1999-2009

10 Years, 10 Tears of Love.
And I'm getting old. Too much happened ten years ago in 1999. It doesn't feel like it was ten years ago, but it surely was!

What exactly do we all remember from ten years ago?

Boy bands
Pokemon
Pop Princesses
Segregation on MTV (TRL vs MTV Jamz)
Bill Clinton
Elian Gonzalez
The Millenium Bug
Desmond Llewelyn's Death
Lauryn Hill
Ricky Martin
American Beauty
The Matrix
Fat Bastard
"I see dead people"
The return of Star Wars
"That is fucked up, Daisy!"

...and so much more.
We all remember it. We remember how fantastic it was. But that was 10 years ago. What comes next?

Pass with care, curious readers. The future is scary. And there is no more 1999 to comfort us.

But, in the words of the great Lauryn Hill,
"Everything is Everything. What is meant to be will be. After winter must come spring. Change, it comes eventually"

Inglorious Basterds

“Say "auf Widersehen" to your Nazi balls!”

An Instant Classic topped off with Fresh Nazi scalps

First off, I am not a fan of Quentin Tarentino. I never have been. I didn’t even enjoy Pulp Fiction – at least not to its hype. And while I was watching Inglorious Basterds, I was actively trying to find ways to disagree with the favourable reviews it has received across board. Alas, I am humbled for the first time in a long time, because I found nothing! The film is virtually flawless and will easily go down as a classic in the canon of American film.
What is it about? Killing Nazis, the revenge of an angry Jew, espionage, just to name a few. But go see the film to understand the plot. And don’t buy a drink, because bathroom breaks are a huge detriment in this film where all of the dialogue matters. Like Pulp Fiction, the dialogue is the main medium for the plot, but perhaps even more so. Although seemingly two-dimensional, the characters develop into very complex characters, and you are left with an extreme love or extreme hate of them. Either way, they capture your heart. The screenplay is written superbly, and I can make the guarantee that it will be an Oscar contender.
Equally stunning was the acting. There are two many stand out performances to describe them all, but I foresee a possible five names to be thrown around for award season: Christopher Waltz and Brad Pitt for Lead Actor, Mélanie Laurent for Lead Actress, Daniel Brühl for Supporting Actor, and Diane Kruger for Supporting Actress. Even with those five names, I would not be surprised to see other names appear.
Finally, I come to Tarentino. I can confidently say that he has earned my respect, and I will not say another negative word about him until his next film comes out. Even then if I am not impressed can I ever forget this film. I left the film shocked, speechless, and in complete awe of every aspect of the film from the screenplay to the cinematography to the score. It all fit together perfectly, and this film, like I have said, will likely be studied by film students in the future as a model of film perfection.
Obviously, this film deserves a top grade. Even my pickiness and tough grading cannot interfere with this – I give it a solid and well-earned A.

Funny People

“Don't cry, you're making a scene. Everyone will think I broke up with you.”

Although undoubtedly more mature, Sandler still isn’t a high quality master

Funny People is yet another film from Judd Apatow. He’s been on a role these days, so why stop? Apatow’s protégé Seth Rogan takes the lead role as aspiring comedian Ira Wright, who begins writing jokes and working as the personal assistant to the ailing legendary George Simmons, played by Adam Sandler.

I have not come to expect great things from Sandler. Granted, we all love to watch and laugh at Billy Madison, but, truly, Sandler has not left any sort of significant impact on American film. Although undoubtedly more mature in this film, he still doesn’t strike the high quality note that he seems to be attempting.

The film had its funny moments, and it keeps viewers entertained for the expected amount of time for a film like this. However, the film was at least an hour too long, and that extra hour of plot exposition gives us no greater appreciation for the characters or the real point of the film. I believe Apatow was trying to make a more mature film. And, although he succeeded at this, it does not come remotely near to the quality of either The 40 Year Old Virgin or Knocked Up.

Although led by a decent cast, the best in show, by far, was Leslie Mann, who played Laura, George Simmons’ former love interest. Although it took quite some time to reach a true appreciation for her character, Mann’s performance was believable and heartfelt. I would not be surprised to hear her name buzzing during awards season.

The film wasn’t as bad as I seem to be making it out to be, but it certainly wasn’t as good as most of us had hoped. I give it a C+.

Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince

“Fight back, you coward!”

Another big jab at the Harry Potter saga

Having never really enjoyed a Harry Potter film, I didn’t have any expectations of the film. In fact, I wasn’t even sure which film we were on until I bought my ticket. OK, then. Film 6. That means, lots of Voldemort, horcruxes, a big battle scene at the end, right? Well, sort of.

We all know the plot to Harry Potter, so saving spoilers doesn’t count here. Whoever wrote this screenplay (and I’m not looking it up, just so I can protect lives) needs to be shot. What the fuck have they done to my favourite childhood books? Why did this film spend the majority of its span concentrating on Quidditch and the love circle of Ron, Hermione, Harry, and Ginny? If I had not read the books, I would be totally stumped as to what a horcrux is. How are they going to show Harry the memories of Marvolo Gaunt and Hepsibah Smith? How is Harry going to know to look for school relics? And, where are they going to hold Bill and Fleur’s wedding if the Burrow is burned down? As you can tell, I am most displeased with the screenplay.

One good thing about the film, however, is that the young Harry Potter kids have FINALLY learned how to act, and can hold their own against the likes of Dame Maggie Smith, Alan Rickman, and Jim Broadbent. The screenwriters (and director) should take note of their actors’ credit in keeping the score I am about to give this film passing. With that being said, I hope that much will be compensated for the next two films (since Deathly Hallows is being made into two films). I give the film a C-.

Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen

Absolute rubbish. D-

The Brothers Bloom

“I have at different times in my life, sold sand to an Arab and ice to an Eskimo.”

The Con mans steal our hearts in this explosive dramedy.

Another trip to the Naro Expanded cinema in Norfolk to watch a film in the uncomfortable seats. But, once again, it was worth it, and I am pleased to find the first bit of gold for the 2009 movie season, and I hope the Oscar people are listening. The Brothers Bloom had it all – comedy, romance, an exciting plot, explosions, Rachel Weisz, and, once again, a silent Rinko Kikuchi.

The film followed two brothers who have made their living since children as con men. And they are in for one last big job – Penelope (played by Rachel Weisz). The Brothers Bloom (Adrian Brody and Mark Ruffallo), along with their silent bomb-crafting sidekick Bang Bang (Rinko Kikuchi), set out to make their final fortune. But, of course, it isn’t that simple!

I really appreciated that this film had a plot that kept me interested and laughing from beginning to end, and all the main characters, despite their great character flaws, were all very loveable. I also liked that there was a very important emphasis on the importance of family bonds; it strikes a home run with me. The main point – all of us suck, essentially, but that doesn’t mean we can’t love, live, and laugh.

Although the entire ensemble probably deserves recognition to some degree, there is no doubt that the ladies carried this film. Rachel Weisz, in the lead as Penelope, gave us a quirky, sympathetic, and loveable character. Rinko Kikuchi, as Bang Bang, although silent, seemed to come in the shots at exactly the right time, with the most perfect facial expressions, and the most outrageous costume changes, making herself the comedic master of the film. I appeal to the Academy to consider Rachel Weisz for Best Actress and Rinko Kikuchi for Best Supporting Actress, and will do all I can with the Rysh Guild to have them recognized.

I want to write so much more about this film, but I would hate to ruin the surprises. This is, as of the near end of summer, the best film so far of 2009, and would recommend it to anyone. I give it an A.

Star Trek

“Live long and Prosper”

The Original Series might have been good, but for non-Trekkies, the film does wonders too!

It’s been a while since I’ve updated my reviews, so I’m going to give ‘em all at once. First comes ‘Star Trek’. As a non-Trekkie, I wasn’t so excited to see this film, with the exception of seeing Anton Yelchin act. But, I must say, the film was done very well, and is easily capable of making any newbies interested in the series.

Presumably, the film is used as a prequel to the series – Trekkies, feel free to correct me. Because I don’t feel like screwing up a summary or even a synopsis of the film, I will keep it to that, and I will concentrate mostly on the acting and directing. As far as the acting goes, there was pretty much no flaw the entire film. The cast did a great job of making these characters believable. And, although a small role for him, I was still impressed with Anton Yelchin, who played Pavel Chekov, and I can’t wait to see him in more. He’s a very promising young actor, and there are hopefully great things in store for him. I was also impressed with Zachary Pinto, who was able to emulate and improve Mr Spock.

As far as the direction goes, JJ Abrams has done to ‘Star Trek’ what Peter Jackson has done to ‘The Lord of the Rings’. The entire orchestration of cinematography, art, special effects, setting, costumes, and sound made this film appealing to all the senses. And, the film went beyond the constrains of sci-fi, just as the series had done, in portraying positive messages, including, my favourite, the importance of embracing one’s humanity.

I came in with zero expectations, and left very satisfied. And, I will be buying the film when it comes out on DVD. So, therefore, I give it a B+.

RYSH AWARDS | MUSIC | 2008-2009

The Music Season for the Rysh Guild began on July 1, 2008 and ended June 30, 2009. Rysh is pleased to announce the winners of the top four prizes:

Album of the Year: Dig Out Your Soul, Oasis
other nominees included: Circus, Britney Spears; We Sing, We Dance, We Steal Things, Jason Mraz; Grateful, Carpark North; Modern Guilt, Beck.

Song of the Year: 'Womanizer', Britney Spears
other nominees included: 'Shall We Be Grateful', Carpark North; 'I'm Yours', Jason Mraz; 'Poker Face', Lady Gaga; 'Gamma Ray', Beck

Record of the Year: 'Lost (Peace)', Carpark North
other nominees included: 'I'm Outta Time', Oasis; 'More', Carpark North; 'Circus', Britney Spears; 'I'm Yours', Jason Mraz

Music Video of the Year: 'Poker Face', Lady Gaga
other nominees included: 'I'm Outta Time', Oasis; 'Womanizer', Britney Spears; 'Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It), Beyonce; 'Love Story', Taylor Swift


THANK YOU Ricky Cade and Erica Nullin for hearing me out on Carpark North!!

Top Ten Films, 2008

OK, So I've seen almost everything, and I think I can make the final judgment. So, here are Paddy's picks for the top ten films of 2008:

1. The Reader (A)
2. The Dark Knight (A)
3. Changeling (A)
4. Doubt (A)
5. Defiance (A-)
6. Charlie Bartlett (A-)
7. Gran Torino (A-)
8. Burn After Reading (B+)
9. Revolutionary Road (B+)
10. Slumdog Millionaire (B+)

Revolutionary Road

“Hopeless emptiness. Now you've said it. Plenty of people are onto the emptiness, but it takes real guts to see the hopelessness.”

Purpose and Principles are the Moral Dilemma in Mendes’ latest film

I’ve been anticipating Revolutionary Road ever since I heard about it almost two years ago. I am an avid Kate Winslet fan, and when I heard about this film, I thought that her Oscar would be soon coming. I was almost right – she won, but for The Reader. Revolutionary Road tackles similar issues as Winslet’s previous film Little Children – the suburban lifestyle – but in a less satirical manner and with more of an emphasis on individual principles versus the perception of a life purpose.

The film follows the life of a young 1950s couple, Frank (Leonardo DiCaprio) and Alice (Winslet) Wheeler. Marital problems begin when they both begin to feel trapped in a life in the suburbs that they had never imagined for themselves, coinciding with feelings of obligation and responsibility. The film is enhanced by the mad man John Givings (Michael Shannon) who acts as a sort of moral compass for the Wheelers. On the surface, this film’s primary purpose seems to be criticizing conformity and the suburban trap. Although effectively portrayed, this idea comes perhaps a bit too late to really be considered original. However, I believe this film did a great job of portraying the mindset of the individuals involved. Films like Little Children effectively attacked the surface, whereas Revolutionary Road presented an ambivalent moral dilemma. Because of that, director Sam Mendes deserves acclaim for presenting a unique point of view.

By far the most outstanding aspect of the film was the acting. Leonardo DiCaprio should have been nominated for an Oscar. I have said before that Kate Winslet should have been nominated in the Supporting category for The Reader and Lead for Revolutionary Road. Her performance in this film was, in my opinion, her very best performance to date, which says a lot. Michael Shannon’s role, although limited, was nonetheless impressive and intensely thought-provoking. I think that the film was unjustifiably left out in the awards circuit (in favour of subpar films such as Frost/Nixon), but, then again, the awards circuit notoriously shafts the films that truly deserve recognition.

The film was perhaps not the best in terms of a cohesive narrative, but it was certainly thought provoking and entertaining to say the least. For that, I give it a B+.

Watchmen

“It doesn’t take a genius to see the world has problems”

The Realities of Human Nature and the Mentality of a Superhero

Anticipating this film since I read the graphic novel in high school, Watchmen was high on my priority list to start of the 2009 film year. This film takes place in an alternate history of the United States during the Cold War, during which panic and fear over nuclear war is at an all-time high. The story focuses on a group of superheroes and their characteristics in the seemingly dystopian society. In particular, the film does a great job at addressing the various aspects of human nature when confronted with danger and corruption.

I will forewarn potential viewers – I would not see this film without first reading the graphic novel. The disjoined can be hard to follow without first being familiar with the characters. The adaptation of the book is fairly loyal one; not a whole lot is changed, though a few components of the story are omitted. But, I think that the novel is essential to the overall experience. In this aspect, the film complements the novel very well.

Its flaws however, are obvious. First, the very nature of the novel makes is difficult to adapt to the screen. The film at times, seemed to drag plotlines on for too long while quickly jumping to a new development. Even for someone who may have read the novel, the film may have been difficult to follow at times. At times, the film seems torn between whether it was meant to be an action film or political allegory. The two don’t really mix too well, and, on the screen, they are two components that probably shouldn’t mesh. There were also some shots in the film that were a bit too poor in taste (such as a blimp flying slowly, seemingly in the direction of the Twin Towers).

The film was visually appealing. Zach Snyder once again demonstrates that he is the master of green-screen visuals. If you’ve seen 300, then you know what I mean. Watchmen is very similar in this aspect. The acting was, generally, lackluster, with the exception of Jackie Earle Haley, who plays the masked vigilante Rorschach – the performance is very haunting, and yet, his character becomes even more sympathetic then it does in the novel.

Overall, I feel that the film had more positive points than negative. And, although it didn’t address the idea of human nature as effectively as other films, such as Lola Rennt and No Country for Old Men, I feel that the film was a success. Therefore, I give it a B+.

RYSH WINNERS!

By the power vested in me by the Rysh Independent Film and Theatre Guild, St Louis Missouri, I hereby certify the winners for the 2008 Entertainment Awards, Cinematic Class 1:

Best Picture: The Dark Knight
Best Director: Chris Nolan for The Dark Knight
Best Original Screenplay: Joel Coen, Ethan Coen, for Burn After Reading
Best Adapted Screenplay: David Hare for The Reader
Best Ensemble Cast: The Cast of Burn After Reading
Best Actress in a Supporting Role: Kate Winslet, for her role as Hanna Schmitz in The Reader
Best Actor in a Supporting Role: Heath Ledger, for his role as the Joker in The Dark Knight
Best Actress in a Lead Role: Kate Winslet, for her role as April Wheeler in Revolutionary Road
Best Actor in a Lead Role: Mickey Rourke, for his role as Randy 'The Ram' Robinson in The Wrestler.

Reviews soon to come for:
Defiance, The Wrestler, Vicky Cristina Barcelona, Defiance, The Watchmen, Frozen River

Oscar Predictions!

It's about that time of year again. The Oscar nominations have been released, and now that I've had time to agonize over them, I'm finally ready to accept them as is and make some predictions. So, even though the best year of films I've seen has been met with some very unfair assessments by the Academy, I am ready! Here we go:

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Who will win: Heath Ledger
Who should win: Heath Ledger
This is the easiest category to assess, so I will start out with it. The first scene of 'The Dark Knight' solidifies Ledger's nomination into this category. The final scene solidifies his win. I reject the notion that he wouldn't win had he not died. That's a lie. It's a lie that people who don't like Super Hero films tell to make them feel better about Josh Brolin not winning an Oscar. To the other four nominees - be happy to be nominated alongside this unbeatable performance. Leger - Cheers, and rest in peace!

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Who will win: Penelope Cruz
Who should win: Amy Adams
Some of my later predictions will be more bold, so I will be a little less on this one. If Kate Winslet were in this category (as she should be), then I would pick her for the win without a doubt. I pick Penelope Cruz because she has the precursor advantage, but since Kate Winslet won most of the major ones for this category, it is very tough to assess. Personally, I thought Amy Adams gave the most compelling performance of the lot, but her chances of taking home the gold, unfortunately, seem slim. Look out for an upset by Viola Davis or Marisa Tomei.

BEST ACTOR
Who will win: Mickey Rourke
Who should win: Sean Penn or Mickey Rourke
My finer instincts tell me that Frank Langhella will win - Rourke won the Golden Globe, Penn won the SAG, so why not give the Oscar to an old veteran. The reason I pick Rourke is because Langhella's performance was not up to its hype. He is clearly a talented actor, but he was not cast in the right role. The two best performances came from Penn and Rourke, and, while both are equally deserving, I think Penn's previous and recent Oscar for 'Mystic River' will count against him and Rourke's comeback story will be in his favour.

BEST ACTRESS
Who will win: Kate Winslet
Who should win: Kate Winslet, but for a different film.

Kate Winslet's performance in 'The Reader' was brilliant. However, I still can't buy that it is a lead performance, especially within the context of the film. I think if the Academy considered Catherine Zeta Jones's role in 'Chicago' as supporting, then Kate's in 'The Reader' is also supporting. I believe that it is Kate's year to shine, but I think she should be winning two Oscars - one for her supporting role in 'The Reader' and one for her lead role in 'Revolutionary Road'. I feel sorry that Angelina Jolie and Anne Hathaway are going to lose to a supporting role, but, sorry ladies, Kate's overdue. I will be ecstatic when she is finally holding her long overdue statue!

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
Who will win: Milk
Who should win: Happy-go-Lucky
I was disappointed that the Academy excluded 'Burn After Reading' and shocked that Academy staple Woody Allen didn't make it in with 'Vicky Cristina Barcelona'. So, this year, I think this category is going to be a consolation category. I think 'Milk' is going to miss out on Picture, Director, and Actor, and almost certainly the tech awards, so, the Academy will award it with Best Original Screenplay. I am usually more impressed with comedic screenplays, so I would prefer to see 'Happy-go-Lucky' take the gold, but, alas, Dustin Lance Black will take it home.

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
Who will win: Slumdog Millionaire
Who should win: Slumdog Millionaire
'Slumdog Millionaire' is the Hollywood darling this year, and I see no reason as to why the Academy won't award it in this category. It is well deserved. Although 'Slumdog' was not my favourite film this year, the writing was clearly apt, and I think this is where I would personally award the film. So, Simon Beaufoy for the gold.

BEST DIRECTOR
Who will win: Danny Boyle
Who should win: Gus Van Sant
This is going to be the biggest award for 'Slumdog Millionaire' this year. Intuition says it is a battle between him and David Fincher, but if I had my way, I would give the award to Gus Van Sant. You have to appreciate his manipulation of detail and juxtaposition of real life video clips, newspaper articles, and other things in with his narrative and plot. He knows a lot about film composition, and I think it should be his turn.

BEST PICTURE
Who will win: The Reader
Who should win: The Reader
This is my bold prediction of the year. 'Slumdog Millionaire' has been winning all the precursors , but I think the Academy will decide differently for a host of reasons. First, 'Slumdog' has been getting negative backlash in India from actual slum residents who resent their portrayal in the film as 'slumdogs'. The Academy hates to offend and hates to be politically incorrect. Second, and probably more important, two of the producers are Anthony Minghella and Syndey Pollack, both previous Best Director winners and Academy darlings. They also both died in the past year. I think the Oscars will be riding on the theme of posthumous Oscars, and will decide not only to give one to Heath Ledger, but also to Minghella and Pollack for as their final bow in extraordinary careers. And, although 'The Reader' would be winning for the wrong reasons, I won't complain, since it was not only the best film of the lot, but, in my opinion, the best film of the year. Fingers crossed!

Kate Winslet

Oscars - Get Ready For Kate Winslet

FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION

Best Supporting Actress for The Reader
Best Actress for Revolutionary Road

The Golden Globes got it right this time! Let's see the Academy award Kate Winlet with not one, but two long overdue statues.

Gran Torino

“Get Off My Lawn”

He’s back to being completely badass.

Theory proved law – Clint Eastwood doesn’t know how to make a bad movie. And, now, on a rare occasion, he does a great job with the acting. Upon recommendation by my long time friend, Johnny Karian, I was even more excited to see Gran Torino. It was part two of my double feature day, and, after the disappointment with Frost/Nixon, I was hoping this could redeem my day.

Gran Torino takes place in a Detroit neighbourhood, where Clint Eastwood’s character becomes involved with his Asian neighbours and protecting them from a gang. That is a bad summary, so, I encourage you to see it to get the full effect. Along with the absolutely hilarious and well fitting racial epithets every few lines, the film embodies one major theme – real sacrifice. What does it take to make amends, and what are you willing to do, how much are you willing to give up, to help someone else. Anyone who has seen this film knows what I’m talking about.

This is the second successful Eastwood film this year, but the only one in which he acts. I usually don’t think of Eastwood as a great actor. He’s a great filmmaker, but not so much as an actor. This film, however, makes me take a second look. He commanded the screen and made a character that you loved to hate and hated to love at first, but then showed you his true side. I can relate to a lot of his character attributes, and, although I am not nearly as badass as Eastwood, I think my heart is usually in the right place as his character.

The film has feeling, it has a driving plot, and even a sneak peek into social issues among a race that is generally ignored in most contexts. I suggest seeing the film in two weeks, when the theatres won’t be as full of obnoxious moviegoers who don’t know how to hold their laughs. And, although I didn’t find this film as powerful as Changeling, I still feel it deserves to be in the top caliber of films for 2008. So, for the sixth time this year, I will do just that – I give it an A-.

Milk

“Without hope, life’s not worth living”

The life of a legendary activist creates a story from which we can all learn a bit.

I battled the tunnel traffic and the mercilessly uncomfortable seats in the Naro Expanded Cinema to see Milk, Gus Van Sant’s biopic about the political life of Harvey Milk, the first openly gay man elected to a major office. Although it was a very (physically) uncomfortable experience, I found the film to be, on the whole, enjoyable.

I hate to say it, but I try to be honest, so I will admit it – Sean Penn did a good job. He deserves an Oscar nomination, and, although I will probably be rooting for Mickey Rourke, Penn would not be undeserving of a win. Josh Brolin was also excellent in his role as Dan White, Milk’s assassin. Other than that, there are no real standout performances, although the cast as a whole works well together.

I liked that the film had a message of tolerance. Although the film revolves around mostly gay characters, the film doesn’t feel like a militant gay film. The juxtaposition of the plot development with Harvey Milk recording a final memoir in anticipation for assassination enhanced the message of the film. In all, it was powerful, and it far outweighs both the nitpickly and legitimates criticisms of the film.

In the film, character development was generally poor, aside the title character. It wasn’t such a major problem, but I would’ve liked to have seen more character complexity in the characters played by James Franco and Emile Hirsch. The character played by Diego Luna seemed very forced, if not unnecessary. Finally, although the character was very well played, I would’ve liked to have seen more of Dan White. I feel like his character was simplified too far, and better character development would’ve made this film a near slam dunk. Also – nitpicky – the assassination scene was a bit melodramatic. A more mysterious one may have had a better effect.

The film’s message was powerful – one would have to see it to feel it. The acting was well done, and, despite the film’s shortcomings, I found it to be more than satisfactory. I give it a B.

Frost/Nixon

“That Jack Kennedy, he screwed anything that moved. He had a go at Checkers once, and that poor bitch was never the same after that.”

An Angry Approach Blocks the Formation of Anything Substantive

With all the award nominations Frost/Nixon is racking up, I was excited to finally see it, even leaving the peace of my neighbourhood to return to Williamsburg a few weeks early to see it. I was hopeful, but sometimes hope disappoints, and this is one of those cases.

Frost/Nixon narrates the events, in a mockumentary style, around David Frost’s interview with President Richard Nixon. And, although the name of the film mentions both David Frost and Richard Nixon, there was very little character development for Nixon. It should be automatically assumed, for all those seeing the film, that if you have anything less than the highest level of disgust for Nixon, you aren’t intellectually sound to see the film. The film shows David Frost as nothing short of a hero. I am obviously biased, as I actually have high regards for Richard Nixon; I believe he was a good president, and although I don’t like his involvement in Watergate, I think it’s time the nation gets over it, especially Ron Howard.

The obvious slant of the movie aside, and the inexcusable problem of trying to build a three dimensional film on one three-dimensional lead character and another one-dimensional lead character, I felt that the mockumentary aspect alongside a separate narrative was a very poor juxtaposition. I expected more from Ron Howard, and although good directors make mistakes, this one was just too obvious. Although I am clearly one of the few to call him out on this style, I feel like it has to be said – if it’s going to be a mockumentary, then make it a mockumentary. If you’re trying to combine a mockumentary and a narrative, you had better use a tone similar found in Drop Dead Gorgeous, because your film really shouldn’t be taken seriously, let alone expected to be taken serious.

Film aside, the acting was well done. Yes, it is possible to have a bad film with good acting. Frank Langhella deserves any future Oscar nomination that may come his way, although I have a feeling he will be outperformed, perhaps by Mickey Rourke. I am hoping that the SAG nomination for Best Ensemble truly is honouring the ensemble cast. They deserve it. The film itself deserves none of it.

I found the film to be unsuccessful, and I find it hard to believe that people actually feel like this film is compelling enough to call it ‘Best’ or ‘Outstanding’. Ron Howard sometimes really acts like an angry old red head, and sometimes his rage pours out onto poor horse’s hooves. Sorry Ron, but I give it a D+.

The Reader

“Do You Love Me?”

Love Hurts, and Secrets Can Destroy It

Kate Winslet is in it – so I was already sold. I was glad to finally find a location playing The Reader. I had intended on reading the novel before seeing the film, but I thought it more important to take the opportunity to see the film before Oscar nominations are released. I will say, even before I reveal my grade, that it was the most satisfying cinematic experience of the year (2008).

The Reader follows Michael Berg, played by David Kross and Ralph Fiennes, and his relationship with Hanna Schmitz, an older woman with whom he has an affair while he is 15 years old. The relationship is further complicated when Hanna is put on trial.

I liked this film for its success in weaving together a few very complicated themes without overreaching. The first theme involves the complexity of cross-generational relationships. Michael Berg is in love with Hanna Schmitz, but is the love really mutual? Second, the idea of guilt is explored. I don’t mean guilt as defined by a court of law, necessarily, but I am talking more about self guilt. What does your conscience feel when you know you have done something wrong? Finally, the film explores humiliation. What are you willing to conceal from the world? What are you so ashamed of that you are willing to adversely change the course of your life in order to conceal it? Obviously, since this is a critique and not a summary, I shall speak no further!

Kate Winslet’s performance, as usual, was nothing short of gold. She deserves an Oscar nomination, and probably a win for her performance. But, one thing that has shocked me is that newcomer David Kross has been largely ignored for his lead performance. He plays the role of young Michael Berg superbly, and if I had it my way, he would receive a nomination for Best Lead Actor. His commitment to his role was obvious in that he learned English for this role, and he definitely knew what he was saying during his lines – it wasn’t rote memorization. I hope to see more form him, and I hope he trickles his way into American culture.

Cheers, Mr Daldry! You have created what I believe (from what I’ve seen so far), is the best film of 2009. And, yes, a small tear was shed. So, with that, I give this film a solid A!

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

“You can be mad as a mad dog at the way things went; you can swear and curse the fates - but when it comes to the end, you have to let go.”


Going backwards in age doesn’t always mean going backwards in wisdom


It has long been the front runner for Best Picture until recent weeks. I got my ticket hours early, anticipating the packed theatre. And, I was right; it was packed. At nearly 3 hours in length, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button was set to be epic.
Based on the story by F Scott Fitzgerald, the film narrates the life of Benjamin Button, born with a condition by which he ages backwards. He experiences life differently, and interacts with his surroundings differently. Brad Pitt glows on screen as Benjamin Button, and, not for the first time in her career, the film was, largely, held together by Cate Blanchett, who can do no wrong when it comes to acting.
This film accomplishes many things. First, it effectively narrates a bird’s eye view of American social context throughout the course of the 20th Century, while at the same time narrating the story of a man born with a condition that sets him outside virtually all of these contexts. Maybe more important for the viewer, however, it tells a story of not just one person, but two people, and the love that develops, complicates, and endures, despite wrongdoings over the years. Director David Fincher managed to make this utterly impossible story feel so real and hit home. I endorse any future nomination the Academy might throw at him for best director.
Although this film was beautifully made, I found it to be a bit long; I think an equal effect could have been achieved if the film were thirty minutes shorter. Some might find it hard to get the full effect of such a beautiful film when it is that long, and you are aching in your seat in the cinema. The length of the film, in short, significantly subtracted from the value of the film.
Benjamin Button is very wise, curiously wise. Although it is his curious case, some of his lines were a bit forced, maybe even clichéd. It almost seemed like Forest Gump was trying to fit through the door. Thank God he didn’t wholly succeed on that.
Despite the shortcomings, the film was well done and very touching. I was satisfied, and I would recommend the film. I give it a B+.