Let's Party Like It's 1988

By now, the damage from the 83rd Academy Awards is too much to overcome. I can't even brag about calling Tom Hooper's upset of David Fincher for Best Director because of how poorly the rest of my predictions played out. Granted, I got tripped up by the 3 Horsemen of the Oscar Pool Apocalypse, the short film categories. I went 0-3 this year.

But in my post-show gloom, I decided to ramp up my usual comparative analysis of the present year's ceremony to a past year's ceremony. And boy do I have quite the comparison for this year...

Oddly enough, it's the year I was born: 1988.

(Side note: The 61st Academy Awards saw the introduction of the classic phrase "And the Oscar goes to...")

The King's Speech and Inception both tallied 4 wins this year. In 1988, Rain Man and Who Framed Roger Rabbit both garnered 4 wins.

The King's Speech and Rain Man won the same 4 categories! Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor, and Best Original Screenplay.

Inception and Who Framed Roger Rabbit triumphed in the technical awards (both won awards for sound and visual effects).

Inception and Who Framed Roger Rabbit were the commercial favorites, capturing the adoration of national audiences. (Of course, Rain Man and The King's Speech also eclipsed the $100 million mark at the domestic box office.) Both films are gamechangers in story-telling. The King's Speech and Rain Man were fairly straightforward movies.

Hoffman's character in Rain Man suffers from a restrictive/repetitive behavioral impediment. Colin Firth's character in The King's Speech is no different.

The Social Network and Dangerous Liaisons both won 3 Oscars. Both were nominated for Best Picture, and both won the Best Adapted Screenplay award. Both are tales of sexual seduction; one is set in Pre-Revolution France and the other set around Facebook. Click this now.

Natalie Portman just won her first Best Actress Oscar at the age of 29. Her breakthrough role was at the age of 13, playing a 12 year-old girl with an uncomfortably awkward relationship with a much older man. (Roger Ebert questioned the film's "would-be sexy portrayal of a pre-teenage girl.")

Jodie Foster won her first Best Actress Oscar at the age of 26. Her breakthrough role was at the age of 13, playing a 12 year-old girl with an uncomfortably awkward relationship with much older men. (She played a child prostitute.)

Their Oscar-winning roles involved controversial sexual topics.

Christian Bale and Kevin Kline won Best Supporting Actor Oscars. Both were both middle-aged (36 for Bale and 41 for Kline) and in the middle of very successful acting careers at the time of their wins. Unlike Bale's triumph, Kline's victory was considered an upset.

Hans Zimmer was nominated in both years, for Rain Man and Inception. He lost both times.

A Tim Burton film won the Academy Award for Best Makeup: Beetlejuice (1988) and Alice in Wonderland (2010).

Finally, the 1988 and 2010 winners of Best Foreign Language Film came from Denmark (Pelle the Conqueror and In a Better World).

And you probably thought I was reading too much into all of this...

Movie Review: Morning Glory

“Morning Glory” is a delight

***/**** (3 stars out of 4)

“Morning Glory” is about as charming as they come.

Like most good comedies, the humor arises out of the characters and their action. However, that is not enough to explain why this movie succeeds; there is something to the parts that make the whole work.

When hard-working TV producer Becky Fuller (Rachel McAdams) is fired from a local news program, her career begins to look as bleak as her hapless love life. Stumbling into a job at "Daybreak" (the last-place national morning news show), Becky decides to revitalize the show by bringing on legendary TV anchor Mike Pomeroy (Harrison Ford).

Unfortunately, Pomeroy refuses to cover morning show staples like celebrity gossip, weather, fashion and crafts, let alone work with his new co-host, Colleen Peck (Diane Keaton), a former beauty queen and longtime morning show personality, who is more than happy covering morning "news."

As Mike and Colleen clash, first behind the scenes and then on the air, Becky's blossoming love affair with fellow producer, Adam Bennett (Patrick Wilson) begins to unravel. And soon Becky is struggling to save her relationship, her reputation, her job and ultimately, the show itself.

This struggle to keep everything together is the driving force behind the comedy. It makes the humor come alive because it shows us that the characters are grounded in something real. I do not think that this movie would work if, at any point, these characters seemed to be larger than life. If good comedy is to arise from characters, the audience needs to buy in completely.

Rachel McAdams gives a good performance here. She brings it every scene, which is very important for giving the film a consistent emotional barometer. It is also important because she has to go toe-to-toe with Diane Keaton and Harrison Ford.

Harrison Ford is the one anomaly in this movie, though not necessarily in a bad way. I would not say Harrison Ford has an acting range, but there is an expectation that most of us have when we watch him. But this is a different kind of Harrison Ford in “Morning Glory,” one that I am not so sure if I have seen before. (His impersonation of Christian Bale/Batman from “The Dark Knight,” however unintentional it may be, is spot-on.)

McAdams and Ford are at their best in the film’s second half, and not surprisingly, this is where the film really takes off.

It is not just the back-and-forth between McAdams and Ford that helps catapults the film. The other actors, including Matt Malloy as the resident weatherman, all come alive. This is because the script tightens after the first act.

Early on, the movie was very uneven. It was not immediately clear just what type of movie I’d be seeing. The tone was very somber early on, but maybe this was an attempt to up the stakes, so that the later payoff would leave the audience more than satisfied. I will have to say that if this was the case, then it worked perfectly.

This movie is not perfect. I was really excited to see this movie, and the first act was confounding in its unevenness. But the remainder of the movie is wonderful. (In particular, one roller coaster scene sent the audience into some of the loudest laughter I’ve ever heard at the movies.)

Look past Paramount’s attempt to bill it as a romantic comedy, and you will see the film as it really is: a film that is both good comedy and good drama. Thankfully, the characters give rise to both; this is what makes “Morning Glory” one of the better films of the year.

Running Time: 102 minutes

MPAA Rating: PG-13

Bottom Line: Although not perfect, the story flows from its characters; as a result, we get one of the most charming films of the year.

Movie Review: Hereafter

“Hereafter” the latest triumph for Eastwood

3 ½ stars out of 4

Clint Eastwood the director has nothing to prove to audiences anymore. Even when his latest film is in unfamiliar territory for both him and his audience, I never once felt the insecurity that would most likely accompany the same material in the hands of less experienced directors.

“Hereafter” is being described as Eastwood’s “French film,” but I am not so quick to deem it as such. Instead, this may be best described as Eastwood’s most “adult” film, if only because of its laconic style. This characteristic combined with the subject matter further reinforces this claim.

To be clear, this film requires the patience of our attention-deficient culture. Some may argue that this is a weakness that ultimately brings down the film, despite its visual strengths and the wonderful acting. To those people I charge the following: you are missing the point.

This film consists of three tightly woven narratives. One involves George (Matt Damon), a man who appears to be an actual psychic, although he has given up this practice. Despite this “retirement,” he is constantly called upon by both strangers and those close to him to do readings. Throughout the film, George maintains that this connection with the dead is a curse, and it is not too hard to see why: it impacts his ability to foster new relationships.

The other two threads involve French television journalist Marie and a young English boy named Marcus. Marie, while abroad, becomes a victim of a destructive tsunami. She appears to be slipping into death, only to be resuscitated. This near-death experience, which Eastwood leaves ambiguous, consumes Marie upon her return to her life as usual.

Marcus has a twin brother, Jason, who is killed trying to escape a violent group of bullies. Marcus is sent to foster care, because the children’s mother is a heroin addict and an alcoholic. The two people he most loves are taken away from him, and Marcus struggles to cope with the reality of his new circumstances.

Although these three narratives are concerned with themes of death, the movie is about life. It deals with life’s possible connection with the spiritual. It also shows how life can connect us all, even through death. Through the roles that death plays in these characters’ lives, we are brought to the singular moment where their lives are intertwined. And this is precisely why I claim that critics of the film are missing the point.

This movie is all about the emotional journey of these characters. In turn, these emotions lead them to make choices that will ultimately bring them and the film to their ultimate yet seemingly inevitable conclusion, despite how coincidental things may seem. (How fitting it is, then, that George’s literary hero is Charles Dickens.)

Maybe it is these coincidences that are our connection to whatever concept, notion, or reality of the hereafter exists in this film. The subway sequence involving Marcus and his hat and the final scene of the movie suggest that I am not too far off in my understanding.

The payoff of this movie depends upon the tedious setup, and that is why I dismiss the aforementioned critical response to the film’s pacing and length. I think any cuts in the film weaken the emotional threads of the movie. And for the conclusion to work (as in any movie), these threads must remain intact.

If my above analysis sounds hokey or confusing, it is because the film is dealing with something so uncertain and divisive; after all, consideration of the idea of an afterlife is no picnic. Despite all of this, skeptics of the hereafter or life after death will find this movie satisfying. This film connects itself to possible “spirituality” and the afterlife without being overtly spiritual.

It is a moving story, regardless of one’s belief about the subject matter. This universality, besides echoing the themes of the movie, is what makes it such a wonderful film. If I am wrong about this, though, at least we are all left believing in one thing at the end: the status of Clint Eastwood as one of America’s finest filmmakers of all time.

Running Time: 129 minutes

MPAA Rating: PG-13

My Rating: 3 ½ stars (***1/2)

Bottom Line: Although the story will tax the patience of an attention-deficient culture, it is a moving story that will satisfy regardless of your belief in the hereafter.

Bond franchise should be shaken, not stirred

James Bond’s license to thrill has been revoked, at least for the time being.

Producers Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson announced back in April that the franchise was being shelved until the financial problems of studio MGM could be resolved. It is thought that the studio is behind on about $3.7 billion in debt.

There is much uncertainty surrounding a timetable for the franchise and the next film itself. There are conflicting reports as to whether production for the next film has been cancelled or merely postponed. There have even been reports that Sam Mendes, who was attached to direct the next film and then dropped out, has had second thoughts about his second thoughts and is still back in the mix to direct the next film.

(Yes, an Oscar-winning director is attached to the franchise.)

Despite the uncertainty, the only thing that is clear to me is that the reboot of the franchise has proven to be hit-or-miss for most people. It seems that the wildly popular “Casino Royale” is everyone’s new favorite, while “Quantum of Solace” left most moviegoers feeling incomplete.

This inconsistency seems to stem from the fact that the reboot was designed to get Bond back to basics, eliminating the increasingly outlandish use of gadgets and various other fantasy elements that were a staple of the early franchise (with the Roger Moore films being the worst offenders). This rebooted Bond is thought to be more in line with the Bond from Ian Fleming’s original novels.

This new, darker Bond was quite a treat for audiences in “Casino Royale,” but after seeing “Quantum of Solace” (which I liked), I couldn’t help but get the feeling I was seeing an extension of the Jason Bourne series. Although that probably has more to do with the story of “Quantum,” the new direction of the rebooted franchise also has its share of the blame.

There are a few elements I believe that are worth bringing back, if only to give some sort of continuity or familiarity with the new films. Still present are the title sequences, the exotic locales, the unique super-villains, and the various vehicles and sports cars. But there are two I would like to see make a return.

First, the franchise needs to see the return of a central nemesis, much like the criminal organization SPECTRE and its Number One Ernst Stavro Blofeld from the earlier movies. Whether there should be an archenemy like Blofeld is less important than an identifiable organization.

Although this may seem out of place with the rebooted franchise, it is entirely consistent with both “Casino” and “Quantum.” At the heart of both films are characters from a mysterious group called Quantum, which seems to function as a new sort of SPECTRE. I can only hope that Quantum continues to make its presence known going forward, given that is has proven to be quite the adversary to Bond in the last two films.

A second thing I would like to see for the future of the franchise is the return of familiar characters that were staples of past movies. Although the reboots have featured characters like M (played by the incomparable Judi Dench) and Felix Leiter, missing is Bond’s relationship with Q and Miss Moneypenny.

I know their relationships in past movies fell into a kind of contrived rhythm but having them around is not the issue. Some of the best moments from the past films included Desmond Llewelyn’s performance as the go-to gadget guy. If the writers can find ways of introducing them and keeping them around in fresh, original ways, then the franchise would be better for it.

Don't tell me you don't miss this guy.

Part of what makes “Casino Royale” such a great Bond movie is the fact that the reboot has put an emphasis on Bond as an emotional character, which was absent from pretty much every film prior to “Casino.” (The most notable exception is “On Her Majesty’s Secret Service.) When the plot of a movie is actually driven by characters, then we get a good movie. However, after “Quantum of Solace,” the franchise seems headed for a dark place, probably due to the fact that Bond himself was going down a dark road.

Bond has always had its appeal in escapist fantasy, and reintroducing some of these old elements would help balance the gravitas of the direction the reboot has taken. And, this would only help Bond return to its rightful place as the most successful and enduring film franchise of all time.

Second-Guessing the Oscars

“And the Oscar goes to…” This five-word phrase is all it takes to catapult a movie to the forefront of the film industry. That same phrase is also responsible for one of two things: cementing a film’s legacy among the greats of cinema or leaving a film branded as overrated.

A film’s reputation is affected by one aspect of films that is not immediately clear or measurable: how well a movie stands the test of time. I am not so sure that voters are too concerned with this aspect. However, having the benefit of hindsight, assessing the merits of past winners has become an interesting practice.

One such assessment that is often made is the lament of many who think that “Shakespeare in Love” should never have beaten “Saving Private Ryan” for Best Picture of 1998. Since I hesitate to make that claim so definitely, I will present a few other moments from Oscar history that left me scratching my head.

Let us start with the 2008 Best Picture race. “Slumdog Millionaire” may be the “worst” (think least deserving) Best Picture winner of the past decade. It is not that “Slumdog” is a flat-out horrible movie. It is just that I have found only a handful of people (both professional critics and average filmgoers) who believe “Slumdog” to be a better movie than “Milk,” “The Dark Knight,” “Gran Torino,” “WALL-E,” and “Vicky Cristina Barcelona.”

I could just be making a hasty generalization, but even without my bias toward “Slumdog” as Best Picture, it sure seems as if the Academy dropped the ball for 2008.

1994 is another interesting year. Unlike 2008, the controversy surrounding that year is a result of what has been previously mentioned: the test of time. “Forrest Gump” was the favorite to win the award for Best Picture, which it did. However, time has elevated the status of fellow nominees “The Shawshank Redemption” and “Pulp Fiction” to two of the greatest films of all time. (Although, I’m partial to a fourth nominee, “Quiz Show.”)

In this case, the Academy’s decision did not seem so bad at first. The popularity of both “Shawshank” and “Pulp Fiction” soared after their theatrical runs (although “Pulp Fiction” became one of the highest grossing “indie” films of all time). Only years later did the general public jump onboard with the critical praise that met both films upon their release. Plus, “Forrest Gump” is a very endearing movie that seems to elicit much more merit from audiences than say a “Slumdog.”

It is just a little astonishing, looking back on things, that “Forrest Gump” is the one that carry the tile Best Picture for the year 1994. In a year that brought about two or three of the best films of the past quarter century, “Forrest Gump” has the unfortunate pleasure of being the film that is second-guessed.

A list of grievances could go on and on. “Braveheart” over “Sense and Sensibility” and “Apollo 13” in 1995? “Raging Bull” and “Goodfellas” losing to “Ordinary People” and “Dances with Wolves,” respectively? Let’s not even get started on all the technical and acting categories. How “Citizen Kane” does not sweep the list of technical awards it is up for (Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing, Best Art Direction, etc.) is beyond me.

But for me, the biggest snub of all was Ingrid Bergman’s work on “Casablanca.” She was nominated for an Oscar, but the nomination was for another movie, “For Whom the Bell Tolls.” Although Bergman herself considers other performances to be her best, in a 2007 biography she was quoted as saying:

"I feel about ‘Casablanca’ that it has a life of its own. There is something mystical about it. It seems to have filled a need, a need that was there before the film, a need that the film filled.” The same could be said of her performance.

To say hindsight is 20/20 for the Oscars is a little misleading. Voting is a subjective process, people’s opinions change, and my own objections are merely opinion. Over time, though, the Academy’s choices do face a type of scrutiny that is unavoidable whenever awards are concerned. However, it is this dialogue that is indispensable for the arts, particularly movies.

Movie Review: Inception

**** of **** (4 stars out of 4)

What is the best way to approach a film? It is a question that has been asked for a long time, with no clear answer provided. Some suggest that a visceral approach is the way to go, while others insist that films should have great intellectual appeal.

Fortunately for us viewers, “Inception” has decided to avoid such debate by giving us the best of both worlds. It is a film that engages the mind and captures the heart.

“Inception” is no more about dreams and corporate espionage than it is about one man’s struggle to escape the prison created for him by his past.

Dom Cobb (Leonardo DiCaprio) is a skilled thief, the best in the dangerous art of extraction: stealing valuable secrets from deep within the subconscious during the dream state when the mind is at its most vulnerable.

Cobb’s rare ability has made him a coveted player in this treacherous new world of corporate espionage, but it has also made him an international fugitive and cost him everything he has ever loved, including his wife Mal (Marion Cotillard) and two children. Now Cobb is being offered a chance at redemption. One last job could give him his life back but only if he can accomplish the impossible—inception.

Instead of the perfect heist, Cobb and his team of specialists (Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Ellen Page, Tom Hardy, and Dileep Rao) are hired by Saito (Ken Watanabe) to pull off the reverse; their task is not to steal an idea but to plant one. If they succeed, it could be the perfect crime. But lurking deep in these dreams is an enemy that seems to predict their every move. An enemy that only Cobb could have seen coming.

Pardon the cliché but to say more would do the movie injustice. Like most good films, the payoff is most fully experienced after taking the journey. And for “Inception,” this journey is like no other I can recall.

Director Christopher Nolan leads us on this journey with great skill and grace. But this is to be expected for someone who has been working on the script for ten years.

His skill and grace are best demonstrated by the fact that despite the constantly shifting nature of the story, the thread between Cobb and Mal provides an emotional anchor of sorts for the audience. Acting as a constant for Cobb, their relationship is the linchpin of the story.

Since this movie works because of this thread, much credit is due to both DiCaprio and Cotillard. Their work magnetizes the viewer, drawing us deeper and deeper into their story. The dynamic between the two is about as real as anything I have seen on film.

With these efforts from Nolan, DiCaprio, and Cotillard combined, this may be their finest hour yet. But combined with the terrific work of the other actors (most notably, Tom Hardy), composer Hans Zimmer, cinematographer Wally Pfister, production designer Guy Dyas, etc., “Inception” is truly something special.

Despite this praise, I do not think the film offers profound insight into the nature of reality and dreams, nor does it try to. Trying to tackle such subjects in a 148 min. movie would most likely lead to unsatisfying results.

Instead, this movie offers us a wonderful portrait of a man struggling with the separation of his dreams and memories from his reality. And this struggle is what allows for the film to have both its visceral appeal and its intellectual appeal.

Since I have longed for the day when I would discover a film that tugs equally at my mind and my heart, “Inception” is a dream come true.

The heart of the film.

The 3-D Gimmick

Sorry in advance for no pretty picture. This will also serve as my first column for the new year (or under the new regime) of the CW (the Crimson White), the UA student newspaper. I'd love to hear your thoughts on the subject...

Hollywood is at it again. It has introduced yet another technology in hopes of enhancing audiences’ experience.

Like sound and color before it, 3-D is being met with the usual schism that accompanies such technological advancements. This division is usually along the line of which part of “show business” should be emphasized.

For studio heads, 3-D represents a wonderful business opportunity. Like the film advancements that came before it, 3-D offers moviegoers something innovative. It is not something that has emerged in too many homes—well, for now. The allure of 3-D is great way to draw in audiences.

However, filmmakers (the “show”) and studio heads (the “business”) clash over whether this desire to increase profit will hurt the quality and the future of movies. If studios decide that 3-D is the exclusive path they should take for movies, then filmmakers become limited in having the freedom to makes movies as they desire. It is this lack of freedom that could put a damper on the film industry.

Opponents of 3-D offer many of the same, although valid, reasons. Viewers can experience headaches or nausea. It adds little or nothing to the experience. In addition to these, an excessive surcharge is added to ticket prices.

I must confess I am sympathetic to the 2-D cause. 3-D has its place in the entertainment business. But I am convinced that it should remain a secondary option instead of becoming the sole future of movies.

I do not think it would be fair to omit that “Avatar” is a great example of how 3-D movies can be an astonishing visual ride. (James Cameron has proven that he is a great choice to lead the 3-D movement.) But 3-D adds nothing more than that, and the story does not become enhanced in any way.

What does 3-D do for movies like “An Education” or “Sideways?” Nothing. One could say that the color palette is improved, but this is not so. Images in 3-D are dimmer than those in 2-D.

An advocate of 3-D may claim that those films are obvious examples of films that do not benefit from the technology. So let us examine a movie that is a little less obvious: “The Hurt Locker.”

“The Hurt Locker” is a war film with its fair share of action. The cinematography essentially gives the audience a rat’s eye view. Increased depth could really give a whole new dimension to war films.

However, when I think of “The Hurt Locker,” the phrase “palpable tension” comes to mind. This movie, for better or for worse, decided that it would stake itself upon a premise of suspended tension. The payoff is rarely the explosion or lack thereof; it is a film that winds up showing just what it is that makes some soldiers addicted to war. In other words, the payoff is the wait.

So, the movie has some moments of action. But since the core of the film is staked upon a premise that is really not enhanced by 3-D technology, it seems as if 3-D should look elsewhere.

The worst offenders are the numerous movies (“Clash of the Titans” and the planned rerelease of Cameron’s “Titanic”) filmed in 2-D that are converted to 3-D. For “Clash,” it was apparent something got lost on the way to the theatre.

One of the biggest problems with my argument is there is no way to quantify whether or not 3D adds to the experience. It differs for everyone, and even then, different people may like it in some instances and not others. All we know is what we like, feel, know, etc. Opponents cannot prove that 3D does not add to their experience, just like 3-D supporters cannot prove it adds to their experience. We are just stuck with what we know to be true for us.

I do think most people would agree that 3-D does not enrich certain films or genres. I just cannot help but think that their number is so great as not to warrant the wide-scale expansion to 3-D as the dominant medium for motion pictures.