Monday, February 14, 2011

Awards Watch: BAFTA Winners

Here is a list of the BAFTA winners. Of course, The King's Speech once again dominates:


Best Film - The King's Speech 

Outstanding British Film - The King's Speech 

Best Director - David Fincher (The Social Network) 

Outstanding Debut by a British Writer, Director or Producer - Chris Morris (Four Lions)

Best Original Screenplay - David Seidler (The King's Speech) 

Best Adapted Screenplay - Aaron Sorkin (The Social Network) 

Film Not in the English Language - The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo 

Animated Film - Toy Story 3 

Leading Actor - Colin Firth (The King's Speech) 

Leading Actress -  Natalie Portman (Black Swan) 

Supporting Actor - Geoffrey Rush (The King's Speech) 

Supporting Actress - Helena Bonham Carter (The King's Speech) 

Original Music - Alexandre Desplat (The King's Speech) 

Cinematography - Roger Deakins (True Grit) 

Editing - Angus Wall, Kirk Baxter (The Social Network) 


Production Design - Guy Hendrix Dyas, Larry Dias, Doug Mowat (Inception) 

Costume Design - Colleen Atwood (Alice In Wonderland) 

Sound - Richard King, Lora Hirschberg, Gary A Rizzo, Ed Novick (Inception) 

Special Visual Effects - Chris Corbould, Paul Franklin, Andrew Lockley, Peter Bebb (Inception) 

Makeup and Hair - Valli O'Reilly, Paul Gooch (Alice In Wonderland) 

Orange Rising Star Award - Tom Hardy (Inception)

Poll Results: Best Actress

In a near unanimous decision, Natalie Portman, for her incredible performance in Black Swan, took the honors in my recent poll to vote for Best Actress of the Year. Natalie finished with 13 votes, with Michelle Williams (3) and Jennifer Lawrence (1) also receiving votes. Natalie has won a Golden Globe (Drama) and a SAG Award for her performance as Nina Sayers, which places her in a near-unbeatable position on Oscar Day. I think her performance was the standout this year, despite the quality of the other performances.

Next Poll: Vote for who you think deserves to win Best Actor! Will Colin Firth continue to pick up every award, or will the younger pair of James Franco and Jesse Eisenberg take him down? Thanks to everyone who voted, would love to have you back to vote again here.

Regards,

Andy Buckle

Saturday, February 12, 2011

Review: A Serious Man (Joel and Ethan Coen, 2009)


Everything I thought was one way, turns out to be the other. I feel like the carpet has been yanked out from under me - Larry Gopnik.

One of the Coens more personal and bizarre experiments, A Serious Man, is a thought-provoking black comedy that centers on a Jewish man living in 1960's Minnesota suburbia, who's personal and professional life begins to crumble around him through inexplicable circumstances outside of his control. Well received, it was awarded a Best Picture Nomination at the 82nd Academy Awards.
The central protagonist is Lawrence Gopnik (an outstanding performance form Michael Stuhlbarg), a respected professor of physics. Through a unmotivated series of bad luck, Larry's life spirals out of control. His wife, who recognizes that their marriage is riddled with problems, requests a Get (a Jewish divorce) so she can marry friend and widower Sy Ableman (Fred Melamed). The two suggest that Larry find alternate residency at local motel, The Jolly Rancher, and seek legal advice on the matter. Also living at the Gopnik home, and contributing to Larry's breakdown, are his son Danny, his daughter Sarah and brother Arthur. Danny obsessively nags his father to fix the aerial so his favorite channel is in tune, and owes a bully at school twenty dollars for the purchase of marijuana, which becomes further complicated when his walkman containing the money is confiscated. Larry's social-outcast brother Arthur (Richard Kind) sleeps on the couch, frequently occupies the bathroom to drain his cyst (much the anger of Larry's daughter Sarah who spends the entire film washing her hair), and spends most of his free time filling his notebook with a 'Mentaculous Theory', a probability map of the universe. We find out that this cannot even be hypothesized.


At work Larry is facing the pending vote on his application for tenure, an honor placed in jeopardy by a series of anonymous notes urging the board to vote against him. To further make matters worse, he is threatened by the father of one of his South Korean students for defamation, after the boy leaves a large wad of cash in Larry's office as a bribe to alter his failed mark. As Larry's life mysteriously and inexplicably spirals out of control he looks to his faith for the answers. He approaches two different Rabbi's for an explanation, but finds them obscure and seemingly oblivious to his troubles, and leaves feeling more confused than ever. They offer little assistance beyond the strange tale or two and seem to provide answers for everything except the one Larry is looking for. The lyrics of 'Somebody to Love' by Jefferson Airplane reiterate this idea:

"When the truth is found to be lies, and all the joys within you dies."

When Larry fails to find the answers to his questions within faith, he all but loses hope. Perhaps the Coen Brothers are making a statement about religion in A Serious Man by considering its existence as a way for everyone to feel like they love someone. Larry declares throughout the film that he 'hadn't done anything' (including his questioning of his wife's reasoning to leave him, and in response to his knowledge of an accumulated debt from a Record Club), and wonders why his life appears to be absent of Hashem's love. Perhaps, his inability to love anyone (never do we see an extension of his love towards his wife, or his children) is the ultimate cause of his downfall, and he has been searching for answers in the wrong place.


As his problems mount, Larry continues to lose grip on his life, and is met with even more external troubles. 'The Uncertainty Principle', the subject of one of Larry's lectures, is of prime importance to understanding the film. I have watched it twice now, and I still don't fully understand it. Many of the Jewish religious references were lost on me. The audience, like Larry, have no sense of what is going to happen next, which stretches all the way until the concluding shot. This makes the film difficult to interpret on a single viewing alone. Larry begins to question his own wisdom, failing to calculate (following the extraordinary series of events) where his life will turn next. He tells his class: "The Uncertainty Principle proves we can't ever really know what's going on. So it shouldn't bother you, not being able to figure everything out. Although you will be responsible for this on your mid-term." The Coens situate their protagonist against an immovable force, but unlike the protagonist in a film like No Country for Old Men, it is an invisible one. Is it by the grace of god that Larry finds his life turned upside down or merely the powers of fate and coincidence?


We feel sure that Larry's luck will turn around at the conclusion of the film as we see all of Larry's problems just wash away. Sy Ableman unexpectedly dies from a car accident, his wife returns to him, his son Danny successfully passes his Bar Mitzvah, and Larry is honored with tenure. He also decides to alter the failing grade of his South Korean student, who's mysterious blackmail attempt placed Larry in a predicament, to a C-minus. Immediately, however, Larry receives a telephone call from his doctor regarding his chest X-Ray results. The serious tone of his voice indicates the news is not positive. It seems Larry's problems have only just begun. But in the end what does it matter? The fast approaching tornado may just wipe out the entire town. The film concludes with a sharp cut to black as Danny and his classmates are awaiting their teacher to open the school's shelter door, and as they watch as the tornado quickly bear down on them.


This is one of the Coen Bros' more bizarre films, but can also be credited as one of their most ingeniously constructed. Every feature of the film is intricately connected to one another. I remember being quite annoyed by the very limited release the film received in Australian cinemas, but when I saw it I understood. With such a strange story, it's a difficult film to interpret and enjoy. I found the spiral of tragic events to be frequently hilarious, and the scripting as sharp as any of the their other work. The opening folk tale prologue confused me too, but I interpreted the couple to perhaps be distant relatives of Larry, whose actions towards their visitor provoke a curse on their family tree. Larry's meetings with the Rabbis are great, especially Nachner's story about the dentist. Michael Stuhlbarg gives an outstanding performance. He didn't receive enough credit for his work here. As usual the involvement of Roger Deakins' cinematography and Carter Burwell's score can't be ignored. A Serious Man is yet another classic from the Coen Brothers, who took a step back with their 2008 film, Burn After Reading but are back in fine form here. One of the best films of the year.

My Rating: 4 1/2 Stars

Friday, February 11, 2011

New Addition: Top 100 Films

I just quickly wanted to make readers aware that I have added a new page to the headline of my blog...My 100 Favorite Films Of All Time. This is a list constantly evolving and changing, but right now these are my selected 100 films that remind me why I love cinema. Would love to hear your feedback!

Thursday, February 10, 2011

Days of Heaven (Terrence Malick, 1978)

Days of Heaven, Terrence Malick's second feature following Badlands, is one of the most beautifully shot films I have ever seen. Just extraordinary. It would be 20 years before he released he released his next feature, The Thin Red Line, which also puts up a strong case. Can't wait for The Tree of Life. 

Here are some screenshots from the film. Definitely worth checking out.


Releases 10/02


Opening in cinemas this week are 127 Hours, the new film from Danny Boyle, Hereafter, the 34th directorial achievement from Clint Eastwood, and the Valentines Day romantic comedy, No Strings Attached. 
Firstly, 127 Hours is awesome. It is a film based on the experiences of Aron Ralston, a hiker who found himself isolated in the canyons in Utah with his arm caught under a boulder. He spends a period of five days there, battling impending dehydration, the harsh elements, and a dwindling grasp on reality. He figures the only way to escape is to sever his lower right arm. This scene itself is incredibly realistic, and has even caused some viewers to faint in the cinema. Despite this, I urge you to see it anyway. Not just a powerful survival story, but a dynamic examination of life itself. Boyle's visual flair provides great energy, and James Franco is outstanding. One of the best cinema experiences of the Oscar season. With Hereafter, Clint Eastwood has failed to maintain his form, which has been so solid over the last decade. The film tracks three converging individual stories, that of a San Francisco clairvoyant (Matt Damon), a French television journalist (Cecile De France) and a young London boy, who all experience death in different ways. Questioning the existence of a hereafter, it certainly has it's moments, but it's so unevenly paced that it fails to engage. No Strings Attached I haven't seen, but I imagine it is the typical Valentines Day raunchy rom com. Lets hope it is better than last years Valentines Day. It stars Natalie Portman and Ashton Kutcher as two people who decide to use each other purely for sex, with no strings attached. Mixed reports coming in, but could be worth a shot.

This week you should definitely see: 127 Hours

So, here are my reviews of 127 Hours and Hereafter. Happy Viewing! 

Wednesday, February 9, 2011

New Release Review: Hereafter (Clint Eastwood, 2010)


What happens when we die? Are our souls transported to a hereafter? Is there any way to communicate with lost loved ones? The new film from Clint Eastwood, his 34th endeavor as director, attempts to contemplate these questions. Hereafter closely follows a blue-collar American man (Matt Damon), a French television journalist (Cecile De France) and a young English boy (Frankie McLaren), who all experience death in different ways. The film balances, and somewhat unevenly, these parallel stories. They gradually begin to become interconnected and converge towards one another, culminating in the character's experience of one another.

The film opens in Thailand, as famous French television journalist Marie Lelay (De France) finds herself the victim of the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. Pulled from the water and unsuccessfully resuscitated, she gasps back to life after having been believed dead. During her near death experience she has a vision of human figures inhabiting a realm of light, a likely window into the unknown hereafter. Following her recovery and return to Paris with her boyfriend, the visions continue and impact her work, resulting in her replacement. She decides to write and publish a novel documenting her experience, called Hereafter: A Conspiracy of Silence, seeking out renowned specialists who have accumulated proof of a possible afterlife, based on the experiences of people like Marie.

The film shifts to London, and follows twelve-year old twins Jason and Marcus, who are trying desperately to protect their alcoholic mother from losing them to child services. When Jason agrees to make a trip to the local pharmacy to pick up a prescription, he is hassled by street thugs and in the ensuing escape is hit and killed by a car. Marcus is devastated and is taken from his mother and placed in Foster care. Missing his brother terribly and struggling to deal with being alone, he seeks out a means to communicate with his brother, a journey that eventually leads him to a psychic named George Lonnegan (Matt Damon).  

Lonnegan, who lives in San Francisco, is a former professional psychic and genuine clairvoyant. He has the ability to communicate with the dead, but abandoned his profession after finding himself unable to deal with the emotional impact of the reunions. He is continually pressured by his brother (Jay Mohr) to take it up again, but is content with his labour job. He is quietly spoken and lonely, and because of his affliction, he has always found it difficult to meet and interact with people. During a cooking class he meets the beautiful Melanie (Bryce Dallas Howard), and the pair briefly hit it off, but not before she pressures him into a completing a reading, with horrifying results. Wishing to escape it all, he takes a trip to London. The film culminates at a London book fair. Marie is conducting a signing of her successfully published novel, the subject of which captures George's eye. At the same time, Marcus recognizes George from his still existent website, and George reluctantly provides the boy with one final reunion, a decision that will completely change his life.


Hereafter is a pretty disappointing supernatural drama that is severely let down by a plodding script. There are some standout moments, notably the early tsunami sequence, and the emotional jolt of the London underground bombing, but each strand misfires in its own way, culminating in their inevitable convergence, which provided few surprises. Damon and Cecile De France make their performances count, but I couldn't help but feel that Damon has been miscast by Eastwood (who directed the man to an Oscar nomination in Invictus), who's painfully dull direction style offers little appeal here. Having consistently produced great films throughout his career, Hereafter cannot be considered amongst the same company. The cinematography is bleak and uninspired, but Hereafter is also clumsily put together. The three stories each have their moments, but structurally it is so disengaging, that any emotional power is lost in the time of absence from the characters. Each story is heartbreaking at times, but the conclusion is genuinely uplifting. Damon's was the most resonant, and the sequences with Bryce Dallas Howard were especially watchable. The film deals with death, but is so void of substance and life itself that it almost feels dead too. A patient audience will find reward, but this will likely send lots of people to sleep.


Despite its flaws, it remains thoughtful and committed. While it may not prove convincing to skeptics of a genuine 'hereafter' it provides audiences with something to ponder. While this philosophy has been examined before, few have managed to accomplish it on such a sensitive side. The narratives are never given a kick. The London Underground bombing is a pretty significant moment and jolted me back to full attention, but the emotional impact of the event is lost in the performance of the young boy. Eastwood's decision to cast a child without any prior acting experience was a mistake. Perhaps they indulged too much on the epic opening sequence, but throughout all of Damon's readings of his clients, and his conversations with the dead we never see what he is seeing or hear what he is hearing. He is communicating it to his client, and the audience. If not for the initial quick shot of the illuminated figure he has made contact with, it is not an unnatural assumption to assume it was all a scam. Hereafter has come under attack by critics, but there are certainly worse films out at the Box Office. It tackles a pretty strong subject, and has it's moments, but feels way too long. I found myself squirming, and that's never a good sign. Unfortunately an uneven script, and a laborious pace leave it pretty underwhelming and forgettable overall.

My Rating: 2 1/2 Stars

Thoughts on Adrian Lyne's Lolita (1997)

- Stephen Skiff's adapted screenplay is certainly a more faithful one of Vladimir Nabokov's controversial novel than Stanley Kubrick's, but unlike the original adaptation, this is ridiculously tedious to sit through. It was damn hard. It wasn't sexy, it lacked the dark humor of the novel, and the macabre emotional complexities of Humbert's character (who is the first person narrator throughout) is completely lost. At odd times throughout the film the image is accompanied by a quote pulled from his inner thoughts, plucked seemingly at random from the novel. You actually forget that we are viewing everything through his eyes. The big surprise at the conclusion is made so ridiculously obvious, and revealed in a way that assumes the audience is stupid. The ensuing climactic bloodbath is also unnecessarily violent.

- As with any adaptation, it is impossible to include every significant event, but over the course of the first twenty minutes of the film, we are meant to believe not only that Humbert has fallen obsessively in love with this irritating little nymphet, but that her mother Charlotte has also fallen in love with him. Never is this made apparent, but viewers who have read the novel know that this process takes place over a period of time. Not two scenes. Also not revealed in the film is the fact that Humbert contemplates killing Charlotte at the lake (to have Lo to himself), and the enormous relief that washes over him when he runs out and discovers her dead is completely lost. It seemed like it wanted to be gutsy and controversial, but ended up being half-assed and ineffective.

- The film follows the chronology of the novel pretty closely, but the first half of the novel is skimmed over in about the first half an hour of the film, while Humbert and Dolores' lengthy trip is covered through a series of poorly constructed episodes, broken up by meager attempts to build a chemistry. To stay faithful to the source, events seem to just pop up without any development. As much time is spent on Humbert's hopeless attempt to remove a jaw-breaker from Lolita's mouth while driving, as to any other moment of actual significance in the film.

- Dreadful casting. Jeremy Irons was incredibly dull, and despite his apparent passionate desire for Dolores, never once does his face reveal such lust. The chemistry with his co-star Dominique Swain was also non-existent. First-timer Swain portrayed Lolita as an irritating, disgusting little brat, who proved to be far more annoying than I read her to be in the novel. Melanie Griffith and Frank Langella were also average in small supporting roles. 

- Lolita is a mess. Characterized by a misguided, disappointingly oversimplified screenplay that really mixed up priorities, poor direction, horrible plot structuring, various out-of-place, jolting camera movements, unimaginative set design, dreary lighting and score, lack of any sensuality or chemistry between the leads and terrible performances. This is not recommended to any fans of the novel. Check out Stanley Kubrick's much superior 1962 version instead. 

Rating: 1 Star