So I haven't posted in quite a while but thats largely because no movies that have come out have warranted me going to see them. However, I did randomly decide to go see Fracture some random weekday as the previews had looked pretty good. Overall, it was exactly as I expected, which was pretty good.
I had never seen Ryan Gosling before but had heard excellent things from Half Nelson to The Notebook and he was really quite good. He was a little wooden at times (but so was his character) but pulled off the frustration with Anthony Hopkins really well. Hopkins basically seems to thrive in this role of psychologically manipulative criminal. After killing his wife (happens in first two seconds, not giving anything away) he engages in a pretty decent plot to prevent his prosecution. These two guys made the whole movie and were really quite good performances. It also had a good campy (but sincere) public service, get the bad guy feeling, which in a West Wing/Spy Game way really drew you to the profession.
What held the movie back from being a really good crime was the twist that ultimately allowed Gosling to prevail. It was sort of clever, but they dropped far too many hints about it to be a real surprise. Plus, it was the kind of thing that given all that Hopkins had foreseen and preempted it seemed somewhat impossible to imagine he hadn't thought of it. Overall, I'd definitely recommend seeing it, especially over Disturbia, Next, Vacancy, and all the over crap.
Friday, May 4, 2007
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Movie Review: The Host (Gwoemul)
As referenced in a previous post, one of my most personally anticipated movies of the first half of 2007 was The Host, or Gwoemul. To give a little background, as few probably know about this movie, The Host was the highest grossing movie in South Korean history, coming out in 2006. The movie is basically advertised as a modern Godzillia movie with a mutant-ish beast rampaging a city.
Despite, or possibly because of my expectations, I was pretty disappointed, but not for an expected reason. The movie was not too stupid-monster-movie to enjoy but was in fact, probably too little of that. The movie ended up suffering from being in an identity crisis. All at the same time it tried to be a monster movie, have a family message, make weird social commentaries about South Korea, be a political commentary on S. Korea, be a political commentary on the United States, and be kind of conspiracy theory-ish, all the while making fun of itself at every opportunity.
Basically, this was just too much for one movie. You'd start to get into the political thriller/commentary part of the movie about the harsh control exhibited by the S. Korean and especially U.S. government. Then, you'd be presented with (what I hope was a failed attempt at) comic relief of a grieving family literally falling all over each other and fighting in grief. Or, you'd see the father of the main family describing the importance of family after escaping the clutches of government officials and the monster, and then see that his speech put all his children to sleep. It just didn't really make a lot of sense.
Easily the best part of the movie was the monster itself. As monster movies go, what was impressive about this was that it showed the creature almost immediately. That first scene of attack is definitely the best part of the movie. The whole theater immediately got jumpy and excited. Unfortunately there wasn't much opportunity to see the monster just kind of going at it. In general, it was a good mix of being a pretty new and creative looking monster, so but not so over the top or large (was basically the size of like a Triceratops; yes i just referenced a dinosaur for size) that it wasn't stupid looking.
Overall, worth seeing for the monster and some quick entertainment, but will be almost certainly be confused when you walk out of the theater.
Despite, or possibly because of my expectations, I was pretty disappointed, but not for an expected reason. The movie was not too stupid-monster-movie to enjoy but was in fact, probably too little of that. The movie ended up suffering from being in an identity crisis. All at the same time it tried to be a monster movie, have a family message, make weird social commentaries about South Korea, be a political commentary on S. Korea, be a political commentary on the United States, and be kind of conspiracy theory-ish, all the while making fun of itself at every opportunity.
Basically, this was just too much for one movie. You'd start to get into the political thriller/commentary part of the movie about the harsh control exhibited by the S. Korean and especially U.S. government. Then, you'd be presented with (what I hope was a failed attempt at) comic relief of a grieving family literally falling all over each other and fighting in grief. Or, you'd see the father of the main family describing the importance of family after escaping the clutches of government officials and the monster, and then see that his speech put all his children to sleep. It just didn't really make a lot of sense.
Easily the best part of the movie was the monster itself. As monster movies go, what was impressive about this was that it showed the creature almost immediately. That first scene of attack is definitely the best part of the movie. The whole theater immediately got jumpy and excited. Unfortunately there wasn't much opportunity to see the monster just kind of going at it. In general, it was a good mix of being a pretty new and creative looking monster, so but not so over the top or large (was basically the size of like a Triceratops; yes i just referenced a dinosaur for size) that it wasn't stupid looking.
Overall, worth seeing for the monster and some quick entertainment, but will be almost certainly be confused when you walk out of the theater.
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Movie Review: Wild Hogs
So I'm potentially embarrassed admitting that I saw this movie. I saw it as it was the only movie that fit into the available time but ended up being pretty decent. Overall, it was an above average low-browish comedy with some mediocre writing, decent gags, and good concepts.
What certainly carried the movie was its acting. If you're not aware, some how this movie managed to get the cast of John Travolta, Tim Allen, William H Macy, Martin Lawrence, Ray Liotta, Marissa Tomei, and Peter Fonda. With a different cast this movie probably would have been terrible. Travolta was very good, as was Macy expectedly. Surprisingly very good was Ray Liotta who pulled off a crazed biker gang leader for much of the 2nd half of the movie.
Now, I don't mean to kid anybody. The movie was a cheap comedy. Most of the stuff I didn't find laugh out loud funny (putting me in a minority within the theater) as it was birds (or bird shit) flying into the actors faces, and seeing a bull launch Tim Allen into the air. As much as I knew they were all cheap stunts you kind of got caught up in it all by the end, and were ready to embrace the movie as just a gag comedy. Definitely don't go run out and see the movie, but if you've got nothing to do, it will entertain you for an hour and a half.
I've developed an interesting theory on this movie after seeing it. I was genuinely confused before and after why the cast agreed to do this kind of movie, and some have such minor parts in it. My theory, completely without founding or evidence is that either most or all of the actors are friends with the writer/director so agreed to have bit parts. Second, that its some kind of backlash from the what I'll call the "Self-Declared Cool Kids in Hollywood Ocean's Eleven Crowd". Maybe these guys felt left out from making those kind of big ensemble movies and wanted to play to a different interest and demographic by making their own movie.
Either way, was surprised on the upside by Wild Hogs.
What certainly carried the movie was its acting. If you're not aware, some how this movie managed to get the cast of John Travolta, Tim Allen, William H Macy, Martin Lawrence, Ray Liotta, Marissa Tomei, and Peter Fonda. With a different cast this movie probably would have been terrible. Travolta was very good, as was Macy expectedly. Surprisingly very good was Ray Liotta who pulled off a crazed biker gang leader for much of the 2nd half of the movie.
Now, I don't mean to kid anybody. The movie was a cheap comedy. Most of the stuff I didn't find laugh out loud funny (putting me in a minority within the theater) as it was birds (or bird shit) flying into the actors faces, and seeing a bull launch Tim Allen into the air. As much as I knew they were all cheap stunts you kind of got caught up in it all by the end, and were ready to embrace the movie as just a gag comedy. Definitely don't go run out and see the movie, but if you've got nothing to do, it will entertain you for an hour and a half.
I've developed an interesting theory on this movie after seeing it. I was genuinely confused before and after why the cast agreed to do this kind of movie, and some have such minor parts in it. My theory, completely without founding or evidence is that either most or all of the actors are friends with the writer/director so agreed to have bit parts. Second, that its some kind of backlash from the what I'll call the "Self-Declared Cool Kids in Hollywood Ocean's Eleven Crowd". Maybe these guys felt left out from making those kind of big ensemble movies and wanted to play to a different interest and demographic by making their own movie.
Either way, was surprised on the upside by Wild Hogs.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Movie Review: The 300
So I saw the 300 last week at the midnight show on the Thursday night. I was with a very large group so I immediately had the impression of about 20 or so people of the movie. I probably enjoyed the movie the least out of the entire group.
What was good about the movie was exactly what was supposed to be good: the action sequences, some of the creatures and the grand battles going on. For example, one of the opening battle shots just depicts the phalanx driving forward by pushing through masses of Persian soldiers. This was an extremely well done sequence and as an added bonus was actually how those soldiers were so good. One of the other good battle shots was when the Persian archers fired a massive number of arrows at the Spartans. The depiction of actually blotting out the sun was excellent as were all the arrows then falling on and around the 300 soldiers.
In general, the visual effects were pretty good. The slow-to-quick stabbings or decapitatings that ended with splotches of blood were really well done...the first time you saw them. Also surprisingly decent were some of the lines. Probably the best line in the whole movie was the "then we'll fight in the shade" line. There were a couple of others that at least showed that there was a human brain behind the screenplay.
There were three main weaknesses in my opinion that led this to be a mediocre to Ok action movie rather than a very good action movie (wasn't getting past that level no matter what). First, the battle sequences were too short a percentage of the movie. The first 60 or so minutes of the movie were not at all action-filled and in fact kind of dragged on. Then, in the midst of the battle you're brought back to the capital for a less than thoroughly exciting subplot. If the movie was 1:30 of fighting it definitely would have been better. In addition, they would have been able to expand some of the potentially more impressive enemies (like the war elephants, or dinosaur rhinoceros thing) that were only in like 30 seconds of the movie.
Second, the battles scenes they did have were all exactly alike. As I said the slow-then-fast stabbings and attacks were really impressive to see the first time, but by the 10th minute of it and 1000th guy killed, I had seen enough of it. If you're priding yourself on being a visually stimulating action movie, you've got to mix up the stimulation to a larger degree. Throw in some different tactics, or at least show each kill somewhat differently.
Third, the writing and acting were just shockingly hollow. There were lots of attempts for the Spartans to give speeches talking about how great democracy was and how proud they were to defend it. I'm impressed and taken with that type of movie-speech as easy as any person i've ever met and none of them worked on me. Part of the problem was that you never bought the characters were fighting for any reason other than they liked killing things and dying with honor, not for any democratic reason related to rights. Moreover, most of the writing was a joke. Some scenes have no other explanation than they actually were seeking comic relief (but seemed like they were just poorly written) like the sex scene or others.
Overall, it was an Ok action movie, nothing more, nothing less. I wouldn't have much interest in seeing it again, which doesn't speak well for the visual effects and would almost certainly not buy it, given the shallow plot and lines. Worth seeing once, but don't expect to be impressed.
What was good about the movie was exactly what was supposed to be good: the action sequences, some of the creatures and the grand battles going on. For example, one of the opening battle shots just depicts the phalanx driving forward by pushing through masses of Persian soldiers. This was an extremely well done sequence and as an added bonus was actually how those soldiers were so good. One of the other good battle shots was when the Persian archers fired a massive number of arrows at the Spartans. The depiction of actually blotting out the sun was excellent as were all the arrows then falling on and around the 300 soldiers.
In general, the visual effects were pretty good. The slow-to-quick stabbings or decapitatings that ended with splotches of blood were really well done...the first time you saw them. Also surprisingly decent were some of the lines. Probably the best line in the whole movie was the "then we'll fight in the shade" line. There were a couple of others that at least showed that there was a human brain behind the screenplay.
There were three main weaknesses in my opinion that led this to be a mediocre to Ok action movie rather than a very good action movie (wasn't getting past that level no matter what). First, the battle sequences were too short a percentage of the movie. The first 60 or so minutes of the movie were not at all action-filled and in fact kind of dragged on. Then, in the midst of the battle you're brought back to the capital for a less than thoroughly exciting subplot. If the movie was 1:30 of fighting it definitely would have been better. In addition, they would have been able to expand some of the potentially more impressive enemies (like the war elephants, or dinosaur rhinoceros thing) that were only in like 30 seconds of the movie.
Second, the battles scenes they did have were all exactly alike. As I said the slow-then-fast stabbings and attacks were really impressive to see the first time, but by the 10th minute of it and 1000th guy killed, I had seen enough of it. If you're priding yourself on being a visually stimulating action movie, you've got to mix up the stimulation to a larger degree. Throw in some different tactics, or at least show each kill somewhat differently.
Third, the writing and acting were just shockingly hollow. There were lots of attempts for the Spartans to give speeches talking about how great democracy was and how proud they were to defend it. I'm impressed and taken with that type of movie-speech as easy as any person i've ever met and none of them worked on me. Part of the problem was that you never bought the characters were fighting for any reason other than they liked killing things and dying with honor, not for any democratic reason related to rights. Moreover, most of the writing was a joke. Some scenes have no other explanation than they actually were seeking comic relief (but seemed like they were just poorly written) like the sex scene or others.
Overall, it was an Ok action movie, nothing more, nothing less. I wouldn't have much interest in seeing it again, which doesn't speak well for the visual effects and would almost certainly not buy it, given the shallow plot and lines. Worth seeing once, but don't expect to be impressed.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Is The Academy Out of Touch? Movie Grosses for 4 Prominent Oscar Categories.
So, I hypothesized that oscar nominees' domestic grosses have been declining in recent years. Last year for example, the highest grossing movie was Brokeback Mountain, and second was Crash, hardly commercially dominant movies. So, from BoxOfficeMojo.com I gathered the average gross for the five movies in the four highest categories: best picture, best director, best actor, best actress and plotted those changing grosses over the last ten years. You can click the images to get a larger scale.
As can be seen by this first graph, my guess was seems correct for Best Picture and Best Director, but not for Best Actor and Actress. It appears, looking back through nominees, that best acting categories tended to look through lesser known, even more foreign movies for acting performances. Picture and Director however, used to have many more higher grossing movies. Some years are obviously skewed, such as 1997 with Titanic's $600mm but in general, the number of $100mm movies nominated have declined and the average gross has declined.
For best picture, the average over the last ten years is about $113mm per movie nominated. However, in the last 3 years, no movie has even crossed the $90mm mark. Even removing the Titanic year, the average falls to about $103mm, which still shows how low the last three years have been.
Best Director shows a similar story. Although slightly lower, the average of just above $99mm is between $30mm and $50mm higher than the average gross for the categories in any of the last three years.
So the implication could be 2 things. One, the Academy is actively seeking out less commercially successful movies and trying to dig for the limited release, artsy movies for best picture. Two, and I think much more likely is that the breed of Oscar movie is pushing people to make Oscar movies that they know won't be that profitable. The average is pulled down by many more $50mm movies rather than a few really low movies. In recent years, Iwo Jima, Babel, The Queen, Crash, Capote, etc... were all designed to be Oscar movies. Producers, directors and studios seem to be going more out of their way to make winners, when they used to just overlap with otherwise popular movies.
As can be seen by this first graph, my guess was seems correct for Best Picture and Best Director, but not for Best Actor and Actress. It appears, looking back through nominees, that best acting categories tended to look through lesser known, even more foreign movies for acting performances. Picture and Director however, used to have many more higher grossing movies. Some years are obviously skewed, such as 1997 with Titanic's $600mm but in general, the number of $100mm movies nominated have declined and the average gross has declined.
For best picture, the average over the last ten years is about $113mm per movie nominated. However, in the last 3 years, no movie has even crossed the $90mm mark. Even removing the Titanic year, the average falls to about $103mm, which still shows how low the last three years have been.
Best Director shows a similar story. Although slightly lower, the average of just above $99mm is between $30mm and $50mm higher than the average gross for the categories in any of the last three years.
So the implication could be 2 things. One, the Academy is actively seeking out less commercially successful movies and trying to dig for the limited release, artsy movies for best picture. Two, and I think much more likely is that the breed of Oscar movie is pushing people to make Oscar movies that they know won't be that profitable. The average is pulled down by many more $50mm movies rather than a few really low movies. In recent years, Iwo Jima, Babel, The Queen, Crash, Capote, etc... were all designed to be Oscar movies. Producers, directors and studios seem to be going more out of their way to make winners, when they used to just overlap with otherwise popular movies.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
Oscar Review
I just haven't been seeing movies enough to keep this updated but hopefully an oscar review will get me back on track. Before I get to the actual movies, I did some interesting "research" last night on the best picture category and box office grosses. The results of which will come in the next post probably tomorrow with what I think the implications are from the Oscars. But first, a review of the categories. I was going to do all but then decided against some categories.
Best Picture: Winner/My Pick - The Departed
Thank you academy for not picking Babel. Although Little Miss Sunshine was ranked ahead of Departed in my earlier rankings, I think I really thought this was a BETTER film. I would have loved to see LMS win as well, but its hard not to think the Departed deserved it. Ultimately, I would have most liked to see a split award for Departed and Little Miss Sunshine but wasn't going to be disappointed if either one won.
Director: Winner/My Pick - Scorsese
Yep, not really anyone all that contentious here to give him a run for this money. Eastwood did a very good job in Iwo Jima and I heard that United 93 was excellent, but Scorsese was absolutely fantastic. I saw Departed for the 3rd time last week and you can't stop appreciating how well done it is. The cuts, the angles, everything. Well deserved for Scorsese.
Best Actor: Winner/My Choice - Forest Whitaker.
Although I agree with this selection ultimately, the category was flawed without the inclusion of Leonardo DiCaprio's Departed performance, and arguably Jack Nicholson from Departed as well. In addition, other potentially snubbed nominees include Aaron Eckhart from Thank You For Smoking. Out of all actors, my pick would be Forest Whitaker JUST ahead of DiCaprio for the Departed.
Best Supporting Actor: Winner/My Choice - Alan Arkin
Way to go Academy. Not picking Eddie Murphy should give us all faith again in the Academy's abilities. Look, Eddie Murphy was very very good and probably the best person in Dreamgirls but just wasn't that great. Alan Arkin was really fantastic and deserves this. Although correct in its ultimate decision, the nominees were WAY off here. Probably every male actor in both Little Miss Sunshine and The Departed had a reasonable claim to be nominated here. Most absurd were Jack Nicholson (if not best actor), Alec Baldwin, Steve Carrell, and Greg Kinear.
Best Actress: Winner- Helen Mirren; My Pick - Meryl Streep
So, I don't have a real strong opinion about Meryl Streep winning, although I did think she was excellent. I would also admit that I haven't seen Volver, Notes on a Scandal or Little Children so can't really fairly gauge them. What I do know was that Helen Mirren just wasn't that great. I don't think her character was one that really warranted such recognition given how wooden the role was. Just as Matt Damon was very good in Departed, his character was kind of wooden, so was hard to be that good. I really don't think Mirren deserved this.
Best Supporting Actress: Winner - Jennifer Hudson; My Pick - Abigail Breslen
Kinda similar to previous category, where I mostly take issue with the winner, not who didn't win. Look, Jennifer Hudson sang amazingly well in Dreamgirls, really, truly, amazingly well. But that is not acting. Give her an Oscar for best song or a Grammy, but she did not deserve this for acting. Some times in musicals, people do both (Richard Gere in Chicago and Eddie Murphy in Dreamgirls) but Jennifer Hudson did not.
Adapted Screenplay: Winner/My Pick - Departed
Fantastically written movie. It picks up all the cop/Irish/criminal dialogs really well. But in addition, there's lots of really memorable, funny, meaningful lines. I'd now see any movie written by Monahan. This category screwed up in 2 big ways. First, Borat: not a screenplay, not really adapted. It's mostly people responding to him, not written lines. I think this was really just the Academy trying to fit Borat somewhere into the show. Second, THANK YOU FOR SMOKING WASN'T NOMINATED. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Probably the third best written movie of the year and some of the best dialog of any movie ever.
Original Screenplay: Winner/My Pick - Little Miss Sunshine
I was glad Michael Arndt got credit for this. Think about writing this story and coming up with all the lines, all the plot twists. Would love to see the next movie this guy does.
Art Direction: Winner/My Pick - Pan's Labyrinth
Kind of an easy choice here.
Cinematography: Winner - Pan's Labyrinth; My Pick - Children of Men
As much as I really liked Pan's Labyrinth, what was most impressive about Children of Men was its cinematography. The movie overall wasn't that amazing, but two scenes double-handedly make it an easy pick for the winner. The chase scene pulled off some amazing shots from inside and outside the car and from numerous angles all in one take. Moreover, one of the final sequences of entering and then escaping the building (also one take) was maybe the best technically filmed scene in recent memory.
Documentary: Winner/My Pick - An Inconvenient Truth
Not a lot to say about the movie itself. It was a very well done movie and its commercial success is probably most impressive. (45mm worldwide gross) What was most disappointing about this category was that Wordplay wasn't nominated. This was a really interesting, really entertaining and really well done movie about the NYTimes Crosswords and their annual tournament. Go rent it if you haven't seen it.
Editing: Winner/My Pick - The Departed
Sorry, not much to say here. If you thought something else should have won, you're wrong.
Foreign Language Film: Winner - The Lives of Others; My Pick-Pan's Labyrinth/Iwo Jima
So first off, what bothers me about the Oscars is that Iwo Jima wasn't in this category. It represents a larger picture of people needing to game out where their picture or actors, etc... has the best chance and can't really get into other categories. Iwo Jima is probably easily the best foreign language film of the year, but Eastwood didn't want it to be in the category b/c he probably thought it would hurt his chances of Best Picture. Anyway, Pan's Labyrinth most definitely deserved this.
Makeup: Winner/My Pick - Pan's Labyrinth
I was shocked to see that the faun was makeup and not CGI. Even more impressive makeup than I thought.
Original Score: Winner - Babel; My Pick - Pan's Labyrinth
Babel had no memorable music. I can't remember when watching the movie thinking that the music was good. Pan's Labyrinth, exactly the opposite. It's hard to resist humming the song just sitting here thinking about it.
Original Song: Winner - I Need To Wake Up; My Pick - some Dreamgirls song
Same deal as score really. I don't remember Inconvenient Truth even using any songs. As much as I didn't like Dreamgirls, the music was fantastic, and definitely deserved a win here.
Overall, the Academy surprised me on the upside. I thought they'd go more artsy but they made generally the right decisions. The biggest mistakes were in the nominations, not giving any to Thank You For Smoking, and more to The Prestige.
Best Picture: Winner/My Pick - The Departed
Thank you academy for not picking Babel. Although Little Miss Sunshine was ranked ahead of Departed in my earlier rankings, I think I really thought this was a BETTER film. I would have loved to see LMS win as well, but its hard not to think the Departed deserved it. Ultimately, I would have most liked to see a split award for Departed and Little Miss Sunshine but wasn't going to be disappointed if either one won.
Director: Winner/My Pick - Scorsese
Yep, not really anyone all that contentious here to give him a run for this money. Eastwood did a very good job in Iwo Jima and I heard that United 93 was excellent, but Scorsese was absolutely fantastic. I saw Departed for the 3rd time last week and you can't stop appreciating how well done it is. The cuts, the angles, everything. Well deserved for Scorsese.
Best Actor: Winner/My Choice - Forest Whitaker.
Although I agree with this selection ultimately, the category was flawed without the inclusion of Leonardo DiCaprio's Departed performance, and arguably Jack Nicholson from Departed as well. In addition, other potentially snubbed nominees include Aaron Eckhart from Thank You For Smoking. Out of all actors, my pick would be Forest Whitaker JUST ahead of DiCaprio for the Departed.
Best Supporting Actor: Winner/My Choice - Alan Arkin
Way to go Academy. Not picking Eddie Murphy should give us all faith again in the Academy's abilities. Look, Eddie Murphy was very very good and probably the best person in Dreamgirls but just wasn't that great. Alan Arkin was really fantastic and deserves this. Although correct in its ultimate decision, the nominees were WAY off here. Probably every male actor in both Little Miss Sunshine and The Departed had a reasonable claim to be nominated here. Most absurd were Jack Nicholson (if not best actor), Alec Baldwin, Steve Carrell, and Greg Kinear.
Best Actress: Winner- Helen Mirren; My Pick - Meryl Streep
So, I don't have a real strong opinion about Meryl Streep winning, although I did think she was excellent. I would also admit that I haven't seen Volver, Notes on a Scandal or Little Children so can't really fairly gauge them. What I do know was that Helen Mirren just wasn't that great. I don't think her character was one that really warranted such recognition given how wooden the role was. Just as Matt Damon was very good in Departed, his character was kind of wooden, so was hard to be that good. I really don't think Mirren deserved this.
Best Supporting Actress: Winner - Jennifer Hudson; My Pick - Abigail Breslen
Kinda similar to previous category, where I mostly take issue with the winner, not who didn't win. Look, Jennifer Hudson sang amazingly well in Dreamgirls, really, truly, amazingly well. But that is not acting. Give her an Oscar for best song or a Grammy, but she did not deserve this for acting. Some times in musicals, people do both (Richard Gere in Chicago and Eddie Murphy in Dreamgirls) but Jennifer Hudson did not.
Adapted Screenplay: Winner/My Pick - Departed
Fantastically written movie. It picks up all the cop/Irish/criminal dialogs really well. But in addition, there's lots of really memorable, funny, meaningful lines. I'd now see any movie written by Monahan. This category screwed up in 2 big ways. First, Borat: not a screenplay, not really adapted. It's mostly people responding to him, not written lines. I think this was really just the Academy trying to fit Borat somewhere into the show. Second, THANK YOU FOR SMOKING WASN'T NOMINATED. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Probably the third best written movie of the year and some of the best dialog of any movie ever.
Original Screenplay: Winner/My Pick - Little Miss Sunshine
I was glad Michael Arndt got credit for this. Think about writing this story and coming up with all the lines, all the plot twists. Would love to see the next movie this guy does.
Art Direction: Winner/My Pick - Pan's Labyrinth
Kind of an easy choice here.
Cinematography: Winner - Pan's Labyrinth; My Pick - Children of Men
As much as I really liked Pan's Labyrinth, what was most impressive about Children of Men was its cinematography. The movie overall wasn't that amazing, but two scenes double-handedly make it an easy pick for the winner. The chase scene pulled off some amazing shots from inside and outside the car and from numerous angles all in one take. Moreover, one of the final sequences of entering and then escaping the building (also one take) was maybe the best technically filmed scene in recent memory.
Documentary: Winner/My Pick - An Inconvenient Truth
Not a lot to say about the movie itself. It was a very well done movie and its commercial success is probably most impressive. (45mm worldwide gross) What was most disappointing about this category was that Wordplay wasn't nominated. This was a really interesting, really entertaining and really well done movie about the NYTimes Crosswords and their annual tournament. Go rent it if you haven't seen it.
Editing: Winner/My Pick - The Departed
Sorry, not much to say here. If you thought something else should have won, you're wrong.
Foreign Language Film: Winner - The Lives of Others; My Pick-Pan's Labyrinth/Iwo Jima
So first off, what bothers me about the Oscars is that Iwo Jima wasn't in this category. It represents a larger picture of people needing to game out where their picture or actors, etc... has the best chance and can't really get into other categories. Iwo Jima is probably easily the best foreign language film of the year, but Eastwood didn't want it to be in the category b/c he probably thought it would hurt his chances of Best Picture. Anyway, Pan's Labyrinth most definitely deserved this.
Makeup: Winner/My Pick - Pan's Labyrinth
I was shocked to see that the faun was makeup and not CGI. Even more impressive makeup than I thought.
Original Score: Winner - Babel; My Pick - Pan's Labyrinth
Babel had no memorable music. I can't remember when watching the movie thinking that the music was good. Pan's Labyrinth, exactly the opposite. It's hard to resist humming the song just sitting here thinking about it.
Original Song: Winner - I Need To Wake Up; My Pick - some Dreamgirls song
Same deal as score really. I don't remember Inconvenient Truth even using any songs. As much as I didn't like Dreamgirls, the music was fantastic, and definitely deserved a win here.
Overall, the Academy surprised me on the upside. I thought they'd go more artsy but they made generally the right decisions. The biggest mistakes were in the nominations, not giving any to Thank You For Smoking, and more to The Prestige.
Monday, February 12, 2007
2007 Projections for Blockbuster Movies - the Year of the Sequel
Here's some thoughts on some categories for movies moving forward in 2007. This isn't including any smaller budget/limited release movies that are too hard to track a year in advance.
Highest Grossing:
The only conclusion is that we've completely run of out ideas for movies, and are desperate for anything (see Mr. Bean 2, Jeepers Creepers 3, etc...). Once you get into the movie season part of the year in the spring, will be hard not to have a given weekend without 1 (or maybe even 2) sequels being released.
Highest Grossing:
- Easy answer is Pirates of the Caribbean. I can't separate my own total dislike for this movie franchise from any other opinions, so I'm gonna say that this movie underperforms its very high expectations. Seemed like even those who somehow liked the first one, didn't really like the second one, so gross will probably be a bit less.
- My pick for highest grossing film of 2007 is Shrek: The Third. The first shrek made 267mm domestically and 484mm worldwide. The jump to the second was massive with 441mm domestic and 920mm worldwide. Obviously it wouldn't double again, but I think it may be as popular, which will probably be enough.
- Probably the biggest thing going against both of these movies is that they come out so close together and so close to Spiderman 3 (2 and 3 weeks after). These movies will almost definitely compete so they're gonna need massive weekends each to rack up big totals.
- Ocean's Thirteen: yes, I'm a sucker for these movies. It could suck, but I'd probably still love it. Giving Andy Garcia a bigger role should be excellent.
- National Treasure 2: also a sucker genre for me. Nothing better than mixing American history with random puzzle solving. I think the first one best captured the Indiana Jones spirit since Last Crusade.
- The Host: highest grossing movie in South Korean history, and won many awards in international film festivals.....and its basically a godzilla rip off. Comes out in March and should be quite interesting.
- Rush Hour 3: first one wasn't funny, second one wasn't funny....can only assume.
- The Simpsons: just don't think you can drag it out into a movie.
- Fantastic Four 2: yea, exactly.
The only conclusion is that we've completely run of out ideas for movies, and are desperate for anything (see Mr. Bean 2, Jeepers Creepers 3, etc...). Once you get into the movie season part of the year in the spring, will be hard not to have a given weekend without 1 (or maybe even 2) sequels being released.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)