When I first heard that James Franco and Anne Hathaway were going to be the hosts of this year's Academy Awards, I believe my exact words were, "Oh no." I mean, come on. You've got to earn that shit, by virtue of being known for being quite funny, quite charming on live televised events, quite a song-and-dance man, something. And I mean, I think James Franco is a good actor--you may recall that right on this very blog, I said that I wouldn't have minded seeing him win Best Actor for 127 hours--but I also predicted that he was gonna suck monkey nuts as an Oscar host. And hoo boy, did I hit that one out of the park. I think I predicted that he would be a "pretentious time suck"; change "pretentious" to "catatonic", and you can call me Miss Cleo. The only thing that surprised me, host-wise, was that I was expecting to want to punch Anne Hathaway in the face afterwards more than Franco, but those roles have been reversed. I didn't think Hathaway was good, mind you, but at least she tried. And she had maybe one or two decent moments last night compared to Franco's goose egg. She could have maybe been bumped up to passable if she had something other than a block of wood to play off of. And she sure looked nice. Franco's eyes looked like blind albino mice eyes, and he looked like shit in drag, too. And why is that funny? Just...some dude in drag? That's the whole joke? Do. Not. Get. Do. Not. Want. Ever again.
Let's move on. Except, move on to what? Everything was so boring, and predictable. I'm tired of the big surprise being that that rule about there being at least one surprise winner each year isn't true anymore. Let's face it folks. It was boring, and lame, and there wasn't really anything, anything to hang your hat on or sink your teeth into entertainment-wise. I feel like I felt when I found out Santa Claus wasn't real. I'll still watch the Oscars, but I think this is the year the scales fell from my eyes, and I'm never gonna feel about the Oscars the way I felt about them when I was 25 again.
OK, but now I will talk a few specifics. Kirk Douglas has been touted as a highlight. Really? I mean, it's sweet and all, I guess, but I don't necessarily want such a stark reminder of how time just keeps a' marchin' on for us all. I would have been fine with it though if he would have cut it in half. But I found the dragging-out-the-winner's-name bit kind of cringeworthy, and a little rude. And then I found what followed it, Melissa Leo's speech, absolutely cringeworthy, and a lot rude. No, I'm not talking about the f-bomb, I'm talking about...learn how to speak publicly if you're going to be called upon to do it in such a public forum, for heaven's sakes. Get it together. If you think you may be nervous, which I get, have a few choice lines memorized so you can use the audience's laughter to compose yourself a bit.
One more word about Melissa Leo. I thought it was bullshit that she was getting called out so hard for those cheesy campaign ads she did. Yes, they were cheesy; yes, it was too much and made her seem narcissistic, but I thought the potential punishment (losing the Oscar over it) would not have fit the crime, had that come to pass. Because I thought that if it was a man that did something similar, nobody would seriously suggest that he deserved to lose because of it. But then she gave her speech, and I thought, "Oh Melissa Leo, I'm not going to defend your crazy-pants-ness anymore. Nobody's against you because you're a 50-year-old non-ingenue in a sexist industry, they're against you because you grate. Badly."
A few other random musings--Gwyneth Paltrow is a pretty decent singer for a non-singer, and I'm not sure why we're all supposed to just accept that she's any more special at it than that. Jennifer Hudson's new body is sick (sick good, I mean). Robert Downey Jr. would have been a much better host choice than Franco. Oprah's boobs are ginormous. I read on another blog that Reznor's score is the main thing elevated The Social Network to a potential best picture, and I think I agree with that. And I'm not going to break up with the Oscars over this year, but I don't know that our relationship will ever truly be the same.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Sunday, February 27, 2011
The King's Speech Review
Let me start out by saying that this is a good movie. It looks pretty; the acting is uniformly solid, in the instance of Geoffrey Rush, even transcendent; and the story is compelling and well-written. But I'm still just bugged by this notion that because it happened to a royal, or a rich, famous, and powerful person, it's inherently more interesting. It's like, why not make a movie about Angelina Jolie's astigmatism? Cause let's face it, nobody would ask us to sit through two hours about some dude's speech impediment if it wasn't supposed to be so important and British and blah, blah, blah who cares, really? It's stuttering, it's not pancreatic cancer.
I had a hard time buying Colin Firth as the younger brother of Guy Pearce in this movie, too. I thought both of them were great in their roles, but Firth does not look or act like a man who would be intimidated by, and younger than, Pearce. One of the roles should have been recast for that to work, I think.
There's a scene late in the movie where Firth is going on some tirade about how Rush's character isn't qualified, and then he turns around, and look! That cheeky Rush is daring to sit in his throne, impertinent grin on his face. It's scenes like that in movies that remind me of what this little 1st grader I used to tutor said about another little girl..."She think she cute". The King's Speech sure thought it was cute right there, boy. I felt like the movie really "think it's cute" too in the scene where Rush's wife discovers the royals in her home. I guess what I'm struggling to say is that too much of this movie felt like manufactured, "How charming!" moments to me. It's just so....Oscar bait-y.
All in all, I have to put this one pretty far down my list this year, maybe 9th or even 10th. But it's still totally going to win tonight. And I can live with that, because it certainly doesn't suck. It's just the opposite of inventive.
I had a hard time buying Colin Firth as the younger brother of Guy Pearce in this movie, too. I thought both of them were great in their roles, but Firth does not look or act like a man who would be intimidated by, and younger than, Pearce. One of the roles should have been recast for that to work, I think.
There's a scene late in the movie where Firth is going on some tirade about how Rush's character isn't qualified, and then he turns around, and look! That cheeky Rush is daring to sit in his throne, impertinent grin on his face. It's scenes like that in movies that remind me of what this little 1st grader I used to tutor said about another little girl..."She think she cute". The King's Speech sure thought it was cute right there, boy. I felt like the movie really "think it's cute" too in the scene where Rush's wife discovers the royals in her home. I guess what I'm struggling to say is that too much of this movie felt like manufactured, "How charming!" moments to me. It's just so....Oscar bait-y.
All in all, I have to put this one pretty far down my list this year, maybe 9th or even 10th. But it's still totally going to win tonight. And I can live with that, because it certainly doesn't suck. It's just the opposite of inventive.
Saturday, February 26, 2011
True Grit Review
You know how the Coen brothers always have their Coen-brothery schtick in just about every movie they make? It's not the same schtick in every movie, and it's a schtick I like almost always, but it's there. You never don't know you're watching a Coen brothers movie. I like that in this movie, their schtick was, there is no schtick. I guess they figured they'd tried just about every other cinematic trick in the universe, so why not just play this one straight and see how that'd go? It's like if Jackson Pollock just said, "Ah, fuck it. I'm just gonna paint a really pretty picture of a pony today," and was super good at that too. OK, there are a few little Coen-isms here and there, like how no one in the whole movie uses a contraction, ever. And certainly Jeff Bridges' Rooster Cogburn evokes the Dude more than a little. But mainly it's just a straight-up well done Western.
I loved Matt Damon too, and am surprised he didn't get more praise for his work in this. Hailee Steinfeld is great as well, but I'm going to go out on a bit of a limb and say she's been maybe a touch overpraised. She did a great job with the difficult dialogue, but I never forgot she was acting. The same could also be said for Jeff Bridges work in this film, but my adoration of him knows no bounds, and I mean, come on. It's Jeff Bridges--if not the most awesome man in the entire universe, then at least the most awesome man in Hollywood, ever. So, yes, nits can be picked, but the overall effect seems to be a very faithful adaptation of a very funny and compelling novel, done lovingly and well. It didn't blow me away, but it was very satisfying. In my Best Picture nom rankings, this one is usually somewhere in the middle, maybe 4 or 5. Which sounds like faint praise, but this was a pretty good year for film, and there isn't an actual stinker in the bunch, so...Yeah. 4th or 5th.
I loved Matt Damon too, and am surprised he didn't get more praise for his work in this. Hailee Steinfeld is great as well, but I'm going to go out on a bit of a limb and say she's been maybe a touch overpraised. She did a great job with the difficult dialogue, but I never forgot she was acting. The same could also be said for Jeff Bridges work in this film, but my adoration of him knows no bounds, and I mean, come on. It's Jeff Bridges--if not the most awesome man in the entire universe, then at least the most awesome man in Hollywood, ever. So, yes, nits can be picked, but the overall effect seems to be a very faithful adaptation of a very funny and compelling novel, done lovingly and well. It didn't blow me away, but it was very satisfying. In my Best Picture nom rankings, this one is usually somewhere in the middle, maybe 4 or 5. Which sounds like faint praise, but this was a pretty good year for film, and there isn't an actual stinker in the bunch, so...Yeah. 4th or 5th.
127 Hours Review
In honor of the Oscars, I'm going to try and review all of the Best Picture nominations in the next few days. I actually saw them all this year, so I'm going to go ahead and get myself a cookie and be right back. Ah, that's better. Girl Scout cookies truly are the bomb.
127 Hours, or as you may know it, that movie where James Franco cuts his arm off, starts out really annoyingly. It's directed by Danny Boyle, who also directed Slumdog Millionaire which I didn't like. Don't tell anybody. Them's apparently fighting words to a lot of people, I have found. But he seems to have a love for a really hyper, pulsating, kind of bad 80s music video vibe, and that's sort of how he starts this movie. And the character that Franco plays...lets just say that about 10 minutes in I turned to Matt and said, "If they're trying to make him so insufferable that I will relish seeing him have to chop off his own arm, then mission accomplished."
It sounds like I didn't like it, doesn't it? Not true! I did like it ! In fact, when I rank all the Best Picture nominations from this year in my head, which I actually do more often than I care to admit, many times this movie comes out number two, right behind that gay fantasia Black Swan, which had me at "creepy movie about anorexic ballerinas". After you get past the first 10 or 15 minutes of annoyance, you know, once the Franco settles down and gets all wedged into a chasm, it gets really compelling. It's one of those movies where once it's over you feel like you lived through the experience yourself, and you come out of the theater slightly dazed and so damn glad that that nice young couple saw you wandering armless around the Utah desert and called for help for you. And let me just add, that as much as I am against Franco and Hathaway as Oscar hosts, and think they will be pretentious and humorless time sucks that aren't in any way ready for this kind of heady responsibility (yes, I've seen the ads. No, I don't think they're funny) one Mr. James Franco can act his face off, and he does that in this movie. That's a good thing too, because you have to spend the vast majority of this movie just staring at his face, so it's best that it's a handsome and a talented one. Still doesn't mean he should host the Oscars, though. Just that he maybe should win Best Actor, but that isn't going to happen.
Like I say, maybe my second favorite of the Best Picture nominations. Too bad it came and went so quickly from the theaters, because i do think it'll lose something on DVD. Oh, and that arm cutting scene isn't really all that gross, and I'm kind of squeamish about that kind of shiz. It also takes up maybe 10 minutes of the movie, max.
127 Hours, or as you may know it, that movie where James Franco cuts his arm off, starts out really annoyingly. It's directed by Danny Boyle, who also directed Slumdog Millionaire which I didn't like. Don't tell anybody. Them's apparently fighting words to a lot of people, I have found. But he seems to have a love for a really hyper, pulsating, kind of bad 80s music video vibe, and that's sort of how he starts this movie. And the character that Franco plays...lets just say that about 10 minutes in I turned to Matt and said, "If they're trying to make him so insufferable that I will relish seeing him have to chop off his own arm, then mission accomplished."
It sounds like I didn't like it, doesn't it? Not true! I did like it ! In fact, when I rank all the Best Picture nominations from this year in my head, which I actually do more often than I care to admit, many times this movie comes out number two, right behind that gay fantasia Black Swan, which had me at "creepy movie about anorexic ballerinas". After you get past the first 10 or 15 minutes of annoyance, you know, once the Franco settles down and gets all wedged into a chasm, it gets really compelling. It's one of those movies where once it's over you feel like you lived through the experience yourself, and you come out of the theater slightly dazed and so damn glad that that nice young couple saw you wandering armless around the Utah desert and called for help for you. And let me just add, that as much as I am against Franco and Hathaway as Oscar hosts, and think they will be pretentious and humorless time sucks that aren't in any way ready for this kind of heady responsibility (yes, I've seen the ads. No, I don't think they're funny) one Mr. James Franco can act his face off, and he does that in this movie. That's a good thing too, because you have to spend the vast majority of this movie just staring at his face, so it's best that it's a handsome and a talented one. Still doesn't mean he should host the Oscars, though. Just that he maybe should win Best Actor, but that isn't going to happen.
Like I say, maybe my second favorite of the Best Picture nominations. Too bad it came and went so quickly from the theaters, because i do think it'll lose something on DVD. Oh, and that arm cutting scene isn't really all that gross, and I'm kind of squeamish about that kind of shiz. It also takes up maybe 10 minutes of the movie, max.
Cedar Rapids Review
So, I was conceived in a trailer park in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. I am also in love with Ed Helms. Well, maybe not love, love, as we've been through no tough times together and grown stronger as a couple, but at least in serious like. The man can act in a sitcom, act in a blockbuster movie, act in a Sondheim musical in service of his role in the sitcom, sing like a bird, play the banjo like a dream, and apparently, rollerskate like an extra in Xanadu as well. So sue me that I find that impressive. Plus, you know, I like to work blue and I enjoy seeing frank depictions of drug use, alcohol abuse, and sex after the age of 40 on the big screen. So I go into this review knowing that I am the absolute target audience for this flick.
That being said, it's wonderful, and you should drop whatever you're doing right now, and if not rush right out and see it, at least get out your cute little i-phone or blackberry or whatever the kids are using nowadays and coordinate your plans to go see it in the next week or so. If you're in St. Louis, these coordination efforts should take on a tone of some urgency, considering it is currently at the Moolah, and will probably not be after this week. So, go do that now. I'll wait.
OK, did you scare up a friend to go see it with you at the Tuesday rush hour showing? Good. You'll be glad you did.
Because what you'll get is a truly funny movie that gets the details right. If they didn't film this in the hotel where my now 32-year-old brother got drunk for the first time at our family friend's wedding, I'll be damned if they didn't find its doppelganger. And no, I'm not stupid enough to imagine it was actually the same motel, just that it looked like it could be, so win for the art direction, but on the other hand if you've gotten drunk for the first time in some second-rate midwestern motel with an indoor swimming pool, you've gotten drunk in them all, truly. And I loved that the "wacky, cutting loose" arc of the movie moved beyond SPOILER ALERT doing shots and sleeping with Anne Heche, and came boomeranging back at smoking crystal and narrowly escaping a beat-down by some sinister-looking country boys. Y'know, as you do in Iowa.
Did you want more? Didn't I already mention Ed Helms, Cedar Rapids, frank depictions of drug use, sex, and alcohol abuse? If you actually need another reason, allow me to add...it's as if the movies Sideways and the Hangover had a baby. And John C. Reilly rocks the party that rocked the party, so there's another one. And stay for the ending credits, particularly if you're a connoisseur of jokes about anorexics and yeast infections.
That being said, it's wonderful, and you should drop whatever you're doing right now, and if not rush right out and see it, at least get out your cute little i-phone or blackberry or whatever the kids are using nowadays and coordinate your plans to go see it in the next week or so. If you're in St. Louis, these coordination efforts should take on a tone of some urgency, considering it is currently at the Moolah, and will probably not be after this week. So, go do that now. I'll wait.
OK, did you scare up a friend to go see it with you at the Tuesday rush hour showing? Good. You'll be glad you did.
Because what you'll get is a truly funny movie that gets the details right. If they didn't film this in the hotel where my now 32-year-old brother got drunk for the first time at our family friend's wedding, I'll be damned if they didn't find its doppelganger. And no, I'm not stupid enough to imagine it was actually the same motel, just that it looked like it could be, so win for the art direction, but on the other hand if you've gotten drunk for the first time in some second-rate midwestern motel with an indoor swimming pool, you've gotten drunk in them all, truly. And I loved that the "wacky, cutting loose" arc of the movie moved beyond SPOILER ALERT doing shots and sleeping with Anne Heche, and came boomeranging back at smoking crystal and narrowly escaping a beat-down by some sinister-looking country boys. Y'know, as you do in Iowa.
Did you want more? Didn't I already mention Ed Helms, Cedar Rapids, frank depictions of drug use, sex, and alcohol abuse? If you actually need another reason, allow me to add...it's as if the movies Sideways and the Hangover had a baby. And John C. Reilly rocks the party that rocked the party, so there's another one. And stay for the ending credits, particularly if you're a connoisseur of jokes about anorexics and yeast infections.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)