http://awardsdailyforums.com/ Share your thoughts on everything from the newest blockbuster to the most obscure classic. en Sun, 19 May 2013 00:37:15 GMT vBulletin 60 http://awardsdailyforums.com/images/misc/rss.png http://awardsdailyforums.com/ http://awardsdailyforums.com/showthread.php?33074-Frances-Ha-(Baumbach-2013)&goto=newpost Sat, 18 May 2013 23:08:29 GMT I have to say I pretty much loved it. Its hard to talk about, I guess, without mentioning Girls and hipsters, but while it includes a lot of that... I have to say I pretty much loved it. Its hard to talk about, I guess, without mentioning Girls and hipsters, but while it includes a lot of that realm's cliches, it feels very true. It just absolutely works, in my opinion.

I also love Greta Gerwig. This certainly isn't a stretch for her, but she still nails it. ]]> FILM::crit Cesky http://awardsdailyforums.com/showthread.php?33074-Frances-Ha-(Baumbach-2013) http://awardsdailyforums.com/showthread.php?33068-Random-Film-Thoughts-Did-all-1967-BP-Nominees-Suck&goto=newpost Fri, 17 May 2013 08:56:09 GMT Oh, and considering one of the recent AD trending topics, the following reviews may contain SPOILERS of things as recent and unknown as The Graduate... Oh, and considering one of the recent AD trending topics, the following reviews may contain SPOILERS of things as recent and unknown as The Graduate and Tolstoy's War and Peace.

BE WARNED! But I'll try to hide them.



It’s a pity to watch The Graduate (Nichols, 1967) fall apart in its second half. Up until Katharine Ross appears it’s such a well-observed, clever dramedy about middle-class confusion! The characters are very well drawn-out and even the more caricaturesque aspects are well integrated in a more realistic tone.

But the second half? Out of nowhere Hoffmann becomes a nutty stalker and, even worse, Ross is attracted to that instead of grossed-out, and they start one of the least believable banter-romances in the story of American film, the movie out of nowhere becomes a very silly screwball comedy with jarring moments of slapstick (that wedding!) and all the perception and understanding for the Bancroft character that had made the first half so poignant goes out of the board to transform her into a hateful raging bitch with no grounds whatsoever in reality. And because Nichols probably knows that entire last half came absolutely out of nowhere and the post-wedding joy rush was unearned and fake, he decides to end the proceedings with an eve more out-of-nowhere sour note. That bittersweet ending is what the film should have, sure, but after the jarring, dumb events that lead to it, it feels more like an embarrassing apology for that inexcusable second half.

And it really is a pity, because the first half had all the elements of a truly great film. And Anne Bancroft is all kinds of great.


I also saw the six hours and forty minutes (and plus) of War and Peace (Bondarchuk, 1967). I think the opinion that the 1956 version of the novel is the bad one while the Bondarchuk one is great reeks of cultural inferiority complex. Oh, because the 1967 version is Russian and is almost 7 hours long it must be more faithful and rigorous. Well, the truth is it’s quite similar, but Vidor’s version is more cinematic (despite having less supposedly visionary flourishes) and better paced, while keeping all the lyricism and complexity.

At that running time, there’s time for a bit of everything. Some of the “artistic” flourishes enhance the proceedings and result in truly rapturous passages, and some other come out of nowhere and make some scenes unnecessarily abstract and a bit ridiculous (an example among many: the marriage agreement between Pierre and Helene, done almost silently but with the sound of water drops falling down a pipe or into a well or something feels overdone in its excessive underlining of how awkward that marriage is). At points, especially for the first two hours, those flourishes even make the film just too dreamy, which I don’t think is fitting for a story that gets so much of its meaning through the particulars and details of intricate plotting and who is so essentially narrative. The passages in which a voiceover directly reads excerpts from the novel with Tolstoy comments the actions and going philosophical about its meaning could have worked if the voice reading it wasn’t so solemn. It almost sounds like a parody of Tolstoy’s imposing image and the idea of him as this solemn man who talks all the time about the deepest things. Another moment where an artistic flourish is totally unwelcome is when Andrei overhears Natasha, who’s in another room, at night, rambling about the moon and the beauty of life. In this version, by that point, we have barely met Natasha, and even less we have heard her talking. But still Bondarchuk never shows where that voice comes from and all we see is Andrei gazing at the forest at night, and then a dreamy voice starts rambling while the camera flies into the forest. I guess someone who doesn’t know the story well simply cannot know that Andrei is hearing Natasha and falling in love with her just for those ramblings. If you don’t know the story, you may think Andrei is just dreaming of the muses or hearing some nymphs singing in the forest? It may be beautiful in itself, but it misses the mark by far of sending home the point that Natasha’s sensuality and love for life is making Andrei feel alive again and making him fall for her.

But some other times the results are amazing. In the ball where Natasha is officially introduced to Andrei, all the crazy camera work, the unconventional editing and the dreamy touches truly convey the whirlpool Natasha is living and make you understand everything she goes through. Or when Pierre witnesses the debacle in Moscow after the French occupy it, the hell that’s unleashed comes to life in vivid terms, and you notice how affecting it is for Pierre. I guess I’d say those flourishes work for the best when they are linked to the characters and convey their evolution, and don’t work when they obey to Bondarchuk wanting to comment or pointlessly embellish the action or wanting to artificially introduce Tolstoy’s voice.

Likewise, in those seven hours there are moments in which the epic aspects work and the effort of having millions of extras and hundreds of cameras to film them pays off, and the brutality and scope of the war is captured, but some other times it feels like academic, pointless re-enactment.

So, it’s a mixed bag. The overall outcome is decidedly positive, but there are undeniable flaws that make the movie feel academic at times, vapid at other times, and too enslaved by the novel. I think the segments that stay closer to one character work better than the segments that want to become more social, abstractly philosophical or historical. The film was released in four instalments, and the second and fourth, much more focused, respectively, in Natasha and Pierre, are the best, especially Natasha’s. I’d give those two movies a better grade if valued separately than I give to the whole movie. Vidor’s incredibly underrated version is much more concise and does a better work translating the literary language to filmic language, and really, I challenge anyone who has seen both to tell me what episode is in the Bondarchuk version and is not in the Vidor version and really adds that much. It’s amazing that, despite Bondarchuk’s version being 2.5 times longer, in terms of plot points it basically eliminates the same from the novel, and there are around two scenes at most that aren’t in Vidor’s. In fact, Vidor develops much better the relationship between Pierre and Natasha, showing the friendship between them from the beginning, in a way that makes the ending earned. There’s nothing in Bondarchuk’s version, least of all chemistry between them, that makes you think Natasha and Pierre make a good pair .

And that leads me to the acting: Henry Fonda may feel too 100% American to play Pierre, sure, but at least he has the charisma to make you understand why he becomes so popular in Moscow’s nights and why Natasha may end up falling for him despite being much less handsome that her other two suitors, Andrei and Anatol. Bondarchuk’s performance as Pierre may be technically good and appropriately internalized, but he’s such a charisma vacuum that all the time you wish the action goes back to Natasha. Speaking of whom, Lyudmila Saveleva is absolutely wonderful in the role. Maybe a tad overdone in some scenes, but 100% convincing, intense and appealing, both as an adolescent and as the more adult woman in the final act. I may prefer her to Audrey Hepburn, although Hepburn was perfect for the role too. Tikhonov is as inexpressive as Andrei as Mel Ferrer was, but at least Ferrer was more melancholic than angry, which I think is the best approach to the character. It’s hard not to hate this Andrei. And the guy playing Anatol is just unconvincing as the womaniser that would fool even the most sensible women in Moscow, while Vittorio Gassman was exactly that kind of guy. So, everyone save Natasha is better in the American version, but Natasha is the key character so in the end the result is, let’s say, even.

I don’t know, while it’s a god movie in the final balance and has very high peaks, I’m not sure I’d recommend anybody, not even the most hardcore cinephiles, to spend nearly 7 hours watching it. It’s like, read the novel instead, or, if you’re not inclined to it, watch the better film version by Vidor. Watching this version ended up feeling like an act of “completism”. ]]> FILM::crit McTeague http://awardsdailyforums.com/showthread.php?33068-Random-Film-Thoughts-Did-all-1967-BP-Nominees-Suck http://awardsdailyforums.com/showthread.php?33039-Stories-We-Tell-(Polley-2013)&goto=newpost Mon, 13 May 2013 16:48:30 GMT I thought this was a really stunning memoir. Perhaps the best documentary I've seen since Man on Wire.

There were many unexpected choices Sarah Polley made throughout. The film is rich in emotion, dry humor and contradiction.

Looking forward to hearing everyone's response.

Here's my review. ]]> FILM::crit MrJeffery http://awardsdailyforums.com/showthread.php?33039-Stories-We-Tell-(Polley-2013) http://awardsdailyforums.com/showthread.php?33026-The-Directors-Thread&goto=newpost Sun, 12 May 2013 23:40:21 GMT First and foremost I would like to, and probably cannot stress enough, the spirit of this thread. I deny I ever said that actors are cattle. What... First and foremost I would like to, and probably cannot stress enough, the spirit of this thread.

I deny I ever said that actors are cattle. What I said was, 'Actors should be treated like cattle'.- Alfred Hitchcock

DO NOT KILL ME! :omgomgomg:

I hope we can discuss some of our favorites, their technique, career and history.

I recently got into Antonioni.

The palpable atmosphere created by long takes and rapturous cinematography.

• The clash between foregrounds and backgrounds
• The loose, perplexing narratives
• Monica Vitti ]]> FILM::crit Stéphane http://awardsdailyforums.com/showthread.php?33026-The-Directors-Thread http://awardsdailyforums.com/showthread.php?33025-Star-Trek-Into-Darkness-(Abrams-2013)-Full-Spoilers&goto=newpost Sun, 12 May 2013 03:08:50 GMT INTO DARKNESS COMPLETE SPOILER: The Cumberbutch casting backlash begins! I can see the argument but would not go as far as accusing the casting... INTO DARKNESS COMPLETE SPOILER: The Cumberbutch casting backlash begins! I can see the argument but would not go as far as accusing the casting directors of racism. ]]> FILM::crit faina http://awardsdailyforums.com/showthread.php?33025-Star-Trek-Into-Darkness-(Abrams-2013)-Full-Spoilers http://awardsdailyforums.com/showthread.php?32979-The-Iceman&goto=newpost Sun, 05 May 2013 23:34:20 GMT I liked it. It took me a bit to get into it, because when looking at the mob drama on film in the past, it is very operatic and grand and my... I liked it. It took me a bit to get into it, because when looking at the mob drama on film in the past, it is very operatic and grand and my expectations were that this would be pretty much doing the same thing.

The Iceman isn't that and never tries to be that. And in the end, it is compelling and unique and a solid piece of work because of it. It has more narrow focus, for me it was about denial. And it worked.

Michael Shannon and Winona Ryder are really good in this. ]]> FILM::crit markers32 http://awardsdailyforums.com/showthread.php?32979-The-Iceman http://awardsdailyforums.com/showthread.php?32977-The-Great-Gatsby-(Luhrmann-2013)&goto=newpost Sun, 05 May 2013 17:43:29 GMT So this was... good. Maybe really good. The first 20 minutes, as is typical of Luhrmann, is a bit frenetic and rushed, but as soon as we get to... So this was... good. Maybe really good. The first 20 minutes, as is typical of Luhrmann, is a bit frenetic and rushed, but as soon as we get to Gatsby's first party, the whole thing opens right up. That scene is such a show stopping set piece that I thought to myself, clearly Luhrmann was just interested in the razzle dazzle of these lavish parties. But from then on the storytelling is, dare I say, elegant. The scenes breathe and more than stand on their own (I'm saying this as someone who reread the novel less than a month ago). Lurhmann really sells the love story and never abandons the larger themes of the book. All I can say is he really surprised me.

The acting is all around solid, especially DiCaprio. Funny and emotional in all the right places. If there is a weak link it's Maguire but he's pushed to the margins pretty early on. I'll be interested in hearing what AD has to say. I expect some will hate the voiceover and framing device-- it didn't bother me, personally. Hoping that this holds up on second viewing and isn't just me being generous because the movie wasn't an abject failure. ]]> FILM::crit Gaston http://awardsdailyforums.com/showthread.php?32977-The-Great-Gatsby-(Luhrmann-2013) http://awardsdailyforums.com/showthread.php?32974-Mud-(Nichols-2013)&goto=newpost Sun, 05 May 2013 02:35:50 GMT I know there has been discussion elsewhere, but we should streamline it here.

I'm struggling to accept the fact that Matthew McConaughey is a great actor. With Killer Joe and Magic Mike last year, the glimpses were there. I think Mud catapults him to another level. He is staggeringly good in this.

I loved the entire thing. I thought it was organic and exciting and full of life. I wasn't the biggest fan of Take Shelter, but Nichols won me over here. It's such a confident, interesting piece of work.

My biggest criticism would be the fact that the ending feels a bit overgrown and overlong, but it's really a minor quibble considering the rest. It's worth noting that Tye Sheridan also gives one hell of a performance here. Between this and The Tree of Life, he's somebody worth really looking out for.

I'm having a hard time seeing this not in my year-end top ten. ]]> FILM::crit dyedred19 http://awardsdailyforums.com/showthread.php?32974-Mud-(Nichols-2013) http://awardsdailyforums.com/showthread.php?32972-In-The-House-(Ozon-2012)&goto=newpost Sat, 04 May 2013 22:14:49 GMT A delicious, fun and very engrossing socio-literary drama/satire (with a sharp script which doesn't shy away from much) on middle class and art's role in its society and life and the risks and moral compromises involved in writing. Mixing (rather overlapping) reality and fiction, it zig-zags and then zag-zigs and we, the viewer, end up losing the track and can't know what is real or what is fiction, what imagined, what ignored. No one comes out unscathed or blameless in this movie. Even, us the audience. The great thing is that how it makes us complicit (and hence feel guilty) in it's own voyeurism and other deeds which we would embarrass to admit and most of the time flat-out deny. Towards the ending it is where it just simply disappoints. It seemed rushed and unsatisfying.

As the co-lead Fabrice Luchini is excellent as he delivers a crackling and natural performance of a complex and complicated character who is funny, very pragmatic, smart and extremely self-aware (in fact quoting his wife's comment about him: 'he has a gift of lucidity') but still cannot control the all so human temptations and thus prevent his downward spiral. Emmaneulle Seigner is not far behind in her understated and evolving role which starts as just a stock cut-out, a deliberate image, a part of of les classes moyennes family but later towards the end, we see her growing along with her character as it achieves more depth and dimension (by the way she has aged well.) My only complain is the other lead who is suppose to portray the manipulative, genius, mischievous minx. Sure Ernst Umhauer is pretty to look at and charming but comes of surprisingly mediocre in his acting which ranges from weak to over-the-top. He seemed a bit out of his depth.

Ozon seems to be having fun too, right from the start with the opening titles (the credits handwritten on a multi-line page, the collage of diverse French students) and the omniscient feeling of thrill and suspense in its editing, music score, etc. ]]> FILM::crit haqyunus http://awardsdailyforums.com/showthread.php?32972-In-The-House-(Ozon-2012) http://awardsdailyforums.com/showthread.php?32967-Star-Trek-(2009-Abrams)-2009-The-first-one-Not-the-sequel-Fuckfaces&goto=newpost Sat, 04 May 2013 04:10:04 GMT Star Trek (2009) - **** out of 5

So yeah with the sequel coming out, let's talk about the first movie which strangely for a would-be popcorn blockbuster tentpole franchise reboot I remembered AD embracing it very much to my surprise. Which i didn't mind because I enjoyed it too.

Rewatching this again, I basically have the same praises and complaints with this as I did back in '09. Except this as aged well so I'm bumping up my score. I feel I took ST's quality for granted and plus I feel guilty about giving this the same score as I did MEN IN BLACK III and HANSEL & GRETEL: WITCH HUNTERS.

For the good in TREK, J.J. Abrams and his people did what BBC did with the new DOCTOR WHO: They took a beloved but dead as fried chicken sci-fi property with a feverish cult fandom and rebooted it for a new generation with a bigger budget, better FX and more broad appeal. Alot of the same charms from the old is brought back to keep the old fans happy (and attract new ones), like Captain Kirk's manwhoring swagger and Spock's badass logic and the very disposable redshirts and explaining away complex science jargon with simplistic metaphors and Scotty the miracle engineer, etc. Like DW, they use a convenient plot device (whether the Time War or Romulans time traveling) to erase the old continuity and freeing themselves to potentially do whatever the fuck they want.

The biggest upgrade though was the brilliant Uhura/Spock pairing. From that, Uhura went from being the black lady that answered the space phone in the future on the old series to being a legitimate fully-realized character. Also like THE AVENGERS, Abrams gives every notable well-casted Enterprise crew member a good memorable moment to endear you. (Sulu fencing? Fuck yeah.) Unfortunately with the upcoming STAR TREK sequel, I will keep expecting Doctor Judge Dredd to kill bad guys instead of yelling about how he's a Doctor, not a (fill in the blank.)

So why do I feel that this is just merely very good and not "great"? Abrams' Achilles heel I suppose.

Back years ago, Abrams obviously wanted to make a STAR WARS movie, but George Lucas quit producing them so he basically produced his own with another STAR property. Which is fine, STAR WARS is a great inspiration. We all love that movie. But then you notice little moments that snowball: Opening up on a spaceship, only to reveal a much bigger one. A trifecta of leads, two guys and gal and there is a romance but no love triangle. One of them's home planet gets destroyed by the villains. One of them gets lost in an ice planet and almost eaten by a local monster. One of the male leads is a "good boy," the other a charming rogue. One of their dads got killed years ago by the villains. And so forth. Inspiration becomes remake. After awhile, you realize Abrams doing Episode 7 was inevitable. Yeah why bother with Star Trek anymore when he can play with the legitimate real sandbox? Those public games of him saying he might still direct STAR TREK 3? Bullshit. Bye bye baby!

Mind you I've enjoyed all of Abrams' movies so far, including some of his produced movies/TV shows. He has a knack for FX and humor and actors, at times a nice imagination, the tools and talent to be a great filmmaker. But he's not, not yet at least. He makes pretty good movies, but not that homerun picture. So what keeps him back? I think it might be that he wears his influences too much on his sleeves instead of creating a new unique filmatic sphere for which inspires others. Instead of being the Beatles, he's like the Beatles-inspired E.L.O. Or let's put it the best way: Look at Christopher Nolan. You know basically what movies inspired him, but its not so transparent. He made a new sort of movie that Hollywood is ripping off. How many recent big movies have already basically remade THE DARK KNIGHT? Then look at Abrams: who rips him off? Now when the STAR TREK sequel trailers played, look at the blue hues and the unstoppable supervillain and....yeah who and what movie was Abrams "influenced" by?

Again let me make this clear: This isn't me slamming the guy. Just a honest critique. All that SW commentary I did above didn't stop me from enjoying STAR TREK. E.L.O. made some good music too.

But there's also the fact that Abrams at times can be lazy script-wise. I remember as a kid reading a Star Trek novel where Captain Kirk revealed how he beat that unbeatable Starfleet Academy simulator test (which WRATH OF KHAN famously mentioned but never revealed): he hacked into the computers and programmed the Klingons to know about Kirk and his many "conquests" and flee from him in terror. That's fucking awesome. Ballsy not just cheating, but creatively so. So what does STAR TREK do? He just makes them blip away. Really? That's it? That's like writing notes on your wrist for the Final Exam, dude. I got the sense the audience was meant to be impressed by this, but why would they?

Then that scene which got considerable criticism, with how Kirk takes over command from Spock. Like that cheat scene, Abrams I wonder if he had a great idea to go from Point A to Point C, but how to get there through Point B? Well he didn't know, so fuck it he around with Point B-1/2. It's clumsy. Why would Spock get upset when he knew that was Kirk's very obvious plan? Not to mention, I just don't buy Spock accepting his demotion as Kirk's top sidekick. I think made this hilarious was old Spock convincing him that this was a good thing. (And don't get me started on Old Spock. This movie didn't need him at all, and the convoluted plotting that his presence required. new DOCTOR WHO knew better than that with their pilot episode.)

But that's fucking fan nitpitcking on my part. This movie still rocks. Also did you know Captain Kirk's dad is Thor? I smell a Marvel/Star Trek cross-over.

Tell you what really disapointed me though and it wasn't in this movie but Abrams awhile back was asked if he would continue the Star Trek tradition of adding ethnic/national minority characters in his sequels, possibly even a gay character. And he answered (if I remember correctly) that would be too much of a "distraction." That really pissed me off at the time. I mean after ratings hit TORCHWOOD had a bisexual hero (and a beloved character from DOCTOR WHO at that), Abrams pulled that bullshit? Its time for more kickass gay/LBGT characters in our movies and TV shows. Abrams (plus Marvel and Star Wars and every other franchise) has the opportunity to push forward but refuse to. Worse, this continues Star Trek's unfortunate and depressing history of homophobia. We're supposed to go boldly where no one has gone before, and we're not. ]]> FILM::crit RRA http://awardsdailyforums.com/showthread.php?32967-Star-Trek-(2009-Abrams)-2009-The-first-one-Not-the-sequel-Fuckfaces http://awardsdailyforums.com/showthread.php?32934-Random-Actress-Thoughts-Frances-Farmer-as-Jessica-Lange&goto=newpost Tue, 30 Apr 2013 22:37:21 GMT Because I do not want to litter the Random Film Thoughts thread with observations restricted entirely to the merit of an actress’s performance (I can... Because I do not want to litter the Random Film Thoughts thread with observations restricted entirely to the merit of an actress’s performance (I can already imagine McTeague’s complaint of “Yeah, but what about the film?”), I thought it would be appropriate to open a thread as an outlet to express this kind of gushy praise, and keep it from irrelevantly flowing into other threads, and getting them off topic. So, like, mods, please don't lock this up. :deal:

And, yeah, so I finally got around to watching Frances, for the first time.

Jessica Lange does everything in this: she is subtle and hammy, natural and contrived, ironically funny, and terrifyingly tragic. She mumbles her lines one moment, and spits out her dialogue with awareness, calibration, and precision just as often. Hers is a performance of manic dualities that effectively evoke the extremities of her Frances Farmer’s polarities, and she masterfully navigates these transitions effortlessly, in a way that suggests a maturity and assurance greater than could be expected of a performer with a measly five prior screen credits. And she was so young to contribute one of the great Grand Guignol performances, that functions in part as a great promise of a career with more to come. As this is not a literal retelling of the events of Frances Fisher’s life, it is refreshing to see that she did not chose a “Jessica Lange IS Frances Farmer” mimicry approach, because the great worth of this performance lies in its originality, and as this is very much Jessica Lange playing to Jessica Lange’s mannerisms inspired by fanciful imaginations of the events of Frances Farmer’s life, such a choice allows her to play to her strengths, simultaneously flexing every acting muscle that she is developing, while also announcing the arrival of a distinct, charismatic true star.

Even if this is a performance of all highs, there are several scenes that stand out to me. When Frances is hours late for shooting, and is chastised by her hairdresser, told that she is already starting to age, her subsequent explosion of screams and “Fuck you all!”s is a firecracker of intensity that is rarely as convincing or spontaneous when most actors feel they need to scream their lines. The next scene, when she wakes up in her hotel room, what she does with her voice, just in the single articulation of a dazed “WHAT?!” as she answers the ringing telephone is astounding: she is able to mumble, growl, and scream this simultaneously. But, the greatest proof of her genius is in the visit with her psychiatrist. Her range in this scene is tremendous: at first she is defensively amused and evasive, then, once he comments that he is looking forward to “solving her predicament”, in an instant, she visibly slides from her bitter derision into a narrowed-eyed flare of mounting anger, stands up menacingly, and whispering through gritted teeth, questions if he has greater insight into her personality than she does. When she is told to sit back down, because this is no joke, Lange once again pulls out her growling shout that she has perfected, as she tells him that the “whole fucking thing is a joke!” snapping back to a smug whisper, as she reads him for filth for the little beads of sweat on his upper lip, showing him that she, too, might be a little bit of an expert when it comes to analyzing another person.

And, the film was not as bad as I was expecting. Yes, on one hand it feels sloppy and unfinished, but its abrupt time jumps actually work in suggesting the messiness of her life, and her personal filtration of what events have had the most impact on her. But this is truly a case of where the performance is the film (though I feel like this assessment is often misused as an opportunity to praise a performance for being the best thing about a film), because it is actually the shifts in her performance that single-handedly develop the film’s thematic insights.

While I think that typically Meryl Streep >>> Jessica Lange, and while I love what Meryl Streep accomplishes in Sophie’s Choice, I would narrowly prefer for Jessica Lange to have won the Lead Actress Oscar in 1982, and I imagine that if Tootsie had not happened in the same year, and Meryl had won the year before for The French Lieutenant’s Woman, there is a good chance that that Oscar would be hers. And, my gut reaction is to call this the best female lead performance of the eighties (with some doubts regarding Meryl Streep in A Cry in the Dark). What are the chances that two towering, at least nearly decade best, performances in the variety of click clickety-clack actorly technique would happen in the same year (shame Daniel Day-Lewis only had a four second performance in 1982 :lol:)? ]]> FILM::crit David Giancarlo http://awardsdailyforums.com/showthread.php?32934-Random-Actress-Thoughts-Frances-Farmer-as-Jessica-Lange http://awardsdailyforums.com/showthread.php?32923-Pain-amp-Gain-(Bay-2013)&goto=newpost Sun, 28 Apr 2013 19:16:04 GMT Pain & Gain (2013) - *** out of 5

Dear Internet: Quit describing this as "Michael Bay trying to make a Coen Bros. movie" or something to that effect. For one this undersells the genre-prolific, vertically talented Coen Brothers beyond the quirky black comedies I guess people usually associate them with. Second, PAIN & GAIN is a pure Michael Bay movie, for better or worse. Third, you're comparing Michael Bay to the Coen Bros. *whistle* 10 yard penalty!

PAIN & GAIN is Michael Bay's best movie, which might amount to possibly saying its the smallest pimple on your ass but it's true. I've had a long healthy history of loathing him and his bloated, chaotic blockbusters which some people shockingly call "good action movies" which really depresses an action film fanboy like me. If action filmmaking is lovemaking, then Bay is a rapist in my book. In fact you can probably chalk up a good amount of blame at the post-action garbage we're stuck with today (i.e. spend fortunes and time behind action sequences, then shoot and cut them as random and incomprehensible as possible) can be placed at his feet. There is no thrill, no intrigue with his films, only never-ending viscreal assault from the chaotic "entertainment" until you're forced submit. For me I always tap out to boredom.

But I must give Bay credit here. For once, he actually tried to make a good movie. He doesn't quite get there, but dammit he conciously [i]tried/i]. And some of it does work. This was the movie that Bay (along with stars Mark Wahlberg and Dwayne Johnson) agreed to work for pennies and promised backend in order to get greenlighted on a $26 million budget. Also Bay agreed to make a fourth TRANSFORMERS movie. Finally, believe it or not this Michael Bay movie has only one explosion. One must respect his dedication to effort here. Congrats Mikey, you get a gold star!

Usually one of my biggest problems with Bay is that his protagonists tend to be whiney, unlikeable douchebags which I usually suspected to be Bay unconciously projecting himself (and his juvenile, vain view of the world) into the movie. But for once, here the Bay protagonists are intentionally meant to be deplorable folks. Marky Mark is a idiotic bodybuilder with his fascist sense of achieving the American dream ("Be a Doer, not a Don't-er!"), brawn over brains and ethics apparently is just for "pussies." I liked that one of his dopey fantasies is to own his lawn and get an expensive lawnmower and ride it. You forget about it, until his kidnapping/extortion scheme works and next we see him, he's mowing his new mansion's yard with that mower. he teams up with fellow ideological meatheads in future Captain America sidekick Anthony Mackie and ex-convict/born-again Christian Dwayne Johnson.

Some good-liners. The best probably from Johnson. "Jesus blessed me with many gifts, including knocking people the fuck out." Amazing how he tries to grapple his faith with doing drugs, torturing, and murder. I loved that scene at the rich neighborhood's Crime Watch meeting and he's snorting coke behind the placards. When Bay actually engaged in actualy attempts at camp humor, some of it works. When the movie goes serious when these thugs' world goes to hell and they desperately swim against the current, Bay doesn't hold back. The pacing is mostly decent. The movie is genuinely funny at times. I liked that scene when the idiots buy a chainsaw and try to use it to cut up some bodies, and the blade catches some of the hair and jams. They return it, with some of the hair and blood intact that goes unnoticed. Another hilarious bit is when one of the guys has to burn the fingerprints off, so he grills the severed hands outside like burgers.

So I guess this is Bay trying somewhat to make his own GOODFELLAS and SCARFACE or an outrageous crime picture like that. Unfortunately, Michael Bay may step outside of his movies but he can't get the Michael Bay out of his movies. Like every Bay film, this is way too long (20-30 minutes give or take) and it drags in the last act and you feel it. His unfortunate fratboy taste in lame jokes continues here, from the scatological to the homophobic. (The Rock beating up a gay guy for sexually propositioning him? Stay classy Mike.) A fat guy shits all over a bathroom? Hilarious. Not. A warehouse full of dildos? Mackie's dick getting a steroid injection? Rebel Wilson testifying that her husband tried to fingerbang his attorney? Oh har har.

For Bay's cinema, PAIN & GAIN is a step forward and one (maybe 2) backwards. But I really liked that one step forward.

Take Tony Shaloub's character, a prick from beginning to end but you still feel bad for him when nobody (especially not the Miami Police) believes this insane story of bodybuilders torturing him out of his fortune and stuff. Nice contrast between the protagonists living (and snorting) the high life while he's crippled and living at a rat trap motel. He becomes obsessive about getting his shit back, and actually gets a good scene when he does get his revenge. I doubt that actually happened, but if it did, it would make this movie even better if you ask me. I liked ex-cop turned P.I. Ed Harris (and part-time movie narrator) taking Shaloub's case because even though he thinks this guy is a prick, dammit it's the right thing to do regardless. (I certainly don't support bodybuilders torturing people into signing away their life.)

Come to think of it, I was suprised Harris is in this movie. I once read an anecdote on THE ROCK that Bay allegedly kept annoying Harris with questions about how James Cameron directed this and that shot on THE ABYSS (a movie Harris had a bad time, to say the least) and Harris then allegedly politely told Bay to shut up. I don't know if that story is true, but apparently not if Harris was willing to work with Bay again. Also small complaint, for a movie set in 1995, I wished Bay played more with the technology and cultural trends back then. I mean we're in the 2010s, time ripe for 1990s nostalgia. But other than "Gangsta's Paradise" and a cellphone with pull-out antenna (remember them?), Bay doesn't exploit that gold mine.

For this half-miss, I was going to give PAIN & GAIN 2 and half stars out of 5. But then I realized I gave that same score recently to OBLIVION. For all its flaws, PAIN & GAIN (mostly) never bored me and was always somewhat engaged with the story. As said before, some of this is actually legitimately entertaining. I might not recommend PAIN to most folks, but I wouldn't dismiss it as a waste of time like I did OBLIVION. So yes Mr. Bay, this is where your gold star gets cashed in. Also we must encourage Bay to keep trying. I doubt he has the talent (or intellectual/emotional fortitude) to pull it off, but you never know unless you try, right? But I'm afraid that with the critical indifference and audiences not embracing this movie (a C+ Cinemascore reportedly), Bay will go back to his "don't-er" days and no long try to be a Doer. ]]> FILM::crit RRA http://awardsdailyforums.com/showthread.php?32923-Pain-amp-Gain-(Bay-2013) http://awardsdailyforums.com/showthread.php?32921-Disconnect-(Rubin-2013)&goto=newpost Sat, 27 Apr 2013 13:23:22 GMT It is not a great film and suffers in from glossy overall direction (plus middling acting by most) but it is the screenplay that is memorable here.... It is not a great film and suffers in from glossy overall direction (plus middling acting by most) but it is the screenplay that is memorable here. It is based on familiar trappings/plot points but how it handles those is impressive. The treatment of known scenarios and characters is complex, nuanced and unpredictable and some the narrative and character threads work wonderfully within themselves and worth the look. Till the very--semi-cathartic, realistic, tough--ending. The best thing about the movie is that it is engaging and 'riveting' (as in quotes on the posters) but it is of simmering, low-key kind that results in heavy load rather than outright, in-your-face depression or misery. It takes it time. Andrea Riseborough and Jason Bateman shine in strong performances (specially the latter.) They are helped also, I guess, by having the most multi-dimensional characters. ]]> FILM::crit haqyunus http://awardsdailyforums.com/showthread.php?32921-Disconnect-(Rubin-2013) http://awardsdailyforums.com/showthread.php?32919-Iron-Man-3-(Shane-Black-2013)&goto=newpost Fri, 26 Apr 2013 20:38:14 GMT I'm not a fan of the Marvel universe films,so going into this film i didn't expect anything but a continuation of their flashy,corny,empty spectacles.

But i'm happy to report that i was surprised at what the film turned out to be.The trailers have got to be the most misleading in recent memory,not only is the film not dark and somber,it's actually laugh-out-loud buddy comedy most of the time.Plus Ben Kingsley does deliver a great performance but it's not anything you would expect,he's a actually a drunk English actor,not The Mandarin. The twist is definitely going to be controversial but i think it worked very well in the context of the film. It touches upon a very controversial issue,where most people find it easier to see the world colored in black and white and rather hate a leader/religion/movement than actually think about the issues at hand in a more rational,open minded way.What Killian does(he is by the way,The Mandarin),is a very smart way to hide his actions,by placing a face on TV that the Americans will hate,that the government will fear and he can quietly go about his business unassumed.

The film starts after the Avengers events where Tony can't sleep and spends all his time working and tinkering with his high tech equipment.At the same time,a terrorist named The Mandarin continues to threaten the US government bombing unnamed targets with seemingly mass-less bombs.A scientist named Aldrich Killian makes a proposition to Pepper to manufacture his Extremis vaccine,which can rearrange DNA and re-grow limbs,heal injuries basically turning an average human being into Wolverine.As the attacks continue Tony tries to solve the mystery of the explosions while being presumed dead after The Mandarin destroys his mansion.There are a lot of surprises following the rest of these events which i wouldn't like to spoil even in tags,but the film has more in common with Lethal Weapon and Die Hard than Iron Man 1,2 or Thor.

Unlike the previous two films,the relationship between Pepper and Tony is more than just great chemistry and one liners,here they are so natural together,the dialogue gives them much to work.Their issues,their desires,their conflicts are touched upon with great sensitivity and you end up caring about them a lot more then you would in your middle of the road comic book film.

The bulk of the story examines the dangers and wonders of science depending on the person that has the power and the resources,not anything we haven't seen a hundred times before but it's written in a way that doesn't seem like it's covering the same old ground.On one hand we have Iron Man who is simply a mechanic,a curious scientist who always searches for something better,on the other we have Killian who has let his greed and ambition overcome his conscience. A parallel between the innocent,exciting thirst for knowledge and the our human follies that rather often turn that into something monstrous,immoral and selfish.Tony's journey from the fall from the sky in The Avengers to his realization that he is Iron Man,the costumes are just an extension of his genius not a different personality is where the script shines and RDJ completely delivers a warm,touching yet incredibly funny performance.His sarcastic shtick is there but it's there to hide deeper issues which come to the surface later in the film rather than just comic relief.

There are 3 major set pieces,all of which are directed very competently by Black especially the last sequence, where 40 different Iron Man costumes fight a small army of bio-chemically enhanced soldiers.

All in all,it's a stand alone story that focuses on Tony Stark and his closest,that has tons of humor,lots of emotions and doesn't serve as a stepping stone for The Avengers 2. ]]> FILM::crit Kargo http://awardsdailyforums.com/showthread.php?32919-Iron-Man-3-(Shane-Black-2013) http://awardsdailyforums.com/showthread.php?32873-Blancanieves-(Berger-2012)&goto=newpost Sun, 21 Apr 2013 22:33:07 GMT So when Blancanieves started and till almost the mid point, I thought that it will essentially be a novelty (although gorgeous one) retelling of the... So when Blancanieves started and till almost the mid point, I thought that it will essentially be a novelty (although gorgeous one) retelling of the Snow White tale and it started to lag. But with the arrival of dwarves, the scenario changed and it became something special. Almost subversive interpretation with twists and certain realistic ruthlessness and still maintaing an element of fantasy. It ingeniously mixes modern filming-making, different cultures, traditions and art and some of the scenes are breathtaking, both in beauty (intricate) and power (harsh.) The close-up of coming out of the pen's nib, the character of Josefa, the 'prince' which is a dwarf essentially, the shots of zeppelin, the female circus-goer trying her luck with the kiss, the hand-clapping montage towards the end in the colosseum, the irony that agent Montoya does end up owning Snow White for life, Encarna's reflection in the pool after the confrontation with Generao Bilbao and how she meets her end (specially a highlight:bow:) ]]> FILM::crit haqyunus http://awardsdailyforums.com/showthread.php?32873-Blancanieves-(Berger-2012)