OSCAR Predictions 2013

Best Picture

Amour: Haneke is a miserable old man and a fantastic film maker, Amour is not his best work and its certainly not OSCAR worthy but the man himself could be.

Argo: Forgetting Ben Affleck here, Argo is the front runner and has been our favourite for the past month. It's neither too mainstream nor too indie, it has avoided any political issues, it's a shoe in.

Beats of the Southern Wild: Unquestionably my favourite film, underrated by some. Opinion seems completely polarised by this film, nonetheless this is not the kind of film that wins OSCARs nor does it need to.

Django Unchained: Marred by controversy, poorly sold to awards bodies, and certainly not Tarantino's best work. The director has announced plans to retire soon, lets hope he finds form to go out on a high.

Les Misèrables: Why this film has a nomination is the big question here, other than a few good performances, watching Les Mis was torture.

Life of Pi: Stunning visuals, an incredible story and top of the class adaptation. But is it anything more?

Lincoln: Solid performances and direction, but overall the whole film bored me and was totally misplaced in the political spectrum. The biggest disappointment.

Silver Linings Playbook: Interesting and quirky but apparently Hollywood is not up for discussing mental health just yet, overshadowed with little chance of success, but could David O. Russell take best director- outsider odds are good.

Zero Dark Thirty: Jessica Chastain will likely take bets actress, that is the only award this film will and should take. Misguided, rushed, overly controversial, and what people seem to be missing is that it's just not a very good film. And IT IS NOT FACTUAL!!!

Best Picture Prediction: Argo
Best Director: The most difficult category to call but we're going for Michael Haneke
Best Actor: Daniel Day Lewis although John Hawkes deserves it more.
Best Actress: Jessica Chastain

Man of Steel (2013): Trailer

I call it a trailer but really it was a preview of a trailer, you see I thought putting 'preview' in the title might suggest I'd seen some cool secret preview of the film. [LINK BELOW]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jKWJZsjm5U&feature=youtube_gdata_player

I'm talking about the very short clip during the trailers for the DKR, the one that at first looks like a Terrence Malick film. I mean I love Malick and grass blowing in the wind is his calling card right? Apparently Snyder didn't get the message. Let's just hope his seen Chronicle because the whole concept of human flight is taken to the n'th degree by that film, and whilst that little flight snippet in the MoS preview was cool, I just pray they don't throw their huge budget into making some vulgar, meaningless flight sequence from the mind of Tom Clancy (although that maybe inevitable).

Anyway, after my disappointment with DKR, but overall love of the DK as a trilogy and ultimate feeling that it signal the beginning of the end for comic adaptations I can't help but be sceptical, but I shall also add the MoS is one of the few films that I think has the potential to avert this tragedy.

The Dark Knight Rises (2012): The Comic Adaptation Falls

[SPOILER ALERT]

I should start by expressing my love of the comic book adaptation, ever since X-men back in 2000, the screen has been repeatedly filled with super heroes with varying degrees of success and perhaps none better than Christopher Nolan's envisioning of Batman. The Dark Knight Trilogy will go down in film as one of the greats, and despite the sadness surrounding the opening of the film, I cannot remember anticipating a film anymore so than DKR, the excitement at the cinema where I saw it was electric as people queued and waited for hours to get into a screening (as did I).

DKR is an entertaining and epic end to the trilogy, not as good as the Dark Knight, but still a good film. Hathaway is superb as Catwomen and shines through respectively, some wonderful moments from Bale, Oldman and Levitt give the acting superior advantage over all other supers films. Hardy's Bane, is a little dehumanized by his mask but that is completely reversed in the scene where he gets his little tubes cut, overall Hardy works well with what he had. The first fight scene between Batman and Bane was emotive and brutal and thoroughly fantastic! The cinematography was a particular highlight; the opening scene with the plane and of course the shots of Gotham.

However the praise can only go so far, because ultimately I left the cinema disappointed. DKR is a fine film and it makes the trilogy, but I could not help but find flaw after flaw, that in contrast to the near perfect Dark Knight, leave a bitter taste.

-Why after a slow progression in terms of story villainy do we suddenly jump to impending nuclear doom? Organized crime, psychopaths, nuclear bomb with a fine chrome finish? Pretty sure there is a missing link in that evolution. The great thing about Batman was that it was always unique and cutting edge, but using something so cliche as a nuclear bomb was just out of character for the film as a whole. Also that whole mushroom cloud/horizon ending...seriously?

- Alfred has been a great asset to the Bruce Wayne side of the story in previous films, in DKR he is the iceberg to the films Titanic. As soon as he narrates that stupid bit about finding Bruce in a cafe in like the first quarter of the film, we know its going to happen- so he basically ruined the ending and there was no spoiler alert. And where the fuck did he go? A little sarcastic Caine humor would not have gone a miss in the climax of the film, why so serious DKR? Well, Alfred has disappeared, that's why so damn serious!

- After going on and on about the moral decay of Gotham throughout the whole trilogy, why is it the people of Gotham stay hidden in their homes the whole film? Could they not have just killed all the policeman underground and used the people of Gotham as Batman's army instead, given them a chance to redeem themselves? Nope.

- The writing during the scene where Bale and Hathaway are dancing at times seemed like it had been taken from American Psycho, so much so that some of the sharp, sarcastic replies Wayne gave made him see more like Pat Bateman (although Im not really complaining). The writing seemed to lack the nobility of the first film and the narrative lacked the fluidity of the second, caught in some paradoxical purgatory that bounced from place to place, although I will say the Nolan's stayed true to the realism that dominates the trilogy.

- Marion Cotillard is a fine actress and turns out she was controlling Bane all along, firstly this is way too reminiscent of the Uma Thurman/Bane thing in Batman & Robin (1997)- worst film ever! Secondly, she was introduced as the villain way too late to have any real effect!

- Joe Gordon-Levitt is Robin (well durr!), why was he not used to greater effect in the climax? Because instead he was standing on a bridge with a school bus full of orphans...fucking orphans? Great actor, great character, wasted in favor of a cliche all to make Warner Bros life easier in making a Robin franchise, although I do want to see that (as well as a separate cat women film).

- The Bat much like the the chrome finished fusion bomb was a step too far in my opinion, perhaps some aliens and sarcastic Wheddon dialogue would have better suited. The Bat seemed to have been used to justify junky aerial CGI views instead of the simple yet stunning cinematography that would have been just enough to keep this film grounded.

Simply put DKR rose too far. It forgot its roots. So many of the things that made Batman unique and generally better than all other supers films seemed in DKR to have been forgotten, too often the film strayed into Marvel territory, perhaps to appease the under 10's or maybe the fan-boys which I can no longer call myself one. DKR is entertaining and easily better than the Avengers, but it could and should have been more. The fine line between the DK's awesome realism and the dismal fantasy that plagues so many supers films is repeatedly crossed, and some will (and have) disagreed, but for me DKR simply crosses the line too many times. Thankfully the film will be absorbed into the trilogy and its imperfections will be forgotten, but not just yet.

Over 10 years of continuous supers films and really the genre has becomes its own, but as we look back at others, a similar pattern emerges: when a trilogy comes along of great and outstanding quality, that overshadows all in its category, that category dies. What was the last sci-fi trilogy you saw that beat Star Wars? Critics and commentators have turned their noses at supers films in the past, but their voice was always drowned out by huge box office results and dedicated fans. Now DKR is likely to wipe out the box office, and set an unbeatable record, as a trilogy, making competition almost impossible, what is worse is fans like myself are unable to defend the 189 film contracts that are being given out to film makers, that wreak of nothing but greed! It is no wonder the cries are getting louder.

The supers franchises have been living too large and leaving too little for everyone else, and now the chant is 'fall'. I believe it is quite possible that end the DK trilogy marks the beginning of the end of the comic book adaptation. But we should remember it is always darkest before the dawn, and there are a number of potential films out there, that could avert this tragedy the Man of Steel shows promise and I begrudgingly see some potential in some of the many (very many) Marvel spawn. Plus, films like Chronicle (which I have no interest in writing about but I can say is my favourite film of this year...so far), are being made, super powers are always so very welcome in films. On that random and abrupt note I end, perhaps I'll continue this or maybe I'll draw out over a series of years, bleeding dry all remains of interest, only time will tell.

Oh and ps- for the love of god see DKR in IMAX!!

The Moral Responsibility of Film

I write this in the wake of the massacre at the Colorado cinema, in respect for those that died I will also be delaying a piece on the Dark Knight Rises.

[SPOILER ALERT] A while ago I discussed the emotional disconnect that is becoming ever apparent in films, yesterday whilst at a showing of the DKR I witnessed this first hand. The scene opened with Batman and Catwomen heading through the sewers and continues with Batman's first confrontation with Bane. As the Bat was being brutally beaten the scene becomes emotional and serious, the violence is meant to shock and is emotionally anchored to ensure full effect. It is perhaps one of the best scene in the film, in this respect. But behind me, a women giggled. As the scene continued I realized that this women was giggling at the film, she was laughing as Bane twisted the proverbial knife ever deeper, she misconstrued every word, every image, every moment as a sarcastic joke. 

The pattern of big budget blockbusters fueled by explosions, violence and death, with little or no regard for morality or human life is far too prominent in film today. Films should be a break from reality but the destruction of an entire city should not be complimented by sarcastic wit, they should at least contain some acknowledgement, some morsel of respect for human life. One of the saddest things about this weeks shooting is Nolan's Batman has always been one of the great mainstream exceptions, the Dark Knight always emphasized a moral responsibility, whether that be to the people of Gotham, or the people in the audience, any violence was always met with a semi-realistic ethical dimension that so many contemporary blockbusters lack. As the debate begins over the effects of movie violence, we wait to here whether or not James Holmes was inspired by a film or perhaps some misguided political ideology, what ever the outcome I think it is safe to say his motives were catalyzed by insanity and delusion.

I think whether his motive includes a film or not, this incident provides an opportunity for change and reform. Iv said before that I completely oppose the colonial qualities of family orientated entertainment, and of course it is wong to desensitize children too early in life, but I think if you are going to make a film that contains violence and is going to be viewed by broad age ranges, then you have the responsibility to ensure your film has at least some moral essence. When a police officer dies, you remember his family, when you blow up a building, you do not forget about the people inside, when a crazed gunman massacres 12 and injures 58, you remember that a caped crusader isn't always there to save the day.

Film is perhaps the most beautiful and effective form of art and communication that we have, and its about time it was used responsibly. Sadly the idea that anything will actually change is about as misguided as James Holmes. Maybe it could be achieved in some imaginary world, projected on to the big screen, but this is reality and in real world there is a far greater lack of moral responsibility than film could ever have. There is however one thing both worlds do posses and it is always present, and that is hope. Whilst we have that, and much like film, anything is possible.              

Breaking Bad (2012): The End Justifies The Extreme

I usually make some effort to come up with a witty pun when writing a tittle for a post but for this I simply use the shows tagline, mainly because I do not think I need make attempt to get your attention, and also I cant be bothered.

I guess this has been a long time coming, a review of a TV show that is, and what a better choice. Breaking Bad has of course started up for a new season and in some ways it really has been desperately needed. The season 5 premiere in a nutshell: better than anything that has graced a cinema screen this year, all 42 minutes of it! When I started this blog at the end of last year I speculated and salivated over some of the films we had to look forward to in 2012, I can now say, with more than half the year already gone, I was wrong. 2012 has so far been nothing but a disappointment in terms of film, despite so much excitement my favorite film of this year has been Chronicle, and I didn't even know what that was until I watched it. TV on the other hand has been having one of its finest years ever! The quality and diversity of television has been ever increasing as budgets get bigger, production values improve infinitely and what better proof than Game of Thrones, and more and more talented individuals including well known film makers flock to HBO and AMC to release their creative juices, I need not list the countless number of writers, directors and actors that are continually involving themselves in televised projects.

TV has become Hollywood's exclusive brothel, where anything goes, and terms like family orientated lie dead and infected with chlamydia. The intelligent and hilariously crude humor of shows like Girls can share the airwaves with Tween Wolf (a possible typo my have occurred but I stand by my words). Spartacus can sever heads and Aaron Sorkin can write episode after episode of inspirational speech. And Breaking Bad exists! I consider the season 2 finale of the West Wing to be the greatest hour of drama ever written, the Sopranos end finale has a better ending than sex itself, and Breaking Bad deserves to be the first TV show ever awarded an Oscar because it is better than all other forms of entertainment that currently exist. The writing, direction, acting, cinematography and even editing are at a standard that most films will never achieve because they are too concerned with appealing to a family audience or converting to 9.54-D, all in order to make money. Cinema is what is wrong with film at the moment. But that is for another time.

Breaking Bad is the epitome of a good television and other than maybe the Dark Knight Rises there really isn't anything else id rather watch so then surely the end really does justify the means? It is uncompromising, brutal and relentless and that is what makes Breaking Bad so damn good, it does not care what stands in its way, much like Mr White himself, it takes us to the extremes, the extreme of what good viewing is and should be, however they should choose to end the show I can confidently say that the creators will not alter from these truly admirable principles, and that I standby.      

   

Full Metal Jacket (1987): Love You Long Time

Yes, why I am quite fine thank you, no you too? Really?

Enough small talk, it has indeed been too long since my last post, but I think this time we will just skip the pleasantries. At some point last week I found myself with a lingering fetish for some Stanley Kubrick (we've all had that right?), I was flicking through my library, I eventually found the 'Great' for Kubrick section and then I had quite the dilemma, which film? How do you decide which Kubrick film to watch, Lolita is pretty ground breaking in terms of story, A Clock Work Orange has one of cinemas best characters, 2001: A Space Odyssey is...well its the greatest odyssey of cinematic artistry ever created, then there is Full Metal Jacket, a war movie, but with a distinct lack of all out war.

This ladies and gentleman is why I chose FMJ, because its a war movie, with a distinct lack of war. I could go into what the film is about and why it is an example of cinematic greatness but if you are reading this then you should already know and if you don't, then get your pathetic little maggot ass back to your Mommas house and go watch the film! Where was I? War. Most war films that we see today feature a lot of heavy battle scenes, huge explosions, and Michael Bay holding a small nuclear device with a manic look on his face. FMJ really breaks the mold in that it moves away from the traditional long shot of 100000000 tanks sweeping across France...its always France. We open in a military boot camp in the US , but instead of shipping our heroes out to experience 'the horror, oh the horror' of war that too often features as a secondary theme in most past and present war films, we get real men fighting as soldiers in a horrific series of events, the Vietnam war.

Kubrick can only be applauded for his bravery in brutally conveying the real horror of war, and that horror is that men become soldiers, and those soldiers too often lose the qualities that anchor them as men. Despite being so established and applauded, I struggle to think of few decent contemporary war films that confront this human toll of conflict and do not also feature an over arching hero complex, that dominates the film. Today we expect our war films to play a game of Call of Duty. In a society that preaches peace why is it that audiences actually want P.O.V camera shots that emphasise the blood splatter of a marine killing a generic terrorist. Why is it our taste in cinema swings between the most PG big budget blockbusters and vile homicidal fantasy. Why is it that mainstream film has evolved or should I say devolved to become completely and utterly emotionless and disconnected from eyes to screen?

FMJ is the film it is because I believe Kubrick purposely creates a brutal and emotionless atmosphere that takes characters, men with personalities and turns them into nothing more than mindless instruments of destruction inside the barrel of a gun. Guns only have one purpose. What is more FMJ not only provides a legitimate philosophical insight into the morality of war but also the morality and ethics of cinema: without emotion and without feeling we become nothing more than mindless zombies. This is my popcorn, there is much like it, but this is mine.

Long live the post-empire...

     

Antichrist (2009): Damned if you Dont

The Antichrist stars William Defoe and Charlotte Gainsbourg as parents that have recently lost their son, in an attempt to grieve they take a trip to a picturesque cabin in the woods (a little too cliché?), both deliver wonderful performances in what is Lars von Triers creepy attempt at horror. The end result is something quite special, not
necessarily in a good way but in a Trier kind of way.

The Antichrist explores themes of evil, nature, feminism and sex. And when I say sex I do mean real I simulated sex. Very few films venture into such a realm, but personally, I can only applaud those that have the bravery to do so. The sex is this used creatively and tastefully, some may say the sexual violence is at times too much, but I think it is used for great effect. Whether that effect is used efficiently enough is certainly questionable, and at times it detracts from the complex and intelligent, Freudian imagery that fills this film, the fox of chaos, being my favourite, nonetheless the sexual imagery gives Antichrist a unique and almost voyeuristic appeal.

All of that said the film also deals with even more controversial issues, that is once you have looked passed all the genital smooshing. Grief, and to be precise, the grief that comes with losing a child, this is what Antichrist really concerns itself with. The biggest
criticism here is that because of the more, shall we say, noticeable elements of this film, the grief is lost and one may even go as far as saying wasted.

In Triers’ mind perhaps the provocative parts of this film somehow emphasise the pain of the loss that the parents feel, but I couldn’t help but find that it both distracted from and complicated what could have been a very powerful and complex idea (complex as in simple yet complex). Is it to say that we are all just too dumb to quite understand the genius that is von Trier? I do not think it is. I just think that this film perhaps took a step too far. That being said is undeniable that Lars von Trier is a true genius of
film, and that is the best reason I can give you to go and watch Antichrist, simply because to understand genius, you must look at the bigger picture, to understand Trier you must look at his work as a whole, and it is phenomenal (even though Antichrist may not be).