundance of CGI and too little attention paid to the performances, specifically Andrew Garfield, who is generic in every way, and Justin Timberlake, of whom the audience is always quite aware, throughout the movie, "Hey, that's Justin Timberlake."
"Black Swan" had a powerful, jaw-dropping performance at its center, but was a bit fuzzy around the edges. The conceit of re-telling the ballet "Swan Lake" was clever, but outside of that, it wasn't much different from "The Wrestler." It was an old story, re-told in a brilliant way, but you'll notice the last couple years the Academy is choosing uplifting movies for Best Picture, especially post-Obama. Black Swan is an actress' dream job, but the movie itself is a bigger picture, and a fuzzier one.
Same with "127 Hours."
The ACTUAL best movies of the year, and it's been true for as long as I can remember-- instead of looking at the Best Picture winner, look to the winners of Best Original Screenplay, and Best Adapted Screenplay. THOSE are the actual best movies of the year. Those are the best stories, the most wonderfully realized, the most fun movies to watch.
Best Picture is something entirely different. Everything must come together: EVERYTHING. Not just the plot, but the dialogue to tell it. The actors realization of the characters. The lighting, the costumes, the shot selection, the blocking of the actors. Music. Locations. Truly everything.
And I can't think of anyone who cares about all that stuff. *I* don't. I'm a film geek, and I'm watching the cinematography and the costumes and the lighting and the makeup, but... what makes one better than the other? No idea. I don't do their jobs.
But Hollywood people do.
"The Social Network" did not win, in part because of what I said before, but also because David Fincher cannot direct actors. He's part of the new and current school of filmmakers, who are brilliant with effects and shot composition, but have no idea what to do with actors, how to get a good performance out of them, or where to have them stand or move. Was the movie nominated for acting awards? Yes. It's Aaron Sorkin writing the dialogue, and if you can't act, you won't survive the first sixty seconds. So you hire an actor and let them say the lines. Which is what happens in the movie. And then Andrew Garfield looks confused, Jesse Eisenberg looks cranky, Armie Hammer looks angry, and Rooney Mara cries. Cut, print, how did the lighting look?
I don't say all that in ignorance: I'm perfectly aware that the opening scene, where Zuckerberg breaks up with his girlfriend, required 98 or 99 takes. At that point, I am convinced, it is NOT about the performance. It's about the placement of the actors, who moves his or her head when, what is happening in the background. By take 15, the performance is rote. There is nothing new to learn. You don't get to take 99 unless you're micro-managing, or are looking at other things.
But I digress. I fucking loved the movie and I fucking loved all the Best Picture nominees that I saw (7 out of 10, with Winter's Bone still to be crossed off the list... probably The Fighter, too).
Just I see all these rants the next day, every year, going "(blah) got robbed!!"
I've been watching the Oscars a long time, and even when something goes wrong (which happens less often then the pop culture would lead you to believe), there's a reason for it.
In 1995, Best Supporting Actor went to Kevin Spacey for "The Usual Suspects." I maintain then, as I do now, that he won the award because of some perceived masterwork he did in hiding his true identity from the audience. In all reality, he was just saying the lines, and the secret being hidden is due in no small part to the talent of the director and screenwriter, not Spacey. And his career since then will back me up on that. Meanwhile, Brad Pitt was nominated for "12 Monkeys," was brilliant in it, but lost because he was perceived as a generic pretty-boy, and also no one saw his movie. "The Usual Suspects" was more popular, and seen by more Academy members than "12 Monkeys," so that was that.
In 2001, "A Beautiful Mind" won Best Picture, despite being (1) not Ron Howards best movie, and (2) not a very good movie anyway. It did not follow its own internal logic, and the screenwriter stole everything that was 'clever' about it from other genres. The screenwriter who, by the way, also wrote "Batman and Robin." This is not a talented man. Just one with friends in the business.
The point? No, the Best So-and-So doesn't always win, but there's never NOT a reason for it. Ron Howard won because he'd been making brilliant movies for over a decade; Kevin Spacey won because his movie was damn good, and he was given more to do than Gabriel Byrne.
But no one remembers that. They remember who won, and if the movie was good or not.
So in a year, or more likely, in a week, we'll have forgotten everything about that rushed, over-produced, over-long show. But the facts are these: "The Social Network" was the best story adapted from another medium, "The King's Speech" was the best original story. I loved them both. You probably did, too.
Or, y'know, if you didn't, then there's always "Drive Angry 3-D." Shit blows up, and there's nekkid women in it.
We are officially OUT of awards season. And there's something for everybody here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)