Oscar Nominations - Acting

Whoo, is this thing still here? I must have fallen asleep or something. Did anything important happen while I was gone? What's that? I already missed the Golden Globes? Meh, everybody just makes fun of those anyway. Oh! The Oscar nominations were announced recently. And for once in my life, I have actually seen ALL of the nominees for best picture. This year I will have a fully prepared viewing experience going into the awards. Therefore I have decided to give you, my loyal handful of readers my opinions. I was originally going to do this in one post, but there's a lot of categories, and I'm kind of lazy. So it will be broken up into a few separate posts. So without further ado, here are the nominations and my picks for who will win the acting categories.

Actor in a Leading Role
Javier Bardem-Biutiful
Jeff Bridges-True Grit
Jesse Eisenberg-The Social Network
Colin Firth-The King's Speech
James Franco-127 Hours

Now I haven't seen Biutiful (I don't think it's playing around here anyway) but I think this one has to go to Colin Firth. He's the front runner, and I think he absolutely deserves it. At no point during The King's Speech did it ever occur to me that he DIDN'T actually have a stutter. If there was a second place prize though, it would have to go to James Franco. If you haven't seen 127 Hours you need to, if only for his performance.

Actor in a Supporting Role
Christian Bale-The Fighter
John Hawkes-Winter's Bone
Jeremy Renner-The Town
Mark Ruffalo-The Kids Are All Right
Geoffrey Rush-The King's Speech


Of these five I've seen all but The Town. This category is another two man race coming down to Christian Bale and Geoffrey Rush, both of whom gave excellent and memorable performances. John Hawkes was completely forgettable in Winter's Bone and Mark Ruffalo did fine in The Kids Are All Right but I don't think there's any chance either one of them wins it. My pick is Bale. Geoffrey Rush did an amazing job in The Kings Speech but between Bale's Boston accent and his stunning weight loss for the role, I think he's got it in the bag.

Actress in a Supporting Role
Amy Adams-The Fighter
Helena Bonham Carter-The Kings Speech
Melissa Leo-The Fighter
Hailee Steinfeld-True Grit
Jacki Weaver-Animal Kingdom


First of all, let's get this out of the way. Hailee Steinfeld does not belong in this category. It's not because her performance was not good enough, quite the opposite in fact. Hailee Steinfeld belongs in the Best Actress category. She's on almost every frame of True Grit and is the main character to boot. Having said that, this is probably the single toughest category to call. I haven't seen  Animal Kingdom, but literally any one from this category could win and i wouldn't be upset. As for who I want to win, I have to go with Amy Adams. Because I'm in love with her. Also she gave an excellent performance in The Fighter. It was much more subtle than other rolls I've seen her in, and even though her character wasn't likable at some points, she always manages to be a sympathetic character.

Actress in a Leading Role
Annette Bening-The Kids Are All Right
Nicole Kidman-Rabbit Hole
Jennifer Lawrence-Winter's Bone
Natalie Portman-Black Swan
Michelle Williams-Blue Valentine

For me, there's only one choice in this category. But before I get to that let's talk about the others for a second. I haven't seen  Blue Valentine or Rabbit Hole and to be honest, I don't really care to. I hear good things about Michelle Williams, but from what I understand Blue Valentine is brutal. Nicole Kidman gets the nod for being Nicole Kidman and being sad for 120 minutes. Jennifer Lawrence was the only good part I found in Winter's Bone, a film I found pretty boring (I'll get to that in a later post). That leaves Annette Bening  and Natalie Portman. I think there's a decent chance Bening wins this just because of Oscar politics, but for my money. Natalie Portman gave THE single greatest performance this year. Out of anyone in any movie. Through most of the movie, it might not seem like she's doing that much acting, but by the time you get to the last 20 minutes of Black Swan she cuts loose and gives it everything she has. And it's beautiful, terrifying, and sad but above all it's spectacular.


Well that's all the acting categories. Let me know if you have any different picks. Look out for another post tomorrow on some of the technical categories.

Thoughts on the MPAA

Now, I know this has been done before, and quite a bit lately, but it's something I'd like to discuss. Please regard this as a SPOILER WARNING for all movies I'll be talking about.

I have no credibility in this regard, except as a twentysomething, movie-loving American, and so you can take this however you like.

I've just watched the documentary This Film is Not Yet Rated on Netflix. It's an excellent film, and it brings out some very interesting points on how the MPAA ratings board works. I'll summarize it here, as I know a lot of my readers won't watch it. The film does include scenes from R and NC-17 rated movies, to prove a point, and I would not recommend it, really. Anyway, the director, Kirby Dick, hires a private investigator to discover who really gets to rate movies. The film is interspersed with sound bytes from Jack Valenti, the man who started the ratings board. The basic theme from Valenti is that the people screening these films and deciding who gets to see them are parents of children of the ages five to seventeen. Upon investigation, it's revealed that the majority of the members of this board do not fit under these criteria. Also, the majority of the members of the appeals board are owners and presidents of theater companies.

Basically, nobody knows why these people are qualified to make any decisions about a film. They are secretive, not held accountable, and come off as essentially a censorship board.

I'm completely for film ratings. Do not misunderstand me. But when I see a film like True Grit (I echo my spoiler warning here), and I see a man's fingers cut off on screen, and then immediately after, watch a man BE SHOT THROUGH THE HEAD, I cannot understand the PG-13 rating. We see gruesome and horrific violence, with brains and blood and everything, and it's completely okay. Do you know why?

There's no sex in the movie.

If there had even been a little bit of kissing-and-wake-up-the-next-morning-in-bed-together, I bet there would have been a higher rating.

But here I am, with children in the theater, to see a great Western film, and the man is shot. Through the face.

Then a movie that I would love for everyone to see, The King's Speech, gets an R rating. Because the f-bomb is dropped a few times. The scene is fairly essential to the theme of the movie, and shouldn't be cut down for a PG-13, but the rest of the movie is completely clean and is something that so many won't get a chance to see, because of that rating.

Now, I understand that some people do not want to take their children to a movie and hear those words. But the rating is PG-13. I do not believe there is a child in America that has not heard that word by the age of 13. I honestly don't. Fight me on that if you like, but I went to a private, Christian school, and I heard it.

Parents, yes. Screen movies for your kids. Be a good parent and please don't let them see crazy adult movies. But be smart. Don't pretend that they don't know what those words are. And be careful about some of the other things you will let them see. PG-13 just means there aren't nipples on-screen, or more than one f-bomb (sometimes two), and a little bit of blood. There will probably still be violence (The Incredibles, I'm fairly certain [Disney, PG-rated], had a higher body count than Die Hard). There will probably be innuendo, and maybe even the afore-mentioned implied sex. And like I said, PG-13 almost always gets that word. (Speed Racer, PG, had the sh-- word. And quite a few cars flying off the track and exploding.)

Take this for what you will. I just am beginning to have serious doubts with the MPAA and what it will allow. I honestly have no idea why The Passion of the Christ received an R rating and then allowed children to get in with signed permission.

What's the point?

Coming Soon:

I'm currently working my way through the filmography of director Wes Anderson. I plan on posting about this soon. Also, I have the Coen Brothers lined up next. Also also, I have comics to talk about.

I promise to write soon.

Movie Review: THE SOCIAL NETWORK

I have a feeling that this review will be kind of short, because to be honest, I'm not 100% sure how this movie makes me feel. Let me start by saying that David Fincher is a great director. He really captured the isolation of Mark Zuckerberg. Several times I noticed that Jesse Eisenberg, playing Zuckerberg, was in a shot all by himself. Even when there were other people around, he was still off to one side. Apart from using framing to show Zuckerberg's isolation, Fincher just sets up amazing shots. This movie was absolutely beautiful to watch. From the Harvard campus to a table in a room, Fincher found the perfect way to set up the scene and tell his story.

Aaron Sorkin's writing was also a treat. The fast paced dialogue he is known for was certainly on display here. It will take a second viewing just to catch everything said in the opening conversation. The way the script jumped from hearing to flashback to another hearing was very smooth and felt very natural.

I said I wasn't sure how THE SOCIAL NETWORK makes me feel. This is because the movie doesn't seem to make a judgement on Zuckerberg's actions. It just shows them "how they happened." This being a movie at least partly fiction, it doesn't go out of its way to tell the audience how to feel. Personally I kind of identify with the character of Mark Zuckerberg. THE SOCIAL NETWORK portrays him as a very lonely person who is just trying to get noticed. His problem is, he doesn't know when to stop.

This movie was very interesting, and I will definitely have to see it again to get its full impact. For now, I will simply recommend it to just about anyone who doesn't mind seeing a movie with little to no action, but with a lot of dialogue that won't leave you bored.

Rating: A

Nostalgia Review: The Land Before Time

Now, it's been a good 15 years since I've watched The Land Before Time. Like many my age I have quite fond and scarring memories of this movie. Since it was on Netflix's watch instantly I decided to rewatch it. The movie is directed by Don Bluth, who directed films such as An American Tail, All Dogs Go to Heaven, and Anastasia. Like Bluth's other films, The Land Before Time is beautifully animated, even by today's standards, though sometimes it does feel a little flat at times. What surprised me was the depth of the characters. Each of the dinosaurs has their own traits that are completely distinct from the other. The film does an excellent job of raising tension. The scenes with the sharp tooth are all quite scary, especially for a child. Likewise, the scene in the tar pit is very intense and if I hadn't seen the movie several times before I would have been worried about the characters.

The Land Before Time is best at handling the emotional scenes. I think everyone who saw this movie before the age of ten is not afraid to admit that they wept in the scene where Littlefoot's mother dies. What I think those same people forget, however, are the scenes of conflict between the party members can be almost as heart wrenching. The viewer very much wants this party to succeed in their quest to find the great valley, so when fights happen that make that quest harder, it's a very sad prospect. On the other side of the coin, the scenes where the characters succeed in what they are trying to accomplish it is very exciting and moving.

The themes of The Land Before Time are very good ones to have in children's movie. The themes of loss, independence, and strength in friendships are all ones that young children can use as they grow. Especially in modern times, where a child may learn about loss and the need to be independent at a much younger age than in the past.

I was actually quite surprised by how much I still enjoyed this movie. It is very well directed. The music fits well with the scenes, even if the song over the credits is a little melodramatic, and the characters are deep and interesting. If you haven't seen this movie since you were a child, I suggest rewatching it, and if you have children of your own now let them experience this part of your childhood.

Grade: A+

Twilight sucks, or does it......it does

I think I'm over Twilight bashing...I mean, the movie's going to make $150 million dollars this weekend, girls will swoon, facebook and twitter will be overrun with "OMG EDWARD" and then in two weeks it will all go away until the DVD comes out. It's happened for the last two years, and it will happen again next year when the last movie comes out. If someone can come up with original jokes about Twilight, I'm all for it. I still think the series is poorly written and filmed, but at this point what else is there to say?

Lost - "The End" Review

:)

Rating - A+

That is all.