Another Australian film gets an extremely pathetic release in the states.
Otherwise debuting fare failed to spark including respective grosses of $23,200 from four playdates and $5,100 in three exposures for the acclaimed non-fiction pictures Unknown White Male and Street Fight. The gritty Australian award-winning drama Little Fish received a wide berth with a $5,400 box office from a single site. And Bollywood entry Taxi No. 9211 limped to $61,300 from 36 theaters on the circuit.
ONE CINEMA? Wow.
They really should've done something different. If a decent distributer had it they could've even made a legit Oscar-run for Cate Blanchett (actress) and Hugo Weaving (supporting actor). They play drug users, and in Hugo's case, a homosexual drug addict! Instead this distrib released it in March in one cinema...? that makes no sense. First Wolf Creek got screwed and now this. I hope Look Both Ways doesn't get this sort of treatment.
February 28, 2006
February 24, 2006
Screen Hots Up For Kidman, Crowe
Found this great little article in the Herald Sun today.
Screen hots up for Kidman, Crowe
It's not Oklahoma! and it's definitely not a musical.
But Nicole Kidman and Russell Crowe will feature in a "sweeping romance" for Baz Luhrmann.
"Yes, it's very passionate," the Moulin Rouge! director said of the two stars' on-screen relationship.
The epic begins in the mid-1930s and end with it's major set piece, the 1942-43 Japanese bombing of Darwin and the exodus south, which became known as the Adelaide River Stakes.
Luhrmann, who has researched the film for 10 years, said the tale, co-written by Collateral's Stuart Beattie and The Pianist's Ron Harwood, will be a "mythological telling" drawn from books and historical materials.
"Russell, Nicole and I have been wanting to do a large Australian piece for a very long time," he said.
It is believed both actors have dramatically lowered their fees to collaborate with Luhrmann.
Shooting begins in August in the Kimberleys, Darwin and Queensland.
"We're in a unique moment where we can make an Australian film on a scale that's never been made about Australia with Australian actors in all the primary and lead roles," Luhrmann said.
Man, fully pumped for this! My favourite actress, one of my favourite actors, one of my favourite directors + I'm sure there will be a bounty of great Aussie supporting actors. And they're starting filming in August! That makes it a possibility for a 2007 release, but knowing Luhrmann it will indeed be 2008.
There was also an article about Greg McLean's (Wolf Creek) next movie Rogue that has Michael Vartan, Radha Mitchell (Australian, remember) and John Jarratt. It's about a crocodile terrorising people. Sounds sorta lame, but i was duly impressed by what McLean was able to do with such a threadbare plot and only four characters in Wolf Creek so I am looking forward to this. Rogue will be released later this year.
Screen hots up for Kidman, Crowe
It's not Oklahoma! and it's definitely not a musical.
But Nicole Kidman and Russell Crowe will feature in a "sweeping romance" for Baz Luhrmann.
"Yes, it's very passionate," the Moulin Rouge! director said of the two stars' on-screen relationship.
The epic begins in the mid-1930s and end with it's major set piece, the 1942-43 Japanese bombing of Darwin and the exodus south, which became known as the Adelaide River Stakes.
Luhrmann, who has researched the film for 10 years, said the tale, co-written by Collateral's Stuart Beattie and The Pianist's Ron Harwood, will be a "mythological telling" drawn from books and historical materials.
"Russell, Nicole and I have been wanting to do a large Australian piece for a very long time," he said.
It is believed both actors have dramatically lowered their fees to collaborate with Luhrmann.
Shooting begins in August in the Kimberleys, Darwin and Queensland.
"We're in a unique moment where we can make an Australian film on a scale that's never been made about Australia with Australian actors in all the primary and lead roles," Luhrmann said.
Man, fully pumped for this! My favourite actress, one of my favourite actors, one of my favourite directors + I'm sure there will be a bounty of great Aussie supporting actors. And they're starting filming in August! That makes it a possibility for a 2007 release, but knowing Luhrmann it will indeed be 2008.
There was also an article about Greg McLean's (Wolf Creek) next movie Rogue that has Michael Vartan, Radha Mitchell (Australian, remember) and John Jarratt. It's about a crocodile terrorising people. Sounds sorta lame, but i was duly impressed by what McLean was able to do with such a threadbare plot and only four characters in Wolf Creek so I am looking forward to this. Rogue will be released later this year.
February 23, 2006
John Williams
Are the Academy really going to place Williams' Memoirs of a Geisha score alongside Fiddler on the Roof, Jaws, Star Wars, ET and Schindler’s List. I hope (and predict) not.
I got back from a short vacation today, ready to muse over Oscar for the next two weeks. There was one thing I really wanted to mention but can't remember it for the life of me - i'll try and remember.
I got back from a short vacation today, ready to muse over Oscar for the next two weeks. There was one thing I really wanted to mention but can't remember it for the life of me - i'll try and remember.
February 20, 2006
February 19, 2006
A symposium of my own
Okay, not really.
I've been going to a message board for about 6 years now (it was originally a Scream board around the time of Scream 3 but has since just evolved into a bunch of great friends (I've even met some of them when they flew from America and The Netherlands to come to Australia!). I recently saw Munich and posted about it, I have since gotten into a discussion about it with some peeps who go there.
---
KAMIKAZE_CAMEL:
Who's seen it? I know Slaw (fellow message boarder - ed) has and I know he liked it (the oscar thread made that clear).
I'd love to hear some thoughts on it.
Personally, i can't really tell right now. I felt the first half was absolutely brilliant - loved every second of it. The way the story was unfolding, to things like the cinematography and score (loved the 70s influences) and the performances were pretty spot on (except for Daniel Craig who kept swinging between accents) and the action scenes were tense and exciting and it felt harrowing in all the right places.
But then the scene where Eric (who was very hot btw) goes blindfolded to that villa kind of felt unecessary (it sorta became relevant later on though, but 'tev) and from then onwards it. just. kept. going.
Like, the first half had been going so well and was so greatly paced but it turned out they still had tonnes of men to kill and it just kept going around and around and around in a loop until it sort of just stopped with Eric Bana having one of the most fucked up sex scenes i've seen in a while (er, excluding "Anatomy of Hell" - now that is absolute bonkers sex scenes up the wazoo).
Just really disappointing second half. I don't know what happened. I'm extremely happy with the first half as I said, but the second half was extremely flawed. It needed to be cut down.
I was sort of surprised how violent it was. Veery graphic. I still can't get over the fact that a man in my screening brought his (what looked to be) 12-year-old son! And they arrived 15 minutes into the movie (plus the 10 minutes of ads and trailers) and they started talking and opening packets of lollies. Nathan had to tell them to shut up.
Anyway. I'm thinking C+, but the first half was just so impressive... god. SPIELBERG! Why did you have to ruin it so...
SCOTT SUMMERS:
I know the consensus seems to be that Munich loses steam as it chugs along toward its ending, but I have to disagree. I expected it to get dull but it never did. Munich is surprisingly involving for most of its running time.
The bits at the French village are my favorite parts of the film The guy who played the French father had a soft, wonderful delivery. He gave every word this great weight and it seemed like there was no effort behind it. Similarly, the woman who portrayed Golda Meir was absolutely fantastic for the ten minutes or so that she was on screen. Riveting.
I think the reason I like this movie is that the performances, even the small ones like above, are so great.
AIDEN DARK:
I really loved it. And it WAS surprisingly violent. I wasn't expecting that. All around it was just well acted and well structured.
KAMIKAZE CAMEL:
Golda Meir = Lynn Cohen. Great little performance, it was!
I did like the scene at the villa (or whatever it was) but it sort of felt useless except to introduce that man and, i dunno, for a movie that was already pushing 3 hours, a 15minute scene of no real use doesn't help.
The last great scene (i can't remember if it was after or before) was the scene where they got some guys to dress as woman so they could charge that building that had three men inside.
It was just so disappointing because the first half was brilliant - definite top 10 of the year worthy, but then it just died. Maybe it was because, much like the characters, the "thrill" had gone out of out. They were becoming men they didn't want to be and subsequently the "thrill" went out of the movie. Their kills became excuses for violence and Spielberg felt that he had to get rid of all the aspects that made the start so enjoyable - the throwbacks to '70s thrillers and politico movies. Even things like the cinematography started lacking.
I did, however, enjoy John Williams' score. MUCH better than his boring and cliched Memoirs of a Geisha score. What the fuck was up with that?
CANADIAN CURRENCY:
I think it's really fucked up that you liked the first half more than the second half! Like... the very thing that makes Munich interesting for me is its exploration of the complicated nature of revenge. The first half mostly seemed like set-up. Anyway, I thought it was an A+ movie.
KAMIKAZE CAMEL:
I suppose that means I wasn't as interested in it as I supposedly thought?
I dunno, I thought the first half was working perfectly swell as a throwback to '70s thrillers and was in general, just a really great thriller.
I suppose maybe the second half, when it did try to work into the characters themselves I started to feel underwhelmed. But I think that's actually kinda silly, because it seems that Spielberg was still trying to make a thriller/action movie but his conventions let him down. I like that he tried (i really do - better than lazy work on stuff like The Terminal or War of the Worlds) but I think his handle on the characters was much less interesting than his interpretation of a classic 1970s action thriller.
It seemed like Spielberg was out to make a really great action thriller, unfortunately he chose a subject that holds such dramatic weight that the second half was inevitable, really.
I can understand a person thinking the second half as great. I, however, think the film worked much better as a throwback to the movies of the '70s and as an exploration of that time period, than as a movie exploring issues of guilt and morality. If he was so intent on making a movie about those issues then he should have done that flat out, instead of disguising it as an stylish gory action movie.
Just my opinion however. You can feel free to disagree, but it's what I think.
Although, everyone should go out and watch "One Day In September" - definitely one of my top 3 documentaries of all time. Thrilling, gripping stuff.
CANADIAN CURRENCY:
I... completely disagree.
"I think his handle on the characters was much less interesting than his interpretation of a classic 1970s action thriller."
I am 100% confident that Steven Spielberg is capable of making a great action-thriller. However, given the abundance of great, straight-forward action-thrillers, I think Spielberg would find that as dull as a filmmaker as you apparently found the second half of Munich to be as a viewer. The story of Munich lends itself to the genre Spielberg uses for it, but it really wouldn't make any sense at all to choose such a controversial subject matter if that was what all he was setting out to do. This movie is much more ambitious and much more human. And, theoretically, it even performs a social function by getting a lot of people to think more about one of the largest political problems of our time. Munich takes the archetypical elements of a revenge thriller and uses them to make a much more interesting movie than any of the ones that inspired it. Like... if Spielberg had just filmed himself talking about his views on the incidents in Munich, I doubt that would be particularly interesting and it really wouldn't be art at all. If a movie does not attempt to engage a viewer, it does not work at all; you'd be better suited to write an academic paper. As a filmmaker, Spielberg uses his sharpest directorial tools--his ability for making action-thrillers--to engage the viewer, but he also wants to challenge these viewers... and I feel like anybody who goes to see a movie about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict should be inviting to that challenge. And I felt like Spielberg did a really good job and raised a lot of interesting questions. As I feel all art should. I understand the criticism that the action-thriller stuff in Munich didn't work as well in the second half, but I don't think Spielberg intended for it to, and I think it's unfair to judge the movie strictly in those terms.
(But, then again, I also loved A.I.)
AIDEN DARK:
A.I. was pretty cool up until the utterly bizzare ending.
KAMIKAZE CAMEL:
I'll read/reply to Mark later cause i have to get ready for work, but AI was really good for the first half but then the second half kicked in and it was all wtf? Sounds strangely familiar considering the topic of this thread...
And that ending was just strange and inappropriate and what's with the anorexic aliens?
KAMIKAZE CAMEL:
Okay, i've read Mark's thing now:
See, there lies my ultimate problem with the movie. I don't feel that Spielberg really had anything particularly interesting to say on the issues he was raising (good on him for bringing the subject to the foreground, but really) and so when he started to actually start discussing these things in the film I felt it fell flat. As if he felt he had roped me in and now he could start the heavy lifting, but the problem is the first half was such an expertly made piece of '70s throwback cinema that when it did come time for the big stuff it felt sort of secondary and inconsequential.
Spielberg has demonstrated before that he is perfectly capable of making a movie that brings up issues and deals with them, but I don't think here he particularly had much to say himself and instead wanted others to pick up the slack "he also wants to challenge these viewers..." what are we being challenged with? The idea of guilt? If that is indeed what he is raising, how does he deal with it? He shows a man rough-fucking his wife, and another going suicidal on our ass.
I may have liked the movie more if i did actually feel like the subject matter was urging me to consider sides and such (which was what a movie like "Paradise Now" apparently does, but i can't be certain) but I felt he was simply telling a standardly (is that a word?) plotted story and then at the end had his characters ask themselves "am i wrong?" That doesn't really equal challenging to me
I'm interested to know what questions you feel it raises. Other than stuff like "does one act of violence justify another" because many others movies have dealt with that exact theme (including the Sally Field masterpiece "Eye For An Eye" - heheh, have you seen that movie?).
I'd be interested in a film dealing directly with the Israel/Palestine debate, I just feel that Munich is not it. I wish Spielberg had just gone right out there and made the "call for piece" that he wanted, instead of framing it around a conventional action thriller.
However, if Spielberg ever decides to just make an all-out '70s thriller then by all means, i will be there and I will expect greatness.
------
So, yeah, I have since decided to rate it C+.
I also saw Transamerica yesterday. Not as bad as I was expecting, but not exactly great. It seems to be forming well in my memory though, so that's cool. Felicity was actually pretty good - however, it's just annoying having to believe Felicity as a man wanting to be a woman. Because we KNOW Felicity is a woman. The penis scene was annoying because it was so unnecessary. Like, again, we know Felicity is a woman so why try and pretend she's not. She's not Jaye from The Crying Game. I give the movie a C+.
I've been going to a message board for about 6 years now (it was originally a Scream board around the time of Scream 3 but has since just evolved into a bunch of great friends (I've even met some of them when they flew from America and The Netherlands to come to Australia!). I recently saw Munich and posted about it, I have since gotten into a discussion about it with some peeps who go there.
---
KAMIKAZE_CAMEL:
Who's seen it? I know Slaw (fellow message boarder - ed) has and I know he liked it (the oscar thread made that clear).
I'd love to hear some thoughts on it.
Personally, i can't really tell right now. I felt the first half was absolutely brilliant - loved every second of it. The way the story was unfolding, to things like the cinematography and score (loved the 70s influences) and the performances were pretty spot on (except for Daniel Craig who kept swinging between accents) and the action scenes were tense and exciting and it felt harrowing in all the right places.
But then the scene where Eric (who was very hot btw) goes blindfolded to that villa kind of felt unecessary (it sorta became relevant later on though, but 'tev) and from then onwards it. just. kept. going.
Like, the first half had been going so well and was so greatly paced but it turned out they still had tonnes of men to kill and it just kept going around and around and around in a loop until it sort of just stopped with Eric Bana having one of the most fucked up sex scenes i've seen in a while (er, excluding "Anatomy of Hell" - now that is absolute bonkers sex scenes up the wazoo).
Just really disappointing second half. I don't know what happened. I'm extremely happy with the first half as I said, but the second half was extremely flawed. It needed to be cut down.
I was sort of surprised how violent it was. Veery graphic. I still can't get over the fact that a man in my screening brought his (what looked to be) 12-year-old son! And they arrived 15 minutes into the movie (plus the 10 minutes of ads and trailers) and they started talking and opening packets of lollies. Nathan had to tell them to shut up.
Anyway. I'm thinking C+, but the first half was just so impressive... god. SPIELBERG! Why did you have to ruin it so...
SCOTT SUMMERS:
I know the consensus seems to be that Munich loses steam as it chugs along toward its ending, but I have to disagree. I expected it to get dull but it never did. Munich is surprisingly involving for most of its running time.
The bits at the French village are my favorite parts of the film The guy who played the French father had a soft, wonderful delivery. He gave every word this great weight and it seemed like there was no effort behind it. Similarly, the woman who portrayed Golda Meir was absolutely fantastic for the ten minutes or so that she was on screen. Riveting.
I think the reason I like this movie is that the performances, even the small ones like above, are so great.
AIDEN DARK:
I really loved it. And it WAS surprisingly violent. I wasn't expecting that. All around it was just well acted and well structured.
KAMIKAZE CAMEL:
Golda Meir = Lynn Cohen. Great little performance, it was!
I did like the scene at the villa (or whatever it was) but it sort of felt useless except to introduce that man and, i dunno, for a movie that was already pushing 3 hours, a 15minute scene of no real use doesn't help.
The last great scene (i can't remember if it was after or before) was the scene where they got some guys to dress as woman so they could charge that building that had three men inside.
It was just so disappointing because the first half was brilliant - definite top 10 of the year worthy, but then it just died. Maybe it was because, much like the characters, the "thrill" had gone out of out. They were becoming men they didn't want to be and subsequently the "thrill" went out of the movie. Their kills became excuses for violence and Spielberg felt that he had to get rid of all the aspects that made the start so enjoyable - the throwbacks to '70s thrillers and politico movies. Even things like the cinematography started lacking.
I did, however, enjoy John Williams' score. MUCH better than his boring and cliched Memoirs of a Geisha score. What the fuck was up with that?
CANADIAN CURRENCY:
I think it's really fucked up that you liked the first half more than the second half! Like... the very thing that makes Munich interesting for me is its exploration of the complicated nature of revenge. The first half mostly seemed like set-up. Anyway, I thought it was an A+ movie.
KAMIKAZE CAMEL:
I suppose that means I wasn't as interested in it as I supposedly thought?
I dunno, I thought the first half was working perfectly swell as a throwback to '70s thrillers and was in general, just a really great thriller.
I suppose maybe the second half, when it did try to work into the characters themselves I started to feel underwhelmed. But I think that's actually kinda silly, because it seems that Spielberg was still trying to make a thriller/action movie but his conventions let him down. I like that he tried (i really do - better than lazy work on stuff like The Terminal or War of the Worlds) but I think his handle on the characters was much less interesting than his interpretation of a classic 1970s action thriller.
It seemed like Spielberg was out to make a really great action thriller, unfortunately he chose a subject that holds such dramatic weight that the second half was inevitable, really.
I can understand a person thinking the second half as great. I, however, think the film worked much better as a throwback to the movies of the '70s and as an exploration of that time period, than as a movie exploring issues of guilt and morality. If he was so intent on making a movie about those issues then he should have done that flat out, instead of disguising it as an stylish gory action movie.
Just my opinion however. You can feel free to disagree, but it's what I think.
Although, everyone should go out and watch "One Day In September" - definitely one of my top 3 documentaries of all time. Thrilling, gripping stuff.
CANADIAN CURRENCY:
I... completely disagree.
"I think his handle on the characters was much less interesting than his interpretation of a classic 1970s action thriller."
I am 100% confident that Steven Spielberg is capable of making a great action-thriller. However, given the abundance of great, straight-forward action-thrillers, I think Spielberg would find that as dull as a filmmaker as you apparently found the second half of Munich to be as a viewer. The story of Munich lends itself to the genre Spielberg uses for it, but it really wouldn't make any sense at all to choose such a controversial subject matter if that was what all he was setting out to do. This movie is much more ambitious and much more human. And, theoretically, it even performs a social function by getting a lot of people to think more about one of the largest political problems of our time. Munich takes the archetypical elements of a revenge thriller and uses them to make a much more interesting movie than any of the ones that inspired it. Like... if Spielberg had just filmed himself talking about his views on the incidents in Munich, I doubt that would be particularly interesting and it really wouldn't be art at all. If a movie does not attempt to engage a viewer, it does not work at all; you'd be better suited to write an academic paper. As a filmmaker, Spielberg uses his sharpest directorial tools--his ability for making action-thrillers--to engage the viewer, but he also wants to challenge these viewers... and I feel like anybody who goes to see a movie about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict should be inviting to that challenge. And I felt like Spielberg did a really good job and raised a lot of interesting questions. As I feel all art should. I understand the criticism that the action-thriller stuff in Munich didn't work as well in the second half, but I don't think Spielberg intended for it to, and I think it's unfair to judge the movie strictly in those terms.
(But, then again, I also loved A.I.)
AIDEN DARK:
A.I. was pretty cool up until the utterly bizzare ending.
KAMIKAZE CAMEL:
I'll read/reply to Mark later cause i have to get ready for work, but AI was really good for the first half but then the second half kicked in and it was all wtf? Sounds strangely familiar considering the topic of this thread...
And that ending was just strange and inappropriate and what's with the anorexic aliens?
KAMIKAZE CAMEL:
Okay, i've read Mark's thing now:
See, there lies my ultimate problem with the movie. I don't feel that Spielberg really had anything particularly interesting to say on the issues he was raising (good on him for bringing the subject to the foreground, but really) and so when he started to actually start discussing these things in the film I felt it fell flat. As if he felt he had roped me in and now he could start the heavy lifting, but the problem is the first half was such an expertly made piece of '70s throwback cinema that when it did come time for the big stuff it felt sort of secondary and inconsequential.
Spielberg has demonstrated before that he is perfectly capable of making a movie that brings up issues and deals with them, but I don't think here he particularly had much to say himself and instead wanted others to pick up the slack "he also wants to challenge these viewers..." what are we being challenged with? The idea of guilt? If that is indeed what he is raising, how does he deal with it? He shows a man rough-fucking his wife, and another going suicidal on our ass.
I may have liked the movie more if i did actually feel like the subject matter was urging me to consider sides and such (which was what a movie like "Paradise Now" apparently does, but i can't be certain) but I felt he was simply telling a standardly (is that a word?) plotted story and then at the end had his characters ask themselves "am i wrong?" That doesn't really equal challenging to me
I'm interested to know what questions you feel it raises. Other than stuff like "does one act of violence justify another" because many others movies have dealt with that exact theme (including the Sally Field masterpiece "Eye For An Eye" - heheh, have you seen that movie?).
I'd be interested in a film dealing directly with the Israel/Palestine debate, I just feel that Munich is not it. I wish Spielberg had just gone right out there and made the "call for piece" that he wanted, instead of framing it around a conventional action thriller.
However, if Spielberg ever decides to just make an all-out '70s thriller then by all means, i will be there and I will expect greatness.
------
So, yeah, I have since decided to rate it C+.
I also saw Transamerica yesterday. Not as bad as I was expecting, but not exactly great. It seems to be forming well in my memory though, so that's cool. Felicity was actually pretty good - however, it's just annoying having to believe Felicity as a man wanting to be a woman. Because we KNOW Felicity is a woman. The penis scene was annoying because it was so unnecessary. Like, again, we know Felicity is a woman so why try and pretend she's not. She's not Jaye from The Crying Game. I give the movie a C+.
February 17, 2006
Internet, oh glorious Internet
I've been without the internet for 2 whole days now, and it was sort of shocking!
On Wednesday night I rolled my ankle!!! I couldn't walk for a lot of Thursday so I watched a couple of movies. Woody Allen's Manhattan and Catherine Hardwicke's thirteen, which I've been meaning to see since it came out, but never got around to.
thirteen (2003, dir. Hardwicke) was really good. Loved the performances and the visual style of it all. However, maybe it's just because I don't live in America that I sort of didn't get into it as much as I could've. I think it's because in American kids grow up faster so the stage the characters were in in the movie felt like around fifteen. But 'tev. Still a really good movie. B+
Manhattan (1979, dir. Allen)... what can I say about Manhattan? I've always had this extremely romanticised vision of New York City so when Woody's character opens the film with a spiel about romanticising New York alongside those beautiful images of black and white New York, I knew I was in heaven. Just excellent filmmaking here. What a screenplay! Just phenomenal. The look of the film is amazing, i love it so much. A
Then later that night my dad came over and we went to see Syriana (2005, dir. Gaghan) and... it was pretty good. Not as good as Traffic but that's Soderbergh and this is Gaghan. Performances were all decent, Alexander Siddig gets my best in show honours (George Clooney is sort of just there). THe thing that impressed me the most was the score, and surprise surprise - the score is by Alexandre Desplat. My fave film composer of the moment. Loved it. Why can't Amanda Peet get a big meaty role though? B-
On Wednesday night I rolled my ankle!!! I couldn't walk for a lot of Thursday so I watched a couple of movies. Woody Allen's Manhattan and Catherine Hardwicke's thirteen, which I've been meaning to see since it came out, but never got around to.
thirteen (2003, dir. Hardwicke) was really good. Loved the performances and the visual style of it all. However, maybe it's just because I don't live in America that I sort of didn't get into it as much as I could've. I think it's because in American kids grow up faster so the stage the characters were in in the movie felt like around fifteen. But 'tev. Still a really good movie. B+
Manhattan (1979, dir. Allen)... what can I say about Manhattan? I've always had this extremely romanticised vision of New York City so when Woody's character opens the film with a spiel about romanticising New York alongside those beautiful images of black and white New York, I knew I was in heaven. Just excellent filmmaking here. What a screenplay! Just phenomenal. The look of the film is amazing, i love it so much. A
Then later that night my dad came over and we went to see Syriana (2005, dir. Gaghan) and... it was pretty good. Not as good as Traffic but that's Soderbergh and this is Gaghan. Performances were all decent, Alexander Siddig gets my best in show honours (George Clooney is sort of just there). THe thing that impressed me the most was the score, and surprise surprise - the score is by Alexandre Desplat. My fave film composer of the moment. Loved it. Why can't Amanda Peet get a big meaty role though? B-
February 13, 2006
Heath Explains
Okay, so this article over at Oscar Watch explains the whole was Heath drunk/was Heath being insensitive/are Brokeback Babies being rediculous debate. He was nervous, had not received the script and all that jazz. Makes sense.
However, the bit that got me laughing was when they mention that Heath did this heinous act infront of a world wide audience. World wide audience? It's not even an America wide audience. Maybe 20mil world wide. I can't imagine any more than that, really.
And it's weird that Oscar voters would be turned off by Heath's attitude, yet would vote for Phillip Seymour Hoffman and/or Paul Giamatti when they obviously don't care about their appearance and Giamatti doesn't seem to care about even giving a half-decent speech (looking at the microphone, constantly putting his hand through his hair, mumbling and not even doing the top buttons of his shirt up).
However, the bit that got me laughing was when they mention that Heath did this heinous act infront of a world wide audience. World wide audience? It's not even an America wide audience. Maybe 20mil world wide. I can't imagine any more than that, really.
And it's weird that Oscar voters would be turned off by Heath's attitude, yet would vote for Phillip Seymour Hoffman and/or Paul Giamatti when they obviously don't care about their appearance and Giamatti doesn't seem to care about even giving a half-decent speech (looking at the microphone, constantly putting his hand through his hair, mumbling and not even doing the top buttons of his shirt up).
Movie List
Got this from Colby from my other blog:
Take this list of actors and replace the movie next to their names with your favourite film that they are in (if it is different to the one already there). Then add one more on the end alongside your favourite film of theirs. (eg; is Sleepless in Seattle isn't your favourite Tom Hanks movie, change it to the one that is)
Tom Hanks - Sleepless in Seattle
Jim Carrey - The Truman Show
Tobey Maguire - Pleasantville
Mel Gibson - Signs
Ben Affleck - Shakespeare in Love
Harrison Ford -
Kevin Spacey - American Beauty
Edward Norton - Everybody Says I Love You
John Cusack - (Excluding Sixteen Candles) Bullets Over Broadway
Johnny Depp - Edward Scissorhands
Will Smith - I, Robot
Matthew Broderick - The Lion King (if that doesn't count, then The Producers)
Brad Pitt - Thelma & Louise
Keanu Reeves - Speed
George Clooney - Good Night, and Good Luck.
Christian Bale - American Psycho
Ethan Hawke - Before Sunset
Adam Sandler - The Wedding Singer
Robin Williams - The Birdcage
Arnold Schwarzenegger - Terminator 2: Judgment Day
Bruce Willis - Pulp Fiction (although I do have a massive soft spot for Die Hard 3: With A Vengeance)
Eddie Murphy - Bowfinger (sorry, i've never been a fan of Murphy)
Morgan Freeman - The Shawshank Redemption
Nicholas Cage - Leaving Las Vegas
Russell Crowe - Master & Commander: The Far Side of the World
Ben Stiller - Flirting With Disaster
Rodney Dangerfield - Natural Born Killers
Al Pacino - Dick Tracy
Robert De Niro - GoodFellas
Tim Curry - Clue & Rocky Horror Picture Show (tie)
Denzel Washington - Oh god, i dunno... Remember The Titans? I'm not really a fan of Denzel's, and I haven't seen many of his early great stuff. Let's say Philadelphia.
John Travolta - Pulp Fiction
Kevin Bacon - Wild Things (for shits and giggles) or JFK (for seriousness)
Alan Rickman - Galaxy Quest
Kenneth Branagh - Rabbit-Proof Fence
Hugh Jackman - X2
Patrick Stewart - X2
Christian Slater - Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery (but that's a really small part, so I'll say The Contender)
and, my addition:
Heath Ledger - Brokeback Mountain
Take this list of actors and replace the movie next to their names with your favourite film that they are in (if it is different to the one already there). Then add one more on the end alongside your favourite film of theirs. (eg; is Sleepless in Seattle isn't your favourite Tom Hanks movie, change it to the one that is)
Tom Hanks - Sleepless in Seattle
Jim Carrey - The Truman Show
Tobey Maguire - Pleasantville
Mel Gibson - Signs
Ben Affleck - Shakespeare in Love
Harrison Ford -
Kevin Spacey - American Beauty
Edward Norton - Everybody Says I Love You
John Cusack - (Excluding Sixteen Candles) Bullets Over Broadway
Johnny Depp - Edward Scissorhands
Will Smith - I, Robot
Matthew Broderick - The Lion King (if that doesn't count, then The Producers)
Brad Pitt - Thelma & Louise
Keanu Reeves - Speed
George Clooney - Good Night, and Good Luck.
Christian Bale - American Psycho
Ethan Hawke - Before Sunset
Adam Sandler - The Wedding Singer
Robin Williams - The Birdcage
Arnold Schwarzenegger - Terminator 2: Judgment Day
Bruce Willis - Pulp Fiction (although I do have a massive soft spot for Die Hard 3: With A Vengeance)
Eddie Murphy - Bowfinger (sorry, i've never been a fan of Murphy)
Morgan Freeman - The Shawshank Redemption
Nicholas Cage - Leaving Las Vegas
Russell Crowe - Master & Commander: The Far Side of the World
Ben Stiller - Flirting With Disaster
Rodney Dangerfield - Natural Born Killers
Al Pacino - Dick Tracy
Robert De Niro - GoodFellas
Tim Curry - Clue & Rocky Horror Picture Show (tie)
Denzel Washington - Oh god, i dunno... Remember The Titans? I'm not really a fan of Denzel's, and I haven't seen many of his early great stuff. Let's say Philadelphia.
John Travolta - Pulp Fiction
Kevin Bacon - Wild Things (for shits and giggles) or JFK (for seriousness)
Alan Rickman - Galaxy Quest
Kenneth Branagh - Rabbit-Proof Fence
Hugh Jackman - X2
Patrick Stewart - X2
Christian Slater - Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery (but that's a really small part, so I'll say The Contender)
and, my addition:
Heath Ledger - Brokeback Mountain
Add Sigourney to that list
'Snow' Falls on Berlin Film Festival
The Berlin Film Festival got under way Thursday night with the screening of Marc Evans' Snow Cake, in which Sigourney Weaver plays an autistic woman who becomes involved in a romance with a man, played by Alan Rickman, who survives a car crash. The film is competing for the top prize at the festival, the Golden Bear. Reviewing the film, Catherine Hickley of Bloomberg News concluded, "If it's a harbinger of things to come over the next 10 days, the festival should be a real treat." The film also stars Carrie-Anne Moss and James Allodi.
Now you can add Sigourney to the list of actresses who could really make a rally for Best Actress who have yet to win one. Annette Bening, Glenn Close, Kate Winslet, umm... there were others that I listed in my 2006 preview, but I can't remember now. So glad Sigourney's working, i hope Australia gets this movie at least. We didn't get The Boys at all. :(
The Berlin Film Festival got under way Thursday night with the screening of Marc Evans' Snow Cake, in which Sigourney Weaver plays an autistic woman who becomes involved in a romance with a man, played by Alan Rickman, who survives a car crash. The film is competing for the top prize at the festival, the Golden Bear. Reviewing the film, Catherine Hickley of Bloomberg News concluded, "If it's a harbinger of things to come over the next 10 days, the festival should be a real treat." The film also stars Carrie-Anne Moss and James Allodi.
Now you can add Sigourney to the list of actresses who could really make a rally for Best Actress who have yet to win one. Annette Bening, Glenn Close, Kate Winslet, umm... there were others that I listed in my 2006 preview, but I can't remember now. So glad Sigourney's working, i hope Australia gets this movie at least. We didn't get The Boys at all. :(
February 12, 2006
Ooh, that's interesting
Magda Szubanski is creating a movie! You guys will remember Magda from the Babe movies, however she has been a constant here in Australia. But the really interesting thing about it is that it is being produced and co-created by the producer of We Can Be Heroes and Kath & Kim - without a doubt the two funniest tv/film creations Australia has produced in the last 10 years. So, yay.
February 10, 2006
When is a remake not actually a remake but just a complete and utter robbery of someone else's idea?
I'm sorry, but WHAT THE FUCK?!
Okay, I know Hollywood is running out of ideas and is resorting to remaking movies from other countries (popular right now? Anything Asia!). However, now it appears they're not even acknowledging that they're remaking shit!
This is the description of the new Adam Sandler movie called I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry
"The film will star Sandler and James and [sic] firemen who pose as a married gay couple in order to become eligible for "domestic partner" health benefits."
It then goes on to say "The script was written by Oscar winners Alexander Payne and James Taylor (SIDEWAYS, ELECTION) and David Dobkin (WEDDING CRASHERS) will direct."
Okay, then you can head right on over to the IMDb page for a (quite awful) Australian movie called Strange Bedfellows starring Paul Hogan and Michael Caton. The plot of that little movie?
"Two 'very straight' old timers (Hogan and Caton) have to learn how to pass as a loving gay couple after falsely claiming same-sex status to take advantage of newly leglislated tax laws."
The characters in Strange Bedfellows are even firefighters for cryin' out loud! The American movie doesn't have an IMDb page so I can't see whether they actually are claiming this to be original, but if they are somebody should get sued, big time.
I'm watching The Grammies right now. As much as I think the nominees were some of the absolute worst ever (and that's saying something for the Grammies), but the winners have been... satisfactory. Well done to them for awarding U2's marvelous How To Disable an Atomic Bomb as well as the brilliant "Sometimes You Can't Make it On Your Own" and "Boulevard of Broken Dreams" by Green Day and not being dull and giving their album prize to Mariah Carey (as much as I like the album) or someone like that. And, yay, Kanye West didn't win Record of the Year. Although I would've liked "We Belong Together" by Mariah to win something cause that was one of my top 5 fave songs of last year. The album was NOT Album of the year worthy.
But what can we say about an organisation that ignores Antony and the Johnsons, MIA, Martha Wainwright, The White Stripes (all bar one award) etc.
Best performance of the night? Without a doubt that would be Kanye West and (shock) Jamie Foxx. Now THAT was fun. Then there was Madonna followed closely by (this one amazed me) Paul McCartney! Wow. Psychadelic.
Now I need to get up in 7 hours for work (6.30am start, blech) so I better try and get some sleep.
BTW what's up with SO MANY people being recipients of the Grammy Career Achievment award? Like... whoa.
Okay, I know Hollywood is running out of ideas and is resorting to remaking movies from other countries (popular right now? Anything Asia!). However, now it appears they're not even acknowledging that they're remaking shit!
This is the description of the new Adam Sandler movie called I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry
"The film will star Sandler and James and [sic] firemen who pose as a married gay couple in order to become eligible for "domestic partner" health benefits."
It then goes on to say "The script was written by Oscar winners Alexander Payne and James Taylor (SIDEWAYS, ELECTION) and David Dobkin (WEDDING CRASHERS) will direct."
Okay, then you can head right on over to the IMDb page for a (quite awful) Australian movie called Strange Bedfellows starring Paul Hogan and Michael Caton. The plot of that little movie?
"Two 'very straight' old timers (Hogan and Caton) have to learn how to pass as a loving gay couple after falsely claiming same-sex status to take advantage of newly leglislated tax laws."
The characters in Strange Bedfellows are even firefighters for cryin' out loud! The American movie doesn't have an IMDb page so I can't see whether they actually are claiming this to be original, but if they are somebody should get sued, big time.
I'm watching The Grammies right now. As much as I think the nominees were some of the absolute worst ever (and that's saying something for the Grammies), but the winners have been... satisfactory. Well done to them for awarding U2's marvelous How To Disable an Atomic Bomb as well as the brilliant "Sometimes You Can't Make it On Your Own" and "Boulevard of Broken Dreams" by Green Day and not being dull and giving their album prize to Mariah Carey (as much as I like the album) or someone like that. And, yay, Kanye West didn't win Record of the Year. Although I would've liked "We Belong Together" by Mariah to win something cause that was one of my top 5 fave songs of last year. The album was NOT Album of the year worthy.
But what can we say about an organisation that ignores Antony and the Johnsons, MIA, Martha Wainwright, The White Stripes (all bar one award) etc.
Best performance of the night? Without a doubt that would be Kanye West and (shock) Jamie Foxx. Now THAT was fun. Then there was Madonna followed closely by (this one amazed me) Paul McCartney! Wow. Psychadelic.
Now I need to get up in 7 hours for work (6.30am start, blech) so I better try and get some sleep.
BTW what's up with SO MANY people being recipients of the Grammy Career Achievment award? Like... whoa.
Ring of Fire
Walk the Line (2005, dir. Mangold) - Nice film. Sort of buckles when there is either a) no music, or b) no Reese. Fantastic music, and Reese is excellent in the role. Joaquin also impressed - but it is rare that he doesn't. The flashback scenes at the start gave me a bad feeling (I felt it was Ray all over again, eep) but certainly improved when Johnny started singing. My grade is probably a tad too harsh - I think it will improve with time. B-
February 9, 2006
Friends Quiz's
hah hah HAH?
You are Ashley's friend ROSS! You're a bad boy, but
that's what I like about you. Maybe if you
stopped getting so fuckin drunk all the time
you'd be able to score better with the
ladies. But, I was very impressed at your
ability to maintain a solid erection after
taking three ecstasy pills and drinking a
carton of beer. Nice work! P.S - sorry I
ripped your foreskin.
www.quizilla.com/redirect...20you%3F"> Which one of Joanna's sexual partners are you?
brought to you by www.quizilla.com/redirect...">Quizilla
Is it cause I had sex in a car that one time? I totally don't get that drunk and I've never even had ecstacy. That quiz is totally wrong. Joanna's a great chick though! She has sex with some hot guys.
Billy (being the sheep that he is) did one as well. It was not as fun. And lame too. Mainly cause Eli Marienthal is so fuckin' annoying.
You and Tucker have never met, but he does like to
stalk you on Facebook and post pictures of
you at various messageboards. You'll always
have a spot in his heart, even if you make
crap tastic movies
Which one of Tucker's crazy obsessions are you?
brought to you by Quizilla
You are Ashley's friend ROSS! You're a bad boy, but
that's what I like about you. Maybe if you
stopped getting so fuckin drunk all the time
you'd be able to score better with the
ladies. But, I was very impressed at your
ability to maintain a solid erection after
taking three ecstasy pills and drinking a
carton of beer. Nice work! P.S - sorry I
ripped your foreskin.
www.quizilla.com/redirect...20you%3F"> Which one of Joanna's sexual partners are you?
brought to you by www.quizilla.com/redirect...">Quizilla
Is it cause I had sex in a car that one time? I totally don't get that drunk and I've never even had ecstacy. That quiz is totally wrong. Joanna's a great chick though! She has sex with some hot guys.
Billy (being the sheep that he is) did one as well. It was not as fun. And lame too. Mainly cause Eli Marienthal is so fuckin' annoying.
You and Tucker have never met, but he does like to
stalk you on Facebook and post pictures of
you at various messageboards. You'll always
have a spot in his heart, even if you make
crap tastic movies
Which one of Tucker's crazy obsessions are you?
brought to you by Quizilla
Top 5
Before I start can I just mention that Brokeback Mountain has entered the IMDb's Top 250 chart... at #250. hah.
Top 5 Sexiest Male Nominees
(obviously this list can't include any of those "faceless" people cause... well, i don't know what they look like)
1. Jake Gyllenhaal (Best Supporting Actor, Brokeback Mountain)
2. Dan Futterman (Best Adapted Screenplay, Capote)
3. Matt Dillon (Best Supporting Actor, Crash)
4. Bennett Miller (Best Director, Capote)
5. Heath Ledger (Best Actor, Brokeback Mountain)
(Honourable Mentions - Joaquin Phoenix, George Clooney, Terrance Howard)
Dan Futterman's gay right? I didn't know whether to put Bennett on there because all the pictures he looks sorta different but the picture below makes him look like na absolute spunk, so I put him on. You know what's annoying about Joaquin? Sometimes he is SO good looking (i think it's when he's all done up in a suit) yet when I was googling him none really "got" me. There are some men that are just so much better looking when in suits! Speaking of Dillon - he gets so much better looking with age, don't ya think?
Bennett Miller - I'm picturing dirty thoughts of him and Dan spending "quality time" together on the set
I got the inspiration for this top 5 whilest watching Urbania last night. The movie that just so happens to star out #2 Dan Futterman. God, he's sexy. That MOVIE is sexy (or, well, parts of it). So fucked up as well. It kind of got too bogged down towards the end, but that's alright. It was a great little movie. I suppose it shouldn't bother me that it nosedives into fantasy at the end considering the whole movie was fantasy basically. Oh, and Alan Cumming was actually funny! B+
Seeing Walk the Line tonight after tea with Hannah and Georgie (my two best friends). It's Georgie's birthday today and Hannah's on Saturday. That's so annoying.
Top 5 Sexiest Male Nominees
(obviously this list can't include any of those "faceless" people cause... well, i don't know what they look like)
1. Jake Gyllenhaal (Best Supporting Actor, Brokeback Mountain)
2. Dan Futterman (Best Adapted Screenplay, Capote)
3. Matt Dillon (Best Supporting Actor, Crash)
4. Bennett Miller (Best Director, Capote)
5. Heath Ledger (Best Actor, Brokeback Mountain)
(Honourable Mentions - Joaquin Phoenix, George Clooney, Terrance Howard)
Dan Futterman's gay right? I didn't know whether to put Bennett on there because all the pictures he looks sorta different but the picture below makes him look like na absolute spunk, so I put him on. You know what's annoying about Joaquin? Sometimes he is SO good looking (i think it's when he's all done up in a suit) yet when I was googling him none really "got" me. There are some men that are just so much better looking when in suits! Speaking of Dillon - he gets so much better looking with age, don't ya think?
Bennett Miller - I'm picturing dirty thoughts of him and Dan spending "quality time" together on the set
I got the inspiration for this top 5 whilest watching Urbania last night. The movie that just so happens to star out #2 Dan Futterman. God, he's sexy. That MOVIE is sexy (or, well, parts of it). So fucked up as well. It kind of got too bogged down towards the end, but that's alright. It was a great little movie. I suppose it shouldn't bother me that it nosedives into fantasy at the end considering the whole movie was fantasy basically. Oh, and Alan Cumming was actually funny! B+
Seeing Walk the Line tonight after tea with Hannah and Georgie (my two best friends). It's Georgie's birthday today and Hannah's on Saturday. That's so annoying.
February 8, 2006
Which Best Actor Candidate Am I?
I'm Truman Capote, apparently. I write and I'm way too fond of small-town America. Plus, I talk funny! Wait... no i don't. I've got the Aussie accent.
TRUMAN CAPOTE from "Capote"
With your wit and lively flashy personality, you
probably used to being the life of the party.
Your creativity is a blessing. But watch out
for those inner demons and be more sensitive
to the needs of others.
Which Best Actor Character Are You?
brought to you by Quizilla
TRUMAN CAPOTE from "Capote"
With your wit and lively flashy personality, you
probably used to being the life of the party.
Your creativity is a blessing. But watch out
for those inner demons and be more sensitive
to the needs of others.
Which Best Actor Character Are You?
brought to you by Quizilla
Catherine Breillat Wants To Kill You & Eat Your Soul
I watched Anatomie de l'Enfer recently. And I can say, hands down, that this is the most revolting movie I have ever witnessed. Say what you will about b grade horror movies, THIS is the type of movie that sets out with absolutely zero interest in the audience. At least with horror movies they want to give the audience a thriller, a scare, a laugh, anything. Anatomy of Hell just wants to disgust you. Wants to suck all the life out of you. It wants to test you - yes, even I can see that - but in the process stamps on your head and beats you with a stick until your head represents a mere stump.
The plot (if you could call it that) involves a gay man helping a straight woman who then performs oral sex on him and then asks him to come over to her house for four nights and watch her degrade herself and (in natural Breillat style) himself in the process.
This is a true and accurate description of some (yes, there are others) of the acts done in this movie. They are really done, no simulation here.
-Gay oral sex (the very first scene of the movie)
-Cutting of wrists with a razor blade
-Hetero oral sex
-Close ups of both the man's penis and the woman's vagina
-Fingering of her vagina (both him and her)
-Fingering of a bloody vagina (again, both)
-A close up of the woman's vagina as a giant dildo slides out
-The removal of a bloody tampon from the woman's vagina
-The emerging of said tampon into a glass of water
-The drinking of said glass of water by the man
-The man spreading lipstick all over the (sleeping) woman's vagina and anus
-Anal rape of the woman (twice)
-The man inserting a pitchfork handle (with the pitchfork sticking up in the air) into the woman's anus
-The removal of the man's penis from the woman's vagina followed by a torrent of blood
-Close ups of the man's penis covered in blood
...the last two are indeed the most disgusting things I have ever seen in a film. Absolutely abominable. Why would anyone want to film this? Hell, why would anyone want to participate in this? I very nearly turned off the movie at this point - i didn't. I kept going. I wish I hadn't because it didn't go anywhere.
Thank god this movie was only 70 minutes long.
I have only seen three of Ms Breillat's films (RomanceX, Fat Girl and this) but it is really hard to see where she fits into in the realm of cinema. She is definitely not helping any cause (whether it be feminist or whatever she likes) with her films (and that's if she ever did have a point). They are horribly degrading in many senses. The only one that actually had some form of rhythm was Fat Girl and that movie was terrible (except for the last 15 minutes which, strange enough, are some of the very best cinema i've seen - pity bout the rest). RomanceX was sloppy and messy (the FILM as well as the sex) and felt pointless. Anatomy of Hell even moreso. It is a complete and utter mess with not one redeemable feature. Just pure trash all the way.
I don't know what Catherine Breillat was trying to do, but it failed. Spectacularly, so. What exactly does she think she is doing with her films? Helping the cause of women masturbating with stone dildos on screen? Ugh. This movie is truly awful. F
Interesting then, that last night I should revisit a movie I had never been able to completely watch. Romper Stomper (1992, dir. Wright). And indeed, I had to stop it half way through, it was getting too much. The film is one of those society horror films that don't involve serial killers and what not. The film is extremely horrific and is quite possibly the most violent film I've ever seen - not in terms of gore and blood, but in terms of the impact of said violence. The 20 minute fight between the neo-nazis and the vietnemese is just horribly tense and shocking and graphic and disgusting and scary. It scares me even more to know that the place these events are set is a mere 40 minute train ride from where I live (eep).
Russell Crowe's performance is great, as you would expect (it's no wonder everyone thought he was going to be a star) as are the supporting performances of Jacqueline McKenzie and others. The score and sound design just add to the horror vibe. But really, I can't say I enjoyed the experience of this film. It was just too in my face. And this is from someone who gave Irreversable and B grade. Hmmm. C+
Russell Crowe in tighty whiteys though? omgadorable! Even if he is a neo-nazi (+ he's hung... fyi)
BEWARE!!! If you ever see this woman, turn around and RUN LIKE THE WIND because she will try to kill you and eat your soul (or just stick a pitchfork up your arse!)
Weisz Vs Williams
interesting. Even at Yahoo where people are voting (regular people) Rachel and Michelle are neck and neck. Michelle is 37% and Rachel is 36%. This contest is going down to the wire.
Top 5
I feel like top fiving things.
Top 5 Alfred Hitchcock Movies
1. Rear Window (1954)
2. Psycho (1960)
3. The 39 Steps (1935)
4. North By NorthWest (1959)
5. Rebecca (1940)
Top 5 Films Not In The English Language
1. Le Fabuleux Destin d'Amelie Poulain (2001, dir. Jeunet)
2. Wo Hu Cang Long (2000, dir. Lee)
3. La Cité Des Enfants Perdus (1994, dir. Jeunet)
4. Todo Sobre Mi Madre (1999, dir. Almodovar)
5. Yao a Yao Yao Dao Waipo Qiao (1995, dir. Yimou)
I know there's no old ones in there but if the list got longer there would be!
I dunno why I'm doing these, I just felt like it now that Oscar related news is gonna be dry.
Top 5 Alfred Hitchcock Movies
1. Rear Window (1954)
2. Psycho (1960)
3. The 39 Steps (1935)
4. North By NorthWest (1959)
5. Rebecca (1940)
Top 5 Films Not In The English Language
1. Le Fabuleux Destin d'Amelie Poulain (2001, dir. Jeunet)
2. Wo Hu Cang Long (2000, dir. Lee)
3. La Cité Des Enfants Perdus (1994, dir. Jeunet)
4. Todo Sobre Mi Madre (1999, dir. Almodovar)
5. Yao a Yao Yao Dao Waipo Qiao (1995, dir. Yimou)
I know there's no old ones in there but if the list got longer there would be!
I dunno why I'm doing these, I just felt like it now that Oscar related news is gonna be dry.
February 7, 2006
Good Night, and Good Luck.
Good Night, and Good Luck. (2005, dir. Clooney)
I just love it when films fascinate me. Where I become to engrossed in the world they enhabit that I could watch them continue doing their thing for hours more. It happened to me with Mysterious Skin last year and now George Clooney's Good Night & Good Luck has had the same effect on me (don't get me wrong, i absolutely love many other movies more than these two, but these two are the most recent examples of what I was saying. For example, I think Brokeback Mountain was perfectly made and wouldn't want it to go on longer because it reached it's natural end).
I got sucked into the world - I absolutely adore the 50s - through the excellent technical work such as production design, costume design, music (loved the Dianne Reeves musical work) and, best of all, cinematography. What a marvellous looking film. The black and white work is phenomenal, it really did look like a movie from the 1950s. Even the way characters acted felt authentic.
Then there's the acting. David Strathairn (who I've never really come across in any major capacity, i don't think) gives a pitch-perfect performance, which unlike some recent biopic performances (HI JAMIE FOXX!) does actually feel like I reaches more than mimicry. Notice the slight movements on his face during a particularly embarassing interview. Then there are the supporting performances: Frank Langella comes out best as equally authorative and helpful. George Clooney, Robert Downey Jr and Ray Wise also give great little turns. Patricia Clarkson, Jeff Daniels, Matt Ross, Tate Donovan, Grant Heslov and (omg!) Alex Borstein give great smaller performances that lack showboating moments but feel suited to the piece. The previously mentioned Dianne Reeves song work.
Then there is just the the film. The messages it portrays, and wants us to listen to. How can we not sit up and pay attention? The injustices that are the focus of Clooney's canon are worthy of being told and should be continued to be discussed today. I'm not going to get into a discussion about current world political policies, but it seems pretty important that a film such as this that talks about punishing people with no proof, should come out at a time when so many men and women are under the exact same threat, non?
Good Night, and Good Luck is one of the year's best films and great piece of filmmaking. And it comes it at 90 minutes! Excellent. Short and sweet, baby. A-
I just love it when films fascinate me. Where I become to engrossed in the world they enhabit that I could watch them continue doing their thing for hours more. It happened to me with Mysterious Skin last year and now George Clooney's Good Night & Good Luck has had the same effect on me (don't get me wrong, i absolutely love many other movies more than these two, but these two are the most recent examples of what I was saying. For example, I think Brokeback Mountain was perfectly made and wouldn't want it to go on longer because it reached it's natural end).
I got sucked into the world - I absolutely adore the 50s - through the excellent technical work such as production design, costume design, music (loved the Dianne Reeves musical work) and, best of all, cinematography. What a marvellous looking film. The black and white work is phenomenal, it really did look like a movie from the 1950s. Even the way characters acted felt authentic.
Then there's the acting. David Strathairn (who I've never really come across in any major capacity, i don't think) gives a pitch-perfect performance, which unlike some recent biopic performances (HI JAMIE FOXX!) does actually feel like I reaches more than mimicry. Notice the slight movements on his face during a particularly embarassing interview. Then there are the supporting performances: Frank Langella comes out best as equally authorative and helpful. George Clooney, Robert Downey Jr and Ray Wise also give great little turns. Patricia Clarkson, Jeff Daniels, Matt Ross, Tate Donovan, Grant Heslov and (omg!) Alex Borstein give great smaller performances that lack showboating moments but feel suited to the piece. The previously mentioned Dianne Reeves song work.
Then there is just the the film. The messages it portrays, and wants us to listen to. How can we not sit up and pay attention? The injustices that are the focus of Clooney's canon are worthy of being told and should be continued to be discussed today. I'm not going to get into a discussion about current world political policies, but it seems pretty important that a film such as this that talks about punishing people with no proof, should come out at a time when so many men and women are under the exact same threat, non?
Good Night, and Good Luck is one of the year's best films and great piece of filmmaking. And it comes it at 90 minutes! Excellent. Short and sweet, baby. A-
February 6, 2006
Which Best Actress candidate am I?
Why, I'm June Carter-Cash of course! Sharp as a razor, I am, and wouldn'tcha know it, I'm pretty damn foxy to boot.
Okay, scrap that last part, but 'tev. The men in my life are indeed frustrating but oh-so-lovable. Reese is awesome. In the (supremely saddening) absense of Joan Allen, I hope she wins. As much as I loved Keira Knightley, I don't want her to be an OSCAR WINNER. That'd be weird and sorta creepy!
JUNE CARTER CASH
It burns, burns, burns, that love you have for your
(troubled) man. But you know how to laugh and
smile despite the tears. Others cherish your
creativity, beauty, humor, talent, and spark.
Which Best Actress Character Are You?
brought to you by Quizilla
Okay, scrap that last part, but 'tev. The men in my life are indeed frustrating but oh-so-lovable. Reese is awesome. In the (supremely saddening) absense of Joan Allen, I hope she wins. As much as I loved Keira Knightley, I don't want her to be an OSCAR WINNER. That'd be weird and sorta creepy!
JUNE CARTER CASH
It burns, burns, burns, that love you have for your
(troubled) man. But you know how to laugh and
smile despite the tears. Others cherish your
creativity, beauty, humor, talent, and spark.
Which Best Actress Character Are You?
brought to you by Quizilla
February 5, 2006
yay!
It finally started working again. But, it's still fuckin stupid. I'm missing a few posts I made. Shiiiit. Oh, well... we'll see if THIS one shows up and if it does then I'll be happy as Larry.
I'm going to a Desert Night, now! We all make a desert and bring it along and we eat them all! I made chocolate self-saucing pudding. Tastiest thing ever, if I do say so myself.
I'm going to a Desert Night, now! We all make a desert and bring it along and we eat them all! I made chocolate self-saucing pudding. Tastiest thing ever, if I do say so myself.
Dude, wha' hoppin'
I seriously don't know what is happening. Entries seem to be disappearing!!! Like, I did one called December Statistics. Nat linked to it on his blog and when you click it it comes up, but i can't see it on my own blog.
I'm scared.
I'm scared.
December Statistics
28 of the individuals nominated in the top 8 categories (picture, director, actor, actress, supporting actor and actress, adapted and original screenplay) were released prior to December. That's 28 from a possible 40. That's 70% of nominees in the top 8 being from non-December released films.
And if you wanna be picky and include Syriana as a December film (which is isn't) then that's still 65%. Impressive, non?
(Non-December titles)
Picture - 3/5
Director - 3/5
Actor - 4/5
Actress - 3/5
Supp. Actor - 4/5
Supp. Actress - 4/5
Orig. Screenplay - 4/5
Adap. Screenplay - 3/5
The rest you ask?
Cinematography - 2/5
Editing - 4/5
Production Design - 3/5
Costume Design - 3/5
Score - 2/5
Song - 2/3
Make-Up - 2/3
Sound - 2/5
Sound Editing - 1/3
Visual Effects - 1/3
Animated Film - 3/3
Documentary - 5/5
That's a total of 57 non-December nominations, which equals 63.34%. I obviously excluded the shorts categories because they're sporadically released and Documentary maybe should've been 4/4 because Street Fight hasn't received a proper release like the others (Darwin's Nightmare did indeed get a limited run in New York City earlier last year + it's many festival screenings, which is all Fight has - the other three had clear definable releases). Interesting to note about Animated Feature is that even if Madagascar or Chicken Little or even Robots or Steamboy made the list, it would still be 3/3. The only December titled eligable was Hoodwinked, and even that was only released in January but that that three day qualifying run.
The technical categories percentage was brought down by three films predominantly, Memoirs of a Geisha with 6, King Kong with 4 and Narnia with 3, equalling 13 of the December club alone plus 2 for Brokeback Mountain, 1 each for Mrs Henderson Presents, TransAmerica, The New World and Munich.
The only two December titles to get more than one nomination in the top 8 categories were Brokeback and Munich. There were also single noms for TransAmerica and Mrs Henderson Presents in Best Actress and Match Point for Original Screenplay. 5. Versus 13 non-December titles.
The total of Decembers titles that got nominated (i'm excluding animated and docs here) is 9:
Brokeback Mountain
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
King Kong
Match Point
Memoirs of a Geisha
Mrs Henderson Presents
Munich
The New World
TransAmerica
The list of non-December titles nominated is 16:
Batman Begins
Capote
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
Cinderella Man
The Constant Gardener
Crash
Good Night & Good Luck
A History of Violence
Hustle & Flow
Junebug
North Country
Pride & Prejudice
The Squid and the Whale
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith
Syriana
Walk the Line
And yes, many of those only got single nod's but so did the december titles The New World and Match Point. If you wanna be picky though, the number of December titles with more than 1 nominations goes down to 7, while non-December titles goes down to 11. Still impressive. Oh, but if you include animated films and documentaries the number of non-December titles goes up to 24, but down again to 11 excluding single nom films.
(i excluded foreign film from this post, obviously, cause that category's fucked up.
Interesting footnight - this year had 4 non-December films starting with the letter C and 4 December films starting with the letter M. Odd? Not very.
I hope you enjoyed this post.
And if you wanna be picky and include Syriana as a December film (which is isn't) then that's still 65%. Impressive, non?
(Non-December titles)
Picture - 3/5
Director - 3/5
Actor - 4/5
Actress - 3/5
Supp. Actor - 4/5
Supp. Actress - 4/5
Orig. Screenplay - 4/5
Adap. Screenplay - 3/5
The rest you ask?
Cinematography - 2/5
Editing - 4/5
Production Design - 3/5
Costume Design - 3/5
Score - 2/5
Song - 2/3
Make-Up - 2/3
Sound - 2/5
Sound Editing - 1/3
Visual Effects - 1/3
Animated Film - 3/3
Documentary - 5/5
That's a total of 57 non-December nominations, which equals 63.34%. I obviously excluded the shorts categories because they're sporadically released and Documentary maybe should've been 4/4 because Street Fight hasn't received a proper release like the others (Darwin's Nightmare did indeed get a limited run in New York City earlier last year + it's many festival screenings, which is all Fight has - the other three had clear definable releases). Interesting to note about Animated Feature is that even if Madagascar or Chicken Little or even Robots or Steamboy made the list, it would still be 3/3. The only December titled eligable was Hoodwinked, and even that was only released in January but that that three day qualifying run.
The technical categories percentage was brought down by three films predominantly, Memoirs of a Geisha with 6, King Kong with 4 and Narnia with 3, equalling 13 of the December club alone plus 2 for Brokeback Mountain, 1 each for Mrs Henderson Presents, TransAmerica, The New World and Munich.
The only two December titles to get more than one nomination in the top 8 categories were Brokeback and Munich. There were also single noms for TransAmerica and Mrs Henderson Presents in Best Actress and Match Point for Original Screenplay. 5. Versus 13 non-December titles.
The total of Decembers titles that got nominated (i'm excluding animated and docs here) is 9:
Brokeback Mountain
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe
King Kong
Match Point
Memoirs of a Geisha
Mrs Henderson Presents
Munich
The New World
TransAmerica
The list of non-December titles nominated is 16:
Batman Begins
Capote
Charlie and the Chocolate Factory
Cinderella Man
The Constant Gardener
Crash
Good Night & Good Luck
A History of Violence
Hustle & Flow
Junebug
North Country
Pride & Prejudice
The Squid and the Whale
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith
Syriana
Walk the Line
And yes, many of those only got single nod's but so did the december titles The New World and Match Point. If you wanna be picky though, the number of December titles with more than 1 nominations goes down to 7, while non-December titles goes down to 11. Still impressive. Oh, but if you include animated films and documentaries the number of non-December titles goes up to 24, but down again to 11 excluding single nom films.
(i excluded foreign film from this post, obviously, cause that category's fucked up.
Interesting footnight - this year had 4 non-December films starting with the letter C and 4 December films starting with the letter M. Odd? Not very.
I hope you enjoyed this post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
