Showing posts with label Hollywood politics. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hollywood politics. Show all posts

Friday, March 5, 2010

I Hate The Oscars: Best Director Nods

This man obviously owes nothing to the Jewish Hollywood Elite

Someone take away my keyboard! I can't stop this insanity!

Here's a list of four directors that made movies and a fifth that likes computers!


Lee Daniels, Precious
WHY HE'S NOMINATED: He successfully makes a story of a KFC-spewing AIDS-afflicted teenage mother uplifting.

CRITICAL RESPONSE: Very good. See above.

IHYFM RESPONSE: I'm so ashamed to write, for the fourth time, that I haven't seen it. I'm going to make it my beeswax to see it soon.

WILL HE WIN?: My gut says 'no', but if the votes for the other four nominees get split, Daniels could have a very good evening.


Jason Reitman, Up In The Air
WHY HE'S NOMINATED: His third feature, like the previous two, is intelligently and precisely crafted. It's a very, very well-made movie.

CRITICAL RESPONSE: Excellent. That is, before the backlash saying it was overrated. Also, after the backlash to the backlash that said it was overrated.

IHYFM RESPONSE: I enjoyed it. It's a smart and timely drama that doesn't dumb itself down for the audience (cough, cough, Avatar).

WILL HE WIN?: Possibly, but he'll probably end up as Academy carnage left from the Bigelow-Cameron showdown.


Quentin Tarantino, Inglourious Basterds
WHY HE'S NOMINATED: He made audiences remember Mike Meyers is, on occasion, fun to watch.

CRITICAL RESPONSE: Pretty decent. Not everyone loved it, but it is undeniably well-crafted.

IHYFM RESPONSE: I really liked this movie. It's grown on me quite a bit since initially seeing it, and I love how Tarantino uses the film to ridicule our notion of what a war movie is supposed to be.

WILL HE WIN?: Only if the vote is split between the last two nominees on this list.


Kathryn Bigelow, The Hurt Locker
WHY SHE'S NOMINATED: Contrary to Tarantino's war movie, she directed basically the only Iraq war movie that comes close to capturing the uncertainty and tension of what a day in Baghdad might hold for American soldiers.

CRITICAL RESPONSE: Excellent. It's one hell of a movie.

IHYFM RESPONSE: I've said it more than once around here, but in my humble (and generally correct) opinion, this is undoubtedly one of the best movies of 2009.

WILL SHE WIN?: I certainly hope so.


James Cameron, Avatar
WHY HE'S NOMINATED: Who doesn't love lolcats in space?

CRITICAL RESPONSE: Sadly, really good. Style won over substance for most critics.

IHYFM RESPONSE: One of my friends said it very simply: "I love how much you despise Avatar." Sure, the graphics are good, but so far as the story goes, there's not a whole lot there.

WILL HE WIN?: If he does, it's because of pretty pictures. If he does, the Academy, in my opinion, will put the last nail in its coffin of meaninglessness.


MISSING FROM THE LIST?

- Robert Siegel, Big Fan
- Peter Docter, Up
- Joel and Ethan Coen, A Serious Man

Wednesday, March 3, 2010

I Hate The Oscars: Best Actor Nods

Oscar-winner (really!) Nic Cage as Oscar, via the superlative Nic Cage As Everyone

The Olympics are over! We need something else to watch on Sunday night instead of Al Michaels reminding us he was at Lake Placid in 1980! Why not the Oscars?

What else are you going to do? Watch The Cleveland Show? SHUT UP AND GET READY TO ENJOY THE ACADEMY AWARDS.

Here we go: mostly-familiar faces who were in motion pictures since last February!

Jeff Bridges, Crazy Heart
WHY HE'S NOMINATED: Jeff Bridges lives in the skin of what you'd get if you crossed The Dude with Travis Tritt with grampa during the holidays.

CRITICAL RESPONSE: Pretty good. Critics agreed that even if it's not the most compelling story, Bridges makes it very watchable.

IHYFM RESPONSE: So-so. I saw it a few weeks ago and thought it was okay, although I'd agree Bridges is in top form.

WILL HE WIN?: He's been cleaning up everywhere else, so he's the favorite for Oscar night.


George Clooney, Up In The Air
WHY HE'S NOMINATED: George plays a 'management consultant' that you would have out-and-out despised were he played by anyone else.

CRITICAL RESPONSE: Very good. Every element of the film received high marks from critics, from the screenplay to the directing to the performances of the entire cast.

IHYFM RESPONSE: Very good as well. I thought it was a very intelligently told tale, par for the course from nominated-director Jason Reitman. I thought the core cast, all of whom are curiously nominated for acting awards, were top-notch. I think one of the highest compliments came from comedian and former Simpsons writer Dana Gould on a recent edition of Doug Benson's "I Love Movies" podcast, namely, Up In The Air never treats you like an idiot.

WILL HE WIN?: Unlikely. Bridges is the favorite, and there is more overall steam for The Hurt Locker, which gives an edge to Clooney's competitor Jeremy Renner.


Morgan Freeman, Invictus
WHY HE'S NOMINATED: Not only is he Morgan Freeman, he's playing Nelson Mandela. Even if he was terrible in the movie he would've been nominated.

CRITICAL RESPONSE: Good. Another movie that makes up for its dramatic elements with excellent performances.

IHYFM RESPONSE: Still haven't seen this flick. I realize this puts my ass at a severe risk of being kicked by Clint Eastwood.

WILL HE WIN?: That's a big maybe - don't be surprised if the Academy awards him this statue as a career-recognition award.


Colin Firth, A Single Man
WHY HE'S NOMINATED: The Academy has an unrequited crush left over from Bridget Jones's Diary.

CRITICAL RESPONSE: Pretty good. Firth's performance is said to be stunning.

IHYFM RESPONSE: I haven't seen it - I found the trailer about as compelling as pushing a grandfather clock down a flight of stairs.

WILL HE WIN?: Probably not - the release was too limited for Firth to gain a lot of buzz.


Jeremy Renner, The Hurt Locker
WHY HE'S NOMINATED: He was a great actor in a solid movie.

CRITICAL RESPONSE: Excellent. The Hurt Locker was almost unilaterally referred to as one of the best movies of the year, thanks in part to the work of the cast.

IHYFM RESPONSE: I thought this was among the best movies of 2009, and Renner's performance as an adrenaline junkie that doesn't know when or how to quit, was very compelling.

WILL HE WIN?: For the sake of The Hurt Locker's chances at Best Picture, I really hope so. Logic says this will be Bridges' night, though.


MISSING FROM THE LIST?

- Michael Stuhlbarg, the sucker-punched physicist in A Serious Man
- Ed Asner, the grumpy aviator in Up
- Peter Capaldi, the obscenity-spewing director of communications in the satire In The Loop
- Patton Oswalt, the Giants fanatic in Big Fan
- Matt Damon, the pudgy corn executive in The Informant!
- Sam Rockwell, the lonely astronaut in Moon

Monday, March 1, 2010

I Hate The Oscars: Best Actress Nods

Basically, tragic characters are smiled upon on Oscar night, be they transgender murder victims or paralyzed tomboys.

Can you feel it? That numb tingling in the back of your brain? You're not practicing auto-erotic asphyxiation, you're just getting a bad case of Oscar fever!

Here we go: women who excelled in acting this past year who may or may not be Meryl Streep!


Meryl Streep, Julie & Julia
WHY SHE'S NOMINATED: She's Meryl Streep. It's the Oscars. The two go hand-in-hand, like peas and carrots, burgers and fries, or alcohol and making an ass of yourself.

CRITICAL RESPONSE: Pretty good. It's based on a true story and features strong performances from Streep, Amy Adams, and Stanley Tucci.

IHYFM RESPONSE: I haven't seen it. My parents liked it though.

WILL SHE WIN?: With Gabourey Sidibe in the mix, Streep stands a good chance of an upset but will probably go home empty handed, with nothing but her mountains of other awards and Oscars to comfort her.


Sandra Bullock, The Blind Side
WHY SHE'S NOMINATED: She traveled outside her acting comfort zone, ie, romantic comedies with Hugh Grant, and displayed some chops in a more dramatic role.

CRITICAL RESPONSE: Decent. Yet another true story, the critical community admired Bullock's performance but panned the drama as a little too easy.

IHYFM RESPONSE: Unreviewed. I do like football and brunettes, though, so I guess I'd like it at least a little bit.

WILL SHE WIN?: Unlikely. Precious has a lot more momentum. Bullock winning would be akin to Marissa Tomei's My Cousin Vinny upset.


Carey Mulligan, An Education
WHY SHE'S NOMINATED: She's young and delivered a hell of a performance.

CRITICAL RESPONSE: Excellent, thanks in no small part to Mulligan's acting.

IHYFM RESPONSE: Wait for it... I haven't seen this yet. My buddy saw it on a plane to Europe and thought it was pretty good. He does have a man-crush on Peter Sarsgaard, though (NOTE: that may or may not be true).

WILL SHE WIN?: As a newcomer, she may stand the best overall chance of upsetting the Precious powerhouse.


Helen Mirren, The Last Station
WHY SHE'S NOMINATED: Celebrated actresses playing figures from history usually fare pretty well.

CRITICAL RESPONSE: Very good. Mirren, Christopher Plummer, and Jimmy McAvoy are all supposed to be at their very best on screen.

IHYFM RESPONSE: Why break a perfect streak? I haven't seen this either.

WILL SHE WIN?: Clearly, I don't have much of a frame of reference, but I'm going to say 'nay'.


Gabourey Sidibe, Precious
WHY SHE'S NOMINATED: Who doesn't love watching poverty-stricken girls vomit force-fed KFC?

CRITICAL RESPONSE: Very good. The story is sufficiently depressing and ultimately uplifting, and the cast is, I've heard, good at acting.

IHYFM RESPONSE: I. Still. Have. Not. Seen. This. Movie.

WILL SHE WIN?: For argument's sake, let's just say yes.


MISSING FROM THE LIST?

When I haven't seen one of the performances actually nominated, I feel this section is perhaps a bit moot. I did like Alison Lohman in Drag Me To Hell, but that's not really Academy fare.

Tuesday, February 23, 2010

I Hate The Oscars: Best Supporting Actor Nods

Remember, we live in a world where Joe Pesci has won an Oscar

The ceremony is pompous! People dress up! We act like this really matters!

Here's your rundown of gentlemen who would have been leading men pending one more rewrite.


Matt Damon, Invictus
WHY HE'S NOMINATED: The Academy feels obligated to throw Clint Eastwood some sort of yearly bone lest he gun them all down and drink their blood. I suppose his performance in The Informant! wasn't enough to get Damon a big boy nomination?

CRITICAL RESPONSE: Pretty good. Apparently Morgan Freeman and Matt Damon have the gravitas to carry a movie. Who knew?

IHYFM RESPONSE: I haven't seen this one yet, although I did take an obvious jab at the trailer when I saw it during 2012 (see my notes at the end of the review).

WILL HE WIN?: Is he Christoph Waltz? No? Sorry, Matt.


Woody Harrelson, The Messenger
WHY HE'S NOMINATED: Apparently everyone's favorite zombie-killing bartender displays some serious acting chops in this little-seen drama about a team of Marines that inform families about soldiers that were killed in action.

CRITICAL RESPONSE: Very good. Every aspect of the film received high marks from the critical community, especially Harrelson's performance.

IHYFM RESPONSE: This was one of those small dramas I regrettably missed in the theaters this past year, although I had read several interviews with Harrelson and was very intrigued. I'll be catching this one as soon as I can.

WILL HE WIN?: The film's limited release may be Woody's biggest setback.


Christopher Plummer, The Last Station
WHY HE'S NOMINATED: He's playing Tolstoy, and he's Christopher Plummer.

CRITICAL RESPONSE: So-so. The film is said to be carried by Helen Mirren's performance.

IHYFM RESPONSE: Yet another offering of 2009 I haven't seen. Kind of like Christopher Mintz-Plasse in Role Models on Coca Cola, I like the idea of it more than I think I'd actually like it.

WILL HE WIN?: Meh.


Stanley Tucci, The Lovely Bones
WHY HE'S NOMINATED: I have no fucking idea.

CRITICAL RESPONSE: Piss-poor. At 33%, it's about 5 times as good as "Old Dogs"!

IHYFM RESPONSE: People. I'm a snob. I usually avoid movies in the 70% range on RT.

WILL HE WIN?: If he does, it'll probably be because everything else he does is so good. I've read that this role isn't so much acting for Tucci as it is wearing glasses and frowning.


Christoph Waltz, Inglourious Basterds
WHY HE'S NOMINATED: Because he was an amazing supporting actor.

CRITICAL RESPONSE: Very good. Waltz in particular was cited as being one of the movie's strongest points.

IHYFM RESPONSE: I really liked the movie (moreso than this review would lead you to believe), and also thought Waltz was superb.

WILL HE WIN?: Is his name Christoph Waltz? It is? Then probably.


MISSING FROM THE LIST?

- Tom Hollander, the bumbling minister from the potent satire In The Loop
- Aaron Wolf, the soon-to-be-Mitzvah'd son in A Serious Man
- Anthony Mackie, a soldier scared of his commanding officer in The Hurt Locker

Thursday, February 18, 2010

I Hate the Oscars: Best Supporting Actress Nods

On Oscar night, ANYTHING can happen.

It's Oscar season! It's referred to by advertisers as "the Super Bowl for women"! I'm a film snob so the results usually just piss me off!

Let's take a look at the women nominated for almost starring in movies this past year.

Before you accuse me of being sexist, I fully intend using that joke for the upcoming Best Supporting Actor write-up, so suck on it (male and female) bitches.

Penelope Cruz, "Nine"
WHY SHE'S NOMINATED: I haven't seen this, so I have no idea. Gams?

CRITICAL RESPONSE: "Nine" has a whopping 37% on RT.

IHYFM RESPONSE: The only movie I saw with "9" in the title was "District 9". Nothing nearly as pretty as Penelope Cruz was in that film. The trailer, however, looked like a Baz Luhrmann wet dream.

WILL SHE WIN?: Doubtful. There's a lot more buzz around the other nominees for far-better reviewed films.


Vera Farmiga, "Up In The Air"
WHY SHE'S NOMINATED: It's a fascinating, and very 3-dimensional character, played well by Farmiga.

CRITICAL RESPONSE: The film was well-received initially (before the backlash, the backlash to the backlash, and the follow up backlash after the backlash to the backlash). Farmiga's performance was one of many that helped elevate the film.

IHYFM RESPONSE: I enjoyed the film, and thought that all the major players in the cast held their own. One of my favorite moments with Farmiga was an early one with Clooney when they compare their corporate credit cards.

WILL SHE WIN?: This critic thinks she's one of the fore-runners in this five-member race.


Maggie Gyllenhaal, "Crazy Heart"
WHY SHE'S NOMINATED: More or less, because she's Maggie Gyllenhaal. Not to knock her, but her role in "Crazy Heart" could have been carried by more or less anyone.

CRITICAL RESPONSE: The consensus within the critical community is that Bridges' performance is what carries an otherwise run-of-the-mill redemption story.

IHYFM RESPONSE: I thought the movie was fine, Bridges was good, and Maggie was fine. She's been better in other projects, and I actually think her better performance of 2009 was in "Away We Go".

WILL SHE WIN?: How many friends does she have that are voting members in the academy?


Anna Kendrick, "Up In The Air"
WHY SHE'S NOMINATED: Her character in "Up In The Air" is the catalyst for Clooney's self-actualization (and Farmiga is the gut check), and as a spunky recent college grad that is too big for her britches, she's great.

CRITICAL RESPONSE: See above. Kendrick also got high marks from the critics.

IHYFM RESPONSE: I thought Kendrick was very good - especially a scene where she has too much to drink, and her last moment in the film.

WILL SHE WIN?: She has a decent shot. Farmiga might have an edge over her, but make no mistake, her performance was solid.


Mo'Nique, "Precious"
WHY SHE'S NOMINATED: She's the "punch" of the "Precious" sucker punch.

CRITICAL RESPONSE: Very favorable. The press thinks enough of her performance to give her a pass on the whole not-shaving-her-legs thing.

IHYFM RESPONSE: I still haven't been able to bring myself to see it. I have no doubt it's good, but I have yet to find myself in the mood to see it.

WILL SHE WIN?: There's a solid chance the hairiest legs to grace the stage this year won't belong to Robin Williams.


IHYFM UPDATE: I forgot to mention a few performances I thought were missing from the list.

MISSING FROM THE LIST?

- Lorna Raver as Sylvia Ganush, the curse-dealing gypsy from Drag Me To Hell
- Marcia Jean Kurtz as Paul's Mom, the condiment-hording, call-in show interrupting mom of the ultimate loser/Giants fan in Big Fan
- Sari Lennick as Judith Gopnik, the get-seeking wife in A Serious Man
- Melanie Laurent as Shosanna Dreyfus, the Nazi-burning cinema owner in Inglourious Basterds

Thursday, February 4, 2010

I Hate The Oscars: Best Picture Nods


Brokeback Mountain losing Best Picture to Crash didn't keep Gyllenhaal from enjoying himself, or from ruining Ang Lee's pictures.

The nominees are in.

With a 10-picture dog race for the Best Picture Oscar, the 82nd Annual Academy Awards promises to be twice as long and at least twice as political.

While keeping in mind that "the Oscars are bullshit and we hate them", let's take a quick look at the nominees for Best Picture.


"Avatar"
SYNOPSIS: A crippled Marine regains the use of his legs in a fantastical tale of redemption. No, it's not the Gary Sinise side-plot from "Forrest Gump", it's a lackluster cliche that is inexplicably the highest-grossing film of modern times. Modern moviegoers like bright shiny things, apparently. Like cats with laser pointers. Cats and lasers take up a lot of screen time in Avatar.

CRITICAL RESPONSE: Most critics heralded the graphics and visual experience, most refined critics also pointed out the story left a lot to be desired.

IHYFM RESPONSE: I didn't care for it.

WHY IT'S NOMINATED: Money talks.

WILL IT WIN?: The surprising win for Avatar at the Golden Globes could bode well or poor for Cameron's sci-fi epic. With a list of nominees as long as it is this year, Avatar could sneak in from behind to win if voters split over the other films (most likely The Hurt Locker, Precious, and Inglourious Basterds). Also, it could win outright because, let's face it, there's a lot of uncultured morons working in show business who get to vote.


"The Blind Side"
SYNOPSIS: Based on the true story of Michael Oher, a child who escaped poverty because he excelled at playing left tackle (at some levels), arguably one of the most important positions on the football field.

CRITICAL RESPONSE: Pretty decent. It has 70% on Rotten Tomatoes, with the consensus that Sandra Bullock's performance and the 'based-on-a-true-story' make up for a drama that is at times too easy.

IHYFM RESPONSE: I didn't see it - even though I heard the book it was based on was good, I didn't feel compelled to catch it until it's on Netflix Watch It Now.

WHY IT'S NOMINATED: Based on a true story. Good performance from a veteran actress who moved beyond her typical fare.

WILL IT WIN?: In a field of five, The Blind Side might have stood a chance. With so many other pics up, though, I doubt it.


"District 9"
SYNOPSIS: Holy Apartheid allegory, Batman! Aliens in Johannesburg are about to be forcibly removed from their impromptu refugee camp, but things get complicated when the buffoon in charge of the ground operation falls severely ill. Exploding limbs ensue.

CRITICAL RESPONSE: Very favorable. Critics appreciated both the allegorical element and the visceral graphics.

IHYFM RESPONSE: I thought it was okay, but didn't really resolve all the interesting issues it brought up, and instead turned into a typical chase/action movie half way through. My initial review may have been a little harsh, but I stand by my assertion that it's not a classic.

WHY IT'S NOMINATED: The way director Neill Blomkamp integrates CGI is impressive, and it was a big crowd pleaser. Perhaps the Academy was trying to atone for the sin of nominating Avatar by recognizing a sci-fi film that did try to have a 'plot' and 'characters'.

WILL IT WIN?: Not too likely. The voting members of the Academy generally shy away from sci fi, and if a CGI-heavy epic walks away with the Oscar, I hate to say it, but it'll likely be Avatar.


"An Education"
SYNOPSIS: A young British schoolgirl (Carey Mulligan) plays hooky from her academic schedule to get an education of another kind. The kind you get from Peter Sarsgaard. Le dreamy sigh.

CRITICAL RESPONSE: Overwhelmingly positive. Most critics point to rookie Mulligan's performance as the stuff long film careers are made of (see: Jodie Foster in "Taxi Driver").

IHYFM RESPONSE: Unreviewed. I like my British films chock full of Simon Pegg or Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant. Alfred Molina, who plays the father, has yet to disappoint me, though, and I've also enjoyed the majority of performances Sarsgaard has delivered, so missing this was more of a time issue than utter lack of interest - there's just plenty of other films I'd like to see first prior to catching this one.

WHY IT'S NOMINATED: It's foreign-ish and apparently mildly sexy, which the Academy likes to recognize so they can pretend to be discerning.

WILL IT WIN?: Pretty unlikely - regardless of how good the movie actually is, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of momentum behind it.


"The Hurt Locker"
SYNOPSIS: In the wake of tragedy, a bomb-demolition squad in 2004 Baghdad is taken over by an adrenaline-junky, and in the waning days of the company's rotation, his squad begins to question whether they'll make it out alive.

CRITICAL RESPONSE: Almost unilaterally positive. The cast, Kathryn Bigelow's directing, and Mark Boal's script all received exemplary marks from the critical community, and despite the surprising snub at the Globes, The Hurt Locker has been picking up various awards.

IHYFM RESPONSE: Although I have yet to write a formal review, I think this is a fantastic movie. It breaks the mold of your typical "war drama" and despite some leaps in logic, it feels like the most realistic depiction of war since the infamous Normandy scene of Saving Private Ryan, and unlike that film, it avoids war movie cliches in both the plot and the characters.

WHY IT'S NOMINATED: It's a solid movie from top to bottom, and Kathryn Bigelow is one of those directors that's been around for a long time but hasn't gotten due recognition from the Academy (see: Martin Scorsese).

WILL IT WIN?: It stands a chance, especially if there's a Hollywood backlash against Avatar winning the Globe.


"Ingourious Basterds"
SYNOPSIS: In Nazi-occupied France, there's a group of head-bashing badasses in town to let Hitler know the Americans have his number. Most of the movie, however, focuses on the owner of a Parisian movie theater who was hunted by a ruthless SS officer earlier in her life.

CRITICAL RESPONSE: Very positive. Some have called it Tarantino's best movie yet, almost all trumpet Austrian actor Christoph Waltz's Oscar-nominated performance as the SS Colonel in charge of finding Jews in hiding.

IHYFM RESPONSE: My initial review (of both this movie and for this site) reads a little lukewarm, but the more I've reflected on the picture, and watched it a few more times since its release on DVD, the more I enjoy it. Aside from the Hitchcockian way that QT ratchets up the tension, it serves as a treatise on what's wrong with war movies, namely, how we have this perception that a war movie is only as good as its historical accuracy and protracted and grisly battle scenes.

WHY IT'S NOMINATED: Tarantino is a controversial director, for sure, but for all the criticism you can level at him for plagiarizing other directors and films, you can't deny his skill at making everything his own. Basterds is a really well-made flick with some great performances.

WILL IT WIN?: There's an outside chance, but the Academy generally goes towards more serious fare. Conventional wisdom says this is the strongest dark horse candidate inasmuch it was so popular.


"Precious"
SYNOPSIS: It was perhaps said best on a recent edition of the "I Love Movies" podcast with host Doug Benson and guests Sarah Silverman and Steve Agee - when the fact you have AIDS is an afterthought on the list of everything wrong with your life, that's pretty shitty.

CRITICAL RESPONSE: Very good. Although it's overwhelmingly grim, it's an ultimately uplifting tale brought to life by great performances.

IHYFM RESPONSE: I haven't been able to get myself to the theater for this one yet - even though I like dramas, I can only handle the really heavy ones a few times a year.

WHY IT'S NOMINATED: Performances by Mo'Nique and Gabourey Sidibe.

WILL IT WIN?: Hard-hitting dramas with decent box office returns always have a chance.


"A Serious Man"
SYNOPSIS: The biblical story of Job, told as a dark comedy about a Jewish family man in 1960's-era Minnesota. It's a comedy only the Coen Brothers could do.

CRITICAL RESPONSE: Very positive. It received high marks for being very well-written, bitingly dark, and a simultaneously personal film for the Coens but also thought-provoking.

IHYFM RESPONSE: I really loved this movie. It had me thinking about big-picture issues but had me laughing almost throughout the duration of the film.

WHY IT'S NOMINATED: Joel and Ethan Coen have long been respected as among the best American filmmakers, and "A Serious Man" ranks among the best of their pictures.

WILL IT WIN?: There's only a slim chance: as satisfying as the movie is, the Coens have recently won the Best Picture nod for No Country For Old Men, and this movie did not make a big splash with audiences.


"Up"
SYNOPSIS: An old man makes his house into an improvised dirigible to fulfill the childhood dreams of him and his departed wife. A young boy accidentally comes along for the ride.

CRITICAL RESPONSE: Great. This was the first animated movie to ever open the Cannes film festival, and it received a standing ovation on its completion - which never happens.

IHYFM RESPONSE: I really love this movie. It's whimsical, moving, imaginative, and although unconventional, a very satisfying film.

WHY IT'S NOMINATED: It's a moving, well-made film from top to bottom, and the infamous opening montage could move even the most hardened person to tears.

WILL IT WIN?: Of all the movies in this category that were made with a LOT of computers, this is hands-down the most deserving, and its overwhelming popularity means it stands a chance.


"Up In The Air"
SYNOPSIS: George Clooney plays a management consultant that performs firings for a living. When a hot-shot college grad makes suggestions that will restructure his entire firm, he starts to have doubts about whether his 'no luggage' lifestyle is really all he needs.

CRITICAL RESPONSE: Very positive. Again, a well-written script, solid directing, and some great performances by Clooney and company

IHYFM RESPONSE: I enjoyed the movie, thought that it was funny, thought-provoking, and overall enjoyable.

WHY IT'S NOMINATED: Jason Reitman, director of Thank You For Smoking and Juno, has yet to make a dud. The cast is great, and the script is solid.

WILL IT WIN?: There's been quite the backlash from the filmgoing community over this pic, saying it's overrated and dull. That doesn't help its chances.



MISSING FROM THE LIST?

- The intense character study from the scribe of The Wrestler, Big Fan.
- The sharpest satire in years, In The Loop.
- A delightfully bizarre true-story pic from Steven Soderbergh, The Informant!

Friday, January 22, 2010

It's awards season! Why I didn't have a list of picks for the Golden Globes

Ricky Gervais, doing what he does best: making people uncomfortable

It must be January.

The celebrite are rallying around a common cause (Haiti, licking Cameron's balls), wearing designer clothing, and giving Katie Holmes a chance to show her face in public. It's awards season, people, and Hollywood will not stop patting its back until after "Wolfman" has entered and left the theaters.

You may have asked yourself why, oh why, did this internet sage/court jester not weigh in on the Golden Globes with a list of picks prior to the ceremony?

The easy answer is I am fucking lazy.

The other answer is that even though I saw over 30 films released in 2009, I saw only a fraction of the movies that were up for awards last week.

I haven't seen "Precious" and it's vomit-inducing gorging of KFC, I haven't seen Jeff Bridges in his asshole country singer with a heart of gold performance in "Crazy Heart", didn't see the pirouetting madness of "Nine". Didn't see "An Education", "A Simple Man", "It's Complicated", "Julie & Julia", "The Blind Side", "(500) Days of Summer", "Invictus", "The Messenger", "The Last Station", "The Informant!", or "The Fantastic Mr. Fox", to name just a few several.

To make judgments on all the nominees even though I've only seen a fraction of the films up for awards would feel, at the very least, disingenuous.

Therein lies the problem with these awards, specifically the Oscars. Most of the people voting on the awards have likely not seen all the movies in question, and in turn tend to vote on either word of mouth (Marion Cotillard winning for "La Vie en Rose") or marketing (the frustrating Best Picture win of "Crash"). These awards are no more a yardstick of artistic merit than is any middle school student council race a yardstick of sound fiscal policy for the spring dance.

I've long since grown jaded with the awards season in Hollywood, but, not to sound like a broken record, I was still rather surprised and disappointed that James Cameron won the one-two punch over ex-wife Kathryn Bigelow for Best Picture (Drama) and Best Director, the former being the visually impressive but largely lackluster sci-fi epic "Avatar", the former being a gritty, intelligent, and visceral tale of a bomb demolition squad in Iraq, "The Hurt Locker". At least Cameron gave props to Bigelow, as he has ever since her film began making the rounds early last year. This was especially surprising inasmuch the Globes often recognize the smaller pictures that walk away empty-handed on Oscar night; the implications of Cameron's win at the Globes could mean a multitude of things I'll try to deconstruct after March 7th.

As I would have suggested for the Globes, I'll likewise suggest for the Oscars. Don't watch it for the winners.

Watch it for the hosts.