Tis the Awards Season: Golden Globe Nominations

The Golden Globe Nominations have been announced! Check them out after the jump.

Tis the Awards Season: SAG Award Nominations

It's that special time of the year! It's awards season folks and boy is it shaping up to be interesting. After the jump check out the SAG award nominations. There were definately some surprises to say the least. Check 'em out after the jump.

The Steven Spielberg Retrospective Part 3: The 1990's - Schindler's List (1993)

Schindler's List

Release Date: December 15, 1993

Runtime: 195 Minutes

Awards: Won 7 Oscars-Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography, Best Director, Best Film Editing, Best Original Score, Best Picture, Best Screenplay

Read Jamie's thoughts after the jump!

The Steven Spielberg Retrospective Part 3: The 1990's - Jurassic Park (1993)

Jurassic Park

Release Date: June 11, 1993

Runtime: 127 Mins

Winner of all three Academy Awards for which it was nominated including Best Sound Effects Editing, Best Sound, and Best Visual Effects

Read our thoughts after the jump...

Review: We Need to Talk about Kevin

By Sean Knight
1 and a half out of 4 stars *1/2

            Director Lynne Ramsay’s We Need to Talk About Kevin is a grim and ugly piece of work.  It’s a film with a botched understanding of the human psyche.  It is so one sided and relentless in its depiction of a troubled child (i.e. sociopath), that it leaves the audience feeling exhausted and nauseous.  It uses blatantly obvious visual metaphors to get its points across and has no room for nuance or subtlety.  We Need to Talk About Kevin is a sensationalistic and exploitive picture with no soul.  It is one of the most disappointing films of the year.

            Tilda Swinton stars as Eva Khatchadourian, the mother of a trouble child, named Kevin, who will grow up to do unspeakable things.  Much of the picture involves her interactions with her disturbed son and her growing paranoia that he may be evil.  If this sounds like the plot of a satanic horror film to you than you’re not far off.  We Need to Talk about Kevin has more in common with The Omen than it does with a domestic drama.  Swinton does give a fully realized performance as Eva, and her work should be commended as she gives depth to a character who isn’t much more likeable than her devilish son.  She has moments of despair that are palpable.  The problem is that everyone around her thinks that she is crazy for thinking that there is something wrong with her darling boy.  But, from the first glance at this kid anyone can see that he has gone off the deep end.  And that is the major problem of the film – Ramsay doesn’t see any need to explore Kevin’s psyche or show any side to him other than that he is disturbed.  It’s too easy to show Kevin as a monster.  What would have been far more compelling would have been to see the different shades of Kevin.  Even monsters have feelings and moments of clarity.  But Ramsay doesn’t have time for that sort of nonsense.  She wants us to know just how horrible Kevin is right from the start.

            The visual metaphors start right at the beginning and are bashed over our head again and again right to the very end.  Eva’s house is damaged by someone throwing a large bucket of red paint on it.  She spends much of the film trying to clean it up while having flashbacks.  We see shots over and over again of the red paint on her hands obviously symbolizing her washing away the blood of the victims of her son. There is also a ham-fisted sequence in which Eva drives home on Halloween and sees children dressed as monster parading throughout the streets.  This, of course, torments her because her son is the real monster!  The obvious symbolism is tedious and childish.  Ramsay doesn’t have the ability to trust her subject matter or her actors to convey the proper emotions.

It should be mentioned that John C. Reilly has a supporting role as Eva’s husband who is completely clueless about his son.  He spends much of the picture trying to convince Eva that she is crazy.  There is no love between them and as such there relationship is null and void.  It’s a waste of screen time.  Ezra Miller does the best he can with the adult Kevin, but his constant sneering grows tiresome within the first few minutes.  There is a coda at the end meant to bring us some kind of closure with the violent events that have unfolded, but it comes off as cold and hallow.  We Need to Talk about Kevin exhausted me with it banality and trivial treatment of a serious issue.  A huge disappointment. 

We Need to Talk About Kevin

Directed by Lynne Ramsay

Release Date: December 9, 2011

Runtime: 112 Mins

The Steven Spielberg Retrospective Part 3: The 1990's - Hook (1991)

Hook

Release Date: December 11, 1991

Runtime: 144 Mins

Nominated for Five Academy Awards including Best Original Song, Best Art Direction, Best Costume Design, Best Make-Up, Best Visual Effects

Winner of Zero Academy Awards

Read on after the jump...

Review: Shame

By Sean Knight
4 out of 4 Stars ****

Director Steven McQueen’s Shame is a deeply unsettling work.  Its tale of sexual addiction has shades of Requiem for a Dream, but it is far less manic.  There is an overriding sense of ambiguity to the picture that will be maddening for some and provocative for others.  It features a fearless raw lead performance from Michael Fassbender, as Brandon, and a fraught emotionally naked supporting turn from Carey Mulligan as his sister, Sissy.  Shame exposes a sickness that many would like to ignore with a frank, methodical, and bleak sensibility.  McQueen dazzles technically while using his techniques to draw the audience into a sexual character study rarely depicted on film.  As such, Shame wears it’s rating of NC-17 as a badge of honor and does not shy away from its provocative subject matter.  It is one of the best films of the year.

Shame doesn’t have much in the way of a typical plot.  Instead, it is a slow burn of two desperate and damaged souls slipping into utter despair.  The film starts by following Brandon through his daily routine of masturbation, picking up women on subways, sleeping with prostitutes, and loads of Internet porn.  This is Brandon’s world, which is turned upside down when his lounge singer sister shows up on his doorstep asking for a place to stay.  It seems she is on her way out of some kind of relationship, which is not explained.  Her relationship with her brother borders on incestuous and it is implied that there was some sort of abuse during their childhood.  Sissy loves Brandon and is looking for a soul to take care of so she can heal her own.  Brandon doesn’t have time to save Sissy and this struggle between them is at the heart of Shame. 

The New York backdrop becomes integral into the thematic structure of the film, as both Brandon and Sissy are not native New Yorkers.  They have come to New York to escape their past.  Many people come to New York chasing their dreams and with the thought of changing their lives.  Shame makes the argument that location cannot help damaged people.  In the case of Brandon, it actually makes his addiction worse, as New York is filled with opportunities for casual and, sometimes, dangerous sex.  There is a striking scene early in the film where Brandon and his boss go to see Sissie sing at a club.  The camera lingers in close-ups of both Sissy and Brandon as she sings “New York, New York” and has a semi inner breakdown. .  If you can make it there, than you can make it anywhere, so the song says. It becomes a poignant statement of lost souls desperately clinging to their last ounce of humanity in a city that has consumed them.

Though Shame is uncompromising in it’s vision of human sexuality and addiction, it is never gratuitous.  Yes, there is plenty of nudity to be found throughout the film, but the camera often keeps its distance offering the viewpoint of an outside observer.  It is not until late in the picture that camera gets in close to the sex and offers a graphic depiction of the torment Brandon is feeling during it.  This sex montage is essential into understanding Brandon and sympathizing with a character that is distant and border-line unlikable for much of the film’s running time.  The full frame close-up of Brandon’s face during orgasm is filled with hate, pain and despair.  It’s an astonishing feat of acting and one of the most difficult scenes in the film.

         Shame does not spell out its intentions for its audience and it offers far many more questions than answers.  You may never get to know Brandon and Sissie fully as human beings, but you do come to understand their torment.  Shame is a difficult sit and it will be a polarizing film for many.  For me, its ambiguity was an asset and its relentless bleakness was as disturbing as it was compelling.  Fassbender and Mulligan should be commended for giving such brave and dedicated performances.  And, with Shame, director Steve McQueen should be elevated into the category of filmmaker whose future projects should be awaited with great anticipation.  I applaud Fox Searchlight for sticking by McQueen and releasing Shame with the NC-17 rating.  It is time that we stop ghettoizing and compromising films and artists that push boundaries and challenge their audience.  Perhaps the release of the brilliant and haunting Shame will be a major step forward in accomplishing this.


Shame
Directed By Steven McQueen
Release Date: December 2, 2011
Runtime: 101 Mins

The Steven Spielberg Retrospective Part 2: The 1980's - Empire of the Sun

Empire of the Sun

Release Date: December 9, 1987

Runtime: 152 mins

Nominated for Six Academy Awards including Best Cinematography, Best Art Direction, Best Costume Design, Best Film Editing, Best Original Score, and Best Sound.

Winner of ZERO Academy Awards

Sean here.  J. Link viewed Empire of the Sun on her own and her thoughts on the film can be found below. I just wanted to throw in my quick two cents.  To me, this is Spielberg's most underrated film and one of his greatest accomplishments.  It is ultimately about the death of childhood and this was definitely the film that gave Spielberg the strength to go on and tackle Schindler's List. Empire of the Sun was Christian Bale's first screen performance and it is still his finest.  It's a shame that he has an Oscar for The Fighter instead of his superb work here.  The climactic images in the film are haunting as we see Spielberg putting the final nails in the coffin of leaving childhood behind.  He would try to return to the childhood realm with Hook, but would fail miserably.  If you want to see the turning point in Spielberg's career, for better or for worse, look no further than Empire of the Sun.

J. Link's thoughts after the jump...

Review: Weekend

By Sean Knight
4 out of 4 stars ****

         Gay cinema is often times trashy and far too campy for my tastes.  They consist mostly of comedies and spoofs, or angsty gay teen populated sex films.  Yes, there are the Brokeback Mountains, Milks, and A Single Mans of the cinema world, but they are few and far between and have significant amounts of money poured into them from auteur artists.  It is very seldom that a gay themed indie film can truly break out and offer some insights into the lives of real gay people. Weekend is such a film, and it is a truly staggering achievement.  It’s the kind of film that anyone could have made, but no one had.  It took sophomore film director and screenwriter Andrew Haigh, stage actors Tom Cullen and Chris New, and a shoestring budget of about $120,000 dollars to make a simple, honest, and devastating look at modern gay life.  Weekend succeeds because of its sharp screenplay, no nonsense directing, and it’s affectionate portrayal of two young men trying to find their way in the world.

The plot of Weekend is fairly straightforward.  Russell (Tom Cullen) picks up Glen (Chris New) at a gay bar one night after a party and what looks to be a one-night stand ends up turning into much more. The scenario is not what’s important here, but rather it is the truths that are discovered along the way.  Weekend brings up various issues such as the hardships of coming out, people’s hidden fears of all things gay (especially sex), and simply trying to figure out who it is you are supposed to be in this world.  All of this is done through beautifully written dialogue that is not self important or preachy.  Cullen and New have such a natural chemistry on screen together that all of their conversations feel organic and very much in the moment.  What’s so wonderful about the film is that is so accurately portrays two people discovering each other and potentially falling in love in a short amount of time.  The film's title comes from the fact that Glen is moving away and all he and Russell will share together is this one weekend.  There is a wonderful moment in the film, which perfectly describes the events unfolding before us, when Glen states that the best part of meeting someone for the first time is that they are a blank canvas and you can project who you want to be on them.  That is essentially what Weekend is from the beginning and by the end it’s a rich landscape of emotional truths.

Something that took me by surprise with Weekend is that it is very frank about sex and is not afraid to depict gay sex on screen.  This may seem rather minor, but if you think back to many gay sex scenes in even the most acclaimed films they are rather shy about it all.  Weekend depicts what really happens when two men have sex, but it is never in a pornographic way.  It really isn’t anymore graphic than what you might see in a regular Hollywood film with two heterosexuals.  But it reminded me how reserved most gay films have to be when confronting their own subjects. Not here.  Something else that took me by surprise was the films blatant and abundant use of alcohol and drugs.  The film isn’t passing a judgment on it's characters, but actually being honest about its use and some of its effects. Weekend comes off as a bit of a documentary in both the way it is shot and the realistic way in which is treats its ideas.

Even through it’s portrayal of the facts and hardships of gay life it would be wrong to label Weekend as a purely gay film.  There are many facts and subjects tackled within the film that are germane to human beings no matter what your sexuality.  Weekend may be many things, but it is, most importantly of all, a beautiful love story about two people coming together and discovering who they are.  The ending of the film left me awash in tears because it does not placate it’s audience or subscribes to the Hollywood fantasy ending of a romance.  You know exactly where Weekend is heading as soon as Glen tells Russell that he will be leaving, but that doesn’t make the journey traveled any less rewarding.  Weekend is one of the best films of the year and one that any lover of independent cinema should seek out.  It deserves the highest accolades and should be in serious awards contention.  Unfortunately, films like this often don’t find artistic homes and are put away on shelves in video store ghettos.  With this film we are witnessing the emergence of a new voice in cinema through Andrew Haigh.  Don’t let it go to waste. See Weekend, it will be well worth your time.

Weekend

Directed by Andrew Haigh

Release Date: September 23, 2011

Runtime: 97 mins

Review: My Week With Marilyn

By J. Link

My Week with Marilyn is based on a novel written by Colin Clarke about the week he spent with Marilyn Monroe while she was filming The Prince and the Showgirl with Sir Laurence Olivier. The movie stars Michelle Williams as Marilyn Monroe, Eddie Redmayne as Colin Clarke, and Kenneth Branagh as Sir Laurence Olivier. The movie also features Dame Judi Dench as Dame Sybil Thorndike.

I’ve been interested in this movie since it was announced that Michelle Williams would be playing Marilyn Monroe. I am a big fan of Michelle Williams, but I must admit I was a little skeptical. I wasn’t sure if she would be able to bring such a seductive character to life. I was pleasantly surprised with her performance. I thought she played Marilyn Monroe better than the real Marilyn. She captured both sides of Marilyn Monroe—the sexy seductive side and the darker side of Marilyn Monroe. I must tip my hat to Ms. Williams for the job she did. She really did a good job of capturing the voice, mannerisms, and movements that made Marilyn Monroe such an iconic figure. I think she has a good chance of snagging a nomination for this role. Do I think this is the role that will FINALLY win her a much deserved Oscar? I’m not sure. Another thing that surprised me about this movie is the performance Eddie Redmayne delivered. I wasn’t familiar with Eddie Redmayne before this movie but I find myself intrigued by him. I went to his IMDB in an effort to learn more about him. His performance was rather endearing as I could feel that he truly loved Marilyn Monroe as a person and not a movie star. He was the most genuine person that came into her inner circle and I feel he had her best interests at heart. I believed him when he told her that he loved her.  

As much I enjoyed Michelle Williams and Eddie Redmayne I have to be honest and say that Kenneth Branagh stole this movie. I was not expecting Sir Laurence Olivier to play such a significant role. The title of the film had me assuming that the movie was going to focus solely on the relationship between Marilyn Monroe and Colin Clarke and not really showcase the other actors. I’m glad I was wrong. He brought a comedic spark to the film that I was not expecting, but really enjoyed. He delivered the strongest performance and is the most memorable part of the film. I’m hoping he gets some recognition come awards season as I feel he is very deserving of a nomination.

I did have a couple issues with the movie--The first being that I felt there was no need to include a second love story subplot between Colin and Clark and Lucy (Emma Watson). I felt this relationship was unnecessary because it did nothing to drive the story forward. Emma Watson wasn’t bad by ANY means. It was great to see her play something other than Hermione Granger. I think she has potential to have a long film career, but she just wasn’t needed in this film. The second issue that both Sean and I had with the film is that so many movie “autobiographic” stories are told through the lens of somebody else. I understand that this movie is based on a book written by Colin Clark but it gets frustrating having to go through somebody else in order to learn about the person the movie is based on. I’d be interested to see what the movie would have been like if we experienced it from Marilyn’s perspective.

Overall, this movie was not what I was expecting and I am thankful for that. I was worried it was going to be an over-dramatization on the dark side of Marilyn Monroe. I’m happy that I was proven wrong. I think Michelle Williams and Kenneth Branagh should receive recognition for delivering really good performances.

                  My rating? A-

My Week With Marilyn

Directed By Simon Curtis

Release Date: November 23, 2011

Runtime: 99 mins

Review: The Muppets (J. Link's take)

Review by J. Link

As is the case with all Muppets movies the story line is pretty simple. Gary (Jason Segel), Mary (Amy Adams), and Gary’s younger brother Walter (A Muppet) visit the Muppet studios where Gary overhears an evil oilman’s (Chris Cooper) plot to demolish Muppet Studios so he can drill for oil. Gary, Mary and Walter find Kermit and set out to get the gang back together. In an effort to raise enough money to save their studio they put on a show! As much as I would to rave about the movie I must admit that I did have some problems with it….

I didn’t see a need for Amy Adams. I agree with Sean’s point that if you’re going to make a movie about the Muppets you don’t need to throw in a love story between the human characters. I think that movie would have been better if instead of focusing so much time on the relationship between Gary and Mary they used that time to focus on the relationship between Gary and Walter and how helping the Muppets affects their relationship. Walter is a Muppet and wants so badly to be a part of the group. I didn’t feel sorry for Gary at the end when he has to let Walter go because it wasn’t explored enough. Poor Walter, who is a Muppet, is missing from the film for long periods of time when he is responsible for getting the Muppets back together in the first place. Instead of focusing on Walter and the Muppets we’re left to watch Gary fight to get Mary back. I don’t care about that! Like Sean said it was a nuisance.

 

One of the main aspects of a Muppet movie that I love are the songs! This movie was chalked full of fun songs and some that just didn’t work well. The highlights were Life’s A Happy Song, the acapella version of Smells Like Teen Spirit, the chickens performing Forget You (those who know the real lyrics to the song will find it extra hilarious), and the Rainbow Connection. The songs I could have lived without were definitely A Man or a Muppet, and Pictures in My Head. I don’t feel they helped drive the story forward. I must say that Chris Cooper rapping will go down as one of my favorite moments in film history.

I remember when I was kid I wanted to be on The Muppet Show so badly. As a 25 year-old adult I still want to be on The Muppet Show. There is something special about these characters that have captured the hearts of so many for many generations. I tried to watch the movie with a “critical” eye but couldn’t. I can’t nit pick apart because I feel that if I do the magic of The Muppets will disappear. Was it a perfect movie? Not at all. It was a slight mess but at the end of the day I choose to see past that. It reminded me of why I fell in love with the Muppets in the first place so I’ll forgive the unnecessary love story, and the bad songs, and silly cameos and continue to sing Life’s a Happy Song to myself.

My Rating? B 

Review: The Descendants

By Sean Knight

3 out of 4 Stars ***

            It’s been seven years since the 2004 release of Alexander Payne’s highly acclaimed film, Sideways.  Many thought, at the time, that it was deserving of the Academy Award for Best Picture.  I wasn’t as taken with the film as many were, but in retrospect it was certainly a more deserving picture than the winner, Million Dollar Baby.  Many in the industry are touting Payne’s latest, The Descendants, as a serious awards contender, with some even claiming it as a frontrunner for Best Picture.  And again I find myself in the position of the minority on the film.  The Descendants has some wonderful insights into the human condition and often time tense character driven scenes play out quite differently than how you would imagine. That has always been Payne’s gift as a director.  But the film has no narrative pull and its humor often comes at the price of making people look like caricatures instead well-rounded human beings.

            George Clooney plays Matt King whose wife is in a coma due to a boating accident and is now in charge of raising his two daughters.  He is also the trustee of his family’s ancestral Hawaiian land, which is up for sale.  King learns from his oldest daughter, Alexandra (played by Shailene Woodley), that his wife was having an affair with a local real estate agent at the time of her accident.  This sends King’s life into a downward spiral as her tries to deal with his wife’s inevitable passing, while still brokering the deal on his family’s land sale.  Clooney is wonderful in the role of Matt King.  He uses his movie star charisma to draw the audience in and make this distant family man relatable.  But he also fully inhabits the character and you begin to see a normal man dealing with an extraordinary set of circumstances.  He is particularly effective in every scene with Woodley as they have a believable father and daughter dynamic.  Woodley damn near steals the film out from Clooney on more than one occasion as you begin to truly sympathize with this troubled teen.  Robert Forster provides a brief, but powerful performance as Matt’s father in law and Judy Greer has a beautiful fragility about her as the wife of the cheating real estate agent.  Mathew Lillard does pop up briefly as the real estate agent and his scene is one of the more surprising moments of the film.

            While much of the acting is of the highest caliber it does not have a clear-cut narrative to drive it home.  The Descendants meanders from one scene to the next and often times wallows in its emotions.  This does give the film a few surprises, as you are not sure where it’s going to go, but there is always a sneaking suspicion that it isn’t going to go much of anywhere.  The subplot about the King family land also seems forced and doesn't add any stakes to the overall drama of the picture.  Matt King spends much of the film chasing after his wife’s lover with no real intention other than to meet the bastard.  And then you have the inclusion of Alexandra’s boyfriend Sid who provides much of the comic relief, but does not come off as a real character.  In fact, many of the character’s annoyance with him get reflected into the audience.  He is a distraction to the real heartbreak being felt by King and his family.  It’s as if Payne didn’t trust his audience to stay with him through all the highs and lows of the story, so he put in the obligatory Hollywood comic relief.  It doesn’t do him or the picture any good.

            The setting of the film also becomes a bit of a problem.  King starts off the story by stating that even in Hawaii people have problems and it’s not all sunshine and sand.  Unfortunately, Payne sets many of his scenes in sunshine and sand.  I find it hard to feel bad for a family that is about to make millions of dollars off of a land deal and have the ability to fly from tropical island to tropical island in order to escape, or in this case chase after, their problems.  Perhaps it’s just the mindset of the country right now, but a story about a man with a lot of money, who lives in Hawaii, who’s wife is cheating on him is just not all that compelling or relevant.  Trouble in paradise is bullshit.

            I’m sure that The Descendants will get a lot of awards love towards the end of the year and it will not be wholly unwarranted.  The acting is far superior to the material at hand and Payne’s insights into the human condition remain fresh.  But The Descendants lacks the cynicism and wit that made Sideways so spectacular.  It also fails to find humor in the outlandish in quite the same way that Payne’s About Schmidt did.  Still, it would be a shame to write the film off completely due to some exciting performances that are not to be missed.  The Descendants is a lesser Payne effort, but still well intentioned enough to give a mild recommendation if not quite a ringing endorsement.

The Descendants
Directed by Alexander Payne
Release Date: November 18, 2011
Runtime: 115 Mins

Review: The Muppets

By Sean Knight
2 and a half stars **1/2

I was really looking forward to seeing The Muppets.  I wanted to love it.  I have very fond memories of Jim Henson and his wonderful creations as many in my generation do.  It was with great interest that I followed the production of their latest incarnation.  The early buzz on the film had been alarmingly positive, but it did strike me as odd that Frank Oz was not involved and that several people long associated with The Muppets had come out against the film.  I can now see why.  There is such nostalgia involved with the Muppets themselves that I know why people have been gushing about the picture. Many of those same people are going to take this review the wrong way.  I have always loved the Muppets, but they really deserved better than what this movie was able to offer them.

Jason Segel, who is both the writer and the “star” of the film, evidently has a lot of love for the Muppets.  He obviously wanted to bring them back so that a whole new generation could fall in love with them.  Unfortunately, I don’t think Segel knows what really makes the Muppets tick and instead of making a movie primarily about their glorious return, we have to sit through a hackneyed love story featuring him and his girlfriend Amy Adams.  This is the biggest mistake that any Muppet film could make.  People are paying to come and see the Muppets do their thing, not to see some overblown adolescent male pretending to be a Muppet in both his acting and appearance.  The human characters have always been background to the main thrust of the story.  They play side characters.  Or, even when they are the leads, such as with Michael Cain in A Muppet Christmas Carol, they have the Muppets guiding them through the narrative.  The other subplot of The Muppets is about Segel’s Muppet brother, Walter, who grew up loving the Muppets and always wanting to be a part of them.  This story really works and I found Walter to be rather endearing.  I’m not sure that his talent, which is revealed at the end of the film, is anything truly remarkable, but if we are being honest that goes for many of the Muppets. That’s part of what makes them so damn loveable.  If Segel had chosen to focus solely on Walter’s story and the Muppets’ storyline the film would have been much more streamlined.  Segel and Amy Adams’s love story takes up a good fifty percent of the run time.  It is a distraction and a nuisance.

There are, of course, other things to pick on involving the Muppets themselves.  Many of the voices are rather off from what you expect them to be, especially with Fozzie and Miss Piggy.  I think a good deal of this comes from the fact that Frank Oz and others were not involved.  Still, you do get the feeling of what they are supposed to sound like, but it’s still a disappointment for long time fans.  There is also an issue of comedic timing in the middle of the film where gags run too long and shots linger far longer than they should.  This is mostly an issue of editing and could have been easily fixed in post.  It brings about the sense that more often than not the filmmakers simply don’t know how to make a Muppet movie.  The songs are also largely forgettable, with the exception of the opening number, which is catchy and sweet.

The last thirty minutes of The Muppets is when the film truly comes alive.  The Muppets stage a full on recreation of the former Muppet Show and it is pure magic.  Even me, the most cynical of viewers, shed a few tears watching this glorious sequence.  There is a hilarious barbershop quartet of Nirvana’s Smells Like Teen Spirit and a rolling in the aisles chicken version of Cleo Green’s Fuck You all done in chicken speak.  The celebrity cameos here also brought back many a fond memory of past celebrity appearances.  The film clicks into overdrive here to bring memories of the past washing over you and by the time the Muppets revive The Rainbow Connection you will be in childhood heaven.  The last thirty minutes of The Muppets is a convincing plea to revive The Muppet Show and it’s hard to imagine it not being a success.  This is what The Muppets were born to do in the first place.

The Muppets is filled with good intention and some genuine laughs, which is why it breaks my heart that I didn’t love it like so many others did.  Nostalgia can only take you so far and I simply can’t over look the glaring flaws with the film.  People are paying good money to see The Muppets return to the screen and that is what they should be greeted with, not a human driven and, frankly, lame love story that adds nothing to the Muppets catalogue or their former greatness.

The Muppets
Directed By James Bobin
Release Date: November 23, 2011
Runtime: 98 Mins

The Steven Spielberg Retrospective Part 2: The 1980's - The Color Purple (1985)

The Color Purple

Release Date: December 18, 1985

Run Time: 154 Mins

Nominated for 11 Academy Awards including Best Picture, Best Actress Whoopi Goldberg, Best Supporting Actress Oprah Winfrey, Best Supporting Actress Margaret Avery, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Cinematography, Best Costume Design, Best Art Direction, Best Make-Up, Best Original Score, and Best Original Song.

It Won ZERO Academy Awards....

Read on after the jump...

The Steven Spielberg Retrospective: Siskel and Ebert - The Magic of Spielberg

By Sean Knight

I stumbled across this video a while ago and thought it might be fun to share on here as part of the retrospective.  Around the time of the release of Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, Siskel and Ebert dedicated an entire show to dissecting the work of Steven Spielberg.  It's interesting to hear the parallels they find from film to film and also what they think his short comings are.  Later today we will be continuing our retrospective with The Color Purple.  Until then I figured you could enjoy the videos below.

The Steven Spielberg Retrospective Part 2: The 1980's - E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial (1982)

E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial

Release Date: June 11, 1982

Runtime: 115 Mins

Nominated for 9 Academy Awards including Best Picture, Best Director, Best Original Screenplay, Best Editing and Best Cinematography

Winner of 4 Academy Awards including Best Original Score, Best Sound, Best Sound Effects Editing, and Best Visual Effects

Read on after the jump...

Review: Like Crazy

By Sean Knight

Two and a Half out of Four Stars **1/2

            “I want you.  I need you.  I love you.  I miss you.” – that is the tagline of Like Crazy, and it should give you a pretty good indication of what to expect from the film.  In fact, the title Like Crazy is pretty apt as we follow a young couple fresh out of college who make a series of stupid mistakes that sends their relationship into a downward spiral.  And we, the audience, are supposed to care about them through it all.  The filmmakers made the good choice of casting two adorable and talented leads to guide us through the narrative - Anton Yelchin as Jacob and Felicity Jones as Anna.  And it is easy to relate as we have all been young, in love, and completely stupid.  But the film starts itself off with the female character overstaying her visa, being sent back to England, and banned from the United States.  That’s a pretty big mistake.  But then the filmmakers keep letting their characters make mistakes over and over again when it seems clear that there is a solution to this problem.  When you are young and in love you are supposed to do crazy things to make it survive.  Here the characters just do crazy things to drive the audience, and each other, mad.

            The chemistry between Yelchin and Jones is undeniable and they really do carry the film to the best of their ability. Anna seems a bit more smitten than Jacob does, but aren’t men always a bit more difficult?  Anna is willing to give it all up for Jacob, but it doesn’t seem like he is ready or willing to return the favor.  This ends up making the love story a bit one sided and it becomes hard to root for either one of them.  Still, there are many poignant and honest moments in the film that had me thinking back to previous serious long distance relationships.  The visa issue also hit close to home for me as I have a very good friend who struggled for years to extend her visa in the US. She is now living in Japan looking for an opportunity to try again and return to the US.  On these two issues the film hits the nail on the head. 

Like Crazy introduces two side love interests for both Jacob and Anna, but doesn’t do them the courtesy of making them into real characters.  I can see the point of keeping them in the dark in order to illustrate how even in other relationships Jacob and Anna still only think of each other.  But then why go and cast someone as beautiful and talented as Jennifer Lawrence if you aren’t going to bother to use her at all?  Lawrence does bring it her all though in a scene where Jacob tells her that he has to go back to England to be with Anna.  You can see the pain on her face when she tells Jacob that she loves him, but all he can do is say he’s sorry.  Unfortunately, the screenplay doesn’t service these two actors in what could have been a powerful moment and simply lets Lawrence walk out the door without a word.  It makes Jacob look like a dick and makes Sam look like a pathetic pushover.  Anna’s love interest is explored even less as all we really know about him is the he is her next-door neighbor.

            The film ends with a semi-ambiguous coda that seems to imply that maybe loving like crazy isn’t all its cracked up to be.  I could have told Jacob and Anna that from the beginning and saved them the trouble.  However, there is plenty of heart here and perhaps I’m just too cynical to appreciate a film like this.  But not long ago I too was twenty-one and completely crazy stupid in love. Life goes on, you meet new people, and things change.   The essence of that is captured well here.  I just wish the characters had been smart enough to make the right decisions or at least fix the mistakes they made.  But then again, when you are in love Like Crazy, there is no end to the bad decisions you will make.

           

Like Crazy

Directed by Drake Doremus

Release Date: October 28, 2011

Run Time: 89 Mins

The Steven Spielberg Retrospective: Inside the Actor's Studio

JJ Here!

If you haven't seen Steven Spielberg on Inside the Actor's Studio I urge you to watch the video below. The clips have been edited out due to copyright but that's alright. Watch and enjoy!

The Steven Spielberg Retrospective Part 1: The 1970's - Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977)

Close Encounters of the Third Kind

Release Date: November 16, 1977

Run Time: 137 Mins

Nominated for 8 Academy Awards including Best Director, Best Supporting Actress Melinda Dillon, Best Music, Best Art Direction, Best Sound, Best Film Editing, Best Visual Effects

Won 1 Academy Award for Best Cinematography and 1 Special Achievement Oscar for Sound Effects Editing

Read on after the jump...

Review: The Artist (Advance Review)

By Sean Knight

Four out of Four Stars ****

French film Director Michel Hazanavicius’s The Artist is a wonderful homage to Hollywood of old.  It combines elements of melodrama, 30’s slapstick comedy and 40’s filmmaking sensibilities to create a black and white silent picture that was filmed in Hollywood with a half French and half American crew.  It’s a strange hybrid of creation, and one that probably shouldn’t work, but does.  It features two charismatic lead performances from French actors Jean Dujardin and Berenice Bejo, not to mention a hilarious supporting turn from American actor John Goodman. Dujardin won the Best Actor Award earlier this year at the Cannes film festival and, with luck, may be able to pull off a similar feat in January.  Audiences around the world have been responding with overwhelming praise for the film and it’s easy to see why.  That Artist is a sweet and infectious movie.  It wears its emotions boldly on its sleeve and there is a love of the cinema oozing from every carefully crafted frame.

What makes the film work so well is it’s simplicity.  The Artist tells the story of a famed silent film star who has to face the oncoming storm of talking pictures.  It’s about his fall from grace and, of course, there is a love story thrown in to boot.  It’s something we have seen before, but never done quite like this.  The hodgepodge of film techniques and references helps keep the film fresh, as does the filmmakers commitment to accurately recreating a silent film.  He doesn’t have his actors’ ham it up or wink at the camera.  They stay true to their characters while also understanding that in silent film there is a certain exaggeration that comes along with conveying intention and emotions up on the screen.  There are a few moments where Hazanavicius gives slight nod to silent movie conventions, but it is never distracting or obtuse.  There is so much love in the picture from everyone involved that it is clear that their intention is never to poke fun at, but to celebrate the silent medium. 

            A big story would have bogged the picture down with pretentiousness.  But, that is not to say that the Artist is small in scope.  On the contrary, the film is crafted in meticulous detail with the period setting most definitely in the forefront.  The cinematography, by Guillaume Schiffan, is a thing of beauty with each shot in the picture being it’s own unique work of art.  The film was shot very much in the style of the 20’s with very few modern techniques used at all.  There are a few sweeping crane shots here and there and a couple moments of special effects magic, but most everything is done in camera and to great effect.  I found out during the director talk-back that The Artist was actually shot in color and then post converted to black and white in order to achieve the various shades of gray.  The choice obviously worked out quite well for them, but its disheartening to learn that even black and white films are not filmed that way in this day and age.  The truth is, that black and white film stock is not in large demand and filmmakers are now inexperienced with it.  It is much easier for a director to shoot something in color and post convert to black and white in order to achieve the exact picture that they may want.  Hazanavicius claimed that Schiffan was very much his slave during the production, and that is evident when watching the film.  The director’s eye is all over the screen.  One great sequence, during the closing moments of the film, recalls memories of the great song and dance routines of Fred Astaire.  It’s all done in a wide shot so that the viewer can catch every move.  Movies just aren’t shot like this anymore.

            The Artist does outstay it’s welcome by about fifteen minutes or so during it’s middle section.  But so much of the film is so magical, that I was able to forgive a bit of bloat. I’m a sucker for movies about movies, and it is clear that Hazanavicius knows his stuff.  I hope that this film brings about an opportunity for him to do much more.  We could use a director with his taste, knowledge, and imagination in Hollywood today.  I’m interested to see how this film will catch on with a general audience that isn’t as film savvy as most festival or Awards goers.  One thing is for sure though – its Oscar prospects are huge and I have nothing but admiration for this beautiful nostalgic picture.

The Artist
Directed by Michel Hazanavicius
Release Date: November 23, 2011
Runtime: 100 mins

The Steven Spielberg Retrospective Part 1: The 1970’s – Jaws (1975)

Welcome to the first installment of The Steven Spielberg Retrospective.  How this will work is very simple - every post Sean will kick things off with his insights and new discoveries for the film at hand.  Then J.J. (Jeanette, Jamie, whatever you want to call her) will post her first time viewing reactions below.  You will be getting two different accounts on the same film.  We may not always agree, but it will be interesting nonetheless.  Without further ado, our first film of The Steven Spielberg Retrospective Part 1: The 1970's -  Jaws.

Jaws

Release Date: June 20, 1975

Nominated for 4 Academy Awards including Best Picture

Won 3 Academy Awards: Best Sound, Best Film Editing, Best Music

Read on after the jump...

The Artist: Director Michel Hazanavicius Q&A

By Sean Knight

Last night I attended a very special advanced screening of The Artist in Chicago that concluded with a question and answer session with the director of the film.  It was great to hear about how the film came into being and the process in which it was made.  Below is an audio file of the Q&A.  I apologize for the sound quality but it was the best I could do in such short notice (I had no idea there was even going to be a Q&A until I got to the screening).  So turn up your speakers and Enjoy. A Full review will be coming this weekend.  All I can tell you in advance is that we have a major awards player on our hands.

Podcast Powered By Podbean

Review: J. Edgar

J. Edgar Review

By Sean Knight

Three Stars out of Four

Clint Eastwood’s latest Oscar baiting picture follows the story of infamous FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover from his early career, to his astonishing rise in power, and ultimately to his death.  Eastwood is working from a screenplay by Oscar Winner Dustin Lance Black whom is a well-known gay rights advocate and the marriage between the two is awkward.  There were many rumors and innuendos throughout Hoover’s career about him being a closeted homosexual and a cross dresser.  This is fascinating stuff especially for a man who was in such a great position of power.  Black clearly wants to focus on these rumors to try and get to know the real J. Edgar.  The film’s central relationship is between Hoover and his long-term colleague and rumored life partner Clyde Tolson.  The issue is that Eastwood, a well-known conservative individual, seems uncomfortable with the material and while he is able to shape a few tender and touching moments, the base of the picture seems oddly disjointed.  It’s as if Eastwood couldn’t escape Black’s screenplay’s obvious heavy interest in Hoover’s closeted homosexual life, but also couldn’t connect it to the story Eastwood was more interested in telling – Hoover’s rise to power and formation of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

            The acting is uniformly excellent with Leonardo DiCaprio as Hoover and Armie Hammer as Tolson as the real standouts of the piece.  They are able to act circles around Eastwood’s skittishness with the material, with every glance, gesture, and line reading adding significant weight to their relationship.  You believe quite strongly that these two men were in love.  The problem comes when Eastwood refuses to fully explore that love and you begin to wonder why in the hell Tolson would put up with Hoover’s grandstanding and selfishness for so many years if their relationship was clearly going nowhere. There is one fire charged scene where Tolson confronts Hoover and tells him to never mention one of his “lady friends” again.  I found myself wanting to tell Eastwood the same thing.  Judy Dench plays Hoover’s conservative and overbearing mother to great effect.  Dench gets to steal one of the best scenes in the piece where Hoover tries to come out to his mother by saying “I don’t like dancing with girls and I think it’s time you should know this” and her reply is a simple “I would rather have a dead son than a daffodil.”  It’s powerful stuff and one of the few times Eastwood and Black provide clear insight into why Hoover is who he is.  Naomi Watts also has an intriguing supporting role as Hoover’s longtime personal secretary and confidant.   There is some clue as to how Hoover and her both have a keen understanding of each other’s sexuality, but it is never really explored. It’s an underdeveloped role and a shame, as Watts doest quite a bit with such a little amount of screen time.

            The film’s look has the similar drab and drained colors that Eastwood has been using a lot as of late and I don’t think it does the picture any favors.  It’s not that the film is ugly, but it has an air of importance’s about it that screams “prestige picture”.  But in the end it just becomes a sort of gloomy haze covering the entire film.  Much has been noted about the make-up.  I will say that the make-up is very broad and not always life-like.  It’s as if the designers were going for an iconic (if caricature) look to the characters that didn’t always play out how they hoped.  What is miraculous is that both DiCaprio and Hammer as able to play through the thick as molasses prosthetics and deliver real heartfelt performances.  They make you look past the caricature and into the souls of these two conflicted human beings.

            I’m not quite as down on J. Edgar as many in the press have been.  There are some wonderful scenes in the film and the acting is solid all around (it would not surprise me a bit if DiCaprio was able to win his first Oscar from this performance).  But the disjointed feeling of the picture cannot be ignored.  If Eastwood wasn’t comfortable with the subject matter or didn’t want to deal with the alleged homosexuality of Hoover than why did he take on Black’s script? It’s a fatal flaw in what could have been a masterful film.  At the end of the film there is a fascinating scene where Tolson enters Hoover’s lair, so to speak, for the first time after he has died and we see all the eccentricities and contradictions that filled Hoover’s life.  If only Eastwood had opened that door earlier and fully explored what was in that room.  Now that is a film I would have liked to see.

J. Edgar

Directed By Clint Eastwood

Release Date: November 9^th, 2011

Run Time: 137 Minutes

Review: The Ides of March

The Ides of March Review

By Sean Knight

Three out of Four Stars

Director George Clooney’s liberal politics are well known to anyone who has followed his career.  He is an outspoken advocate on many progressive issues and is not afraid to speak his mind about the worlds current political climate.  His 2005 feature Goodnight and Good Luck about CBS Reporter Edward R. Murrow’s fight against Joseph McCarthy wore its liberal heart on it’s sleeve and was a reminder that fear mongering was not an option in today’s politics.  Clooney’s latest feature, The Ides of March, also deals with liberal ideals and politics except it is a lot more cynical than his previous pictures.  In many ways it shows that liberals can be just as corrupt as any republican and that in politics all is fair game.  The Ides of March follows the story of a young idealist (played by Ryan Gosling) working on a presidential campaign for a democrat (played by director George Clooney) in the heat of the Ohio primary.  The film shows Gosling’s eventual disillusionment with the political system and ideals he so loves and his eventual folding into the world of dirty politics.  The film and story are slickly made and acted, but The Ides of March doesn’t have much to say that most of us who follow politics don’t already know.  Politics is a dirty business no matter what side of the fence you are on.

            Clooney appears to be basing his presidential candidate as an ideal mash-up of President Obama and former President Clinton.  He puts a lot of words in the character’s mouth that any liberal would love to hear.  He makes the audience as well as the characters on screen fall in love with him.  But then Clooney and the script take a nosedive that is so predictable and something that we have seen so many times in real politics and in political films that it undermines the character he has been trying to build.  This “twist” sets in motion the events for the rest of the film and the disillusionment of the Gosling character.  I realize the point that Clooney is trying to make here – even the best of men and candidates make big mistakes and nothing is, as it seems.  Okay, but what does that point serve a liberal audience who has already lived through the Clinton impeachment and the eights years of home-style terror under George Bush?  The twist does play itself out well as far as plotting and character development go, but the whole time I felt like Clooney was elevating extremely predictable material.  It is a testament to his gift as a director that he was able to do this, but a major flaw with the film all the same.

            Gosling is in fine form as the young idealist and his transformation is believable and as real as the confines of the script will allow him to be.  Clooney himself is quite good as the presidential candidate in question and provides himself with plenty of juicy scenes that play up to many of the actors’ strengths.  But the two actors who steal the film out from under them are Philip Seymour Hoffman and Paul Giamatti as two campaign advisors who have been playing this game a long time.  Hoffman and Giamatti can play this kind of role in their sleep, but it’s precisely because of that quality that their characters pop from the screen.  Giamatti in particular gets a great scene late in the picture that spells out exactly how the game of politics is played in today’s America.  The scene could very well be the thesis of the entire picture.

            The Ides of March boasts great production values and a killer score from composer Alaxandre Desplat.  From top to bottom The Ides of March is an impeccably made film.  It’s something that Clooney should be proud of.  But the fact remains that we have heard this story before and the film doesn’t provide any new insights into the political system.  Well not for anyone who has been paying attention the past few years anyway.

The Ides of March

Directed by George Clooney

Release Date: October 7^th, 2011

Run Time: 101 Minutes

Sean and J.J's Top 5 Most Anticipated Films of the Oscar Season

Below are our Most anticipated films of the Awards Season with commentary and trailers.  Enjoy!

Sean:

5. The Artist

Ever since The Artist’s debut at the Cannes Film Festival it has won numerous accolades and has steam rolled it’s way into the Awards Season.  Many are expecting the Academy to go for this in a big way, which would be slightly odd.  It is, after all, a French film about Hollywood in the 1920’s, it has a no name lead star, it was filmed in black and white, and to top it off it is a silent film.  But audiences have loved the film and it has managed to snag quite a few awards at various film festivals.  The movie is also backed by the Weinstein brothers, so you can bet that they are going to push this as far as it can possibly go.  Nobody plays the Oscar game better than the Weinstein’s.  Out of every film opening this season, this is the one that people need to watch out for.  I myself will be seeing the film this Thursday at an advance screening and will have my review out by the weekend. Trailer and the rest of our list after the jump...

Welcome Back! And a Special Announcement…

Hello!  And welcome back to Two Opinionated Bitches on Film.  We took an extremely long hiatus and wanted the opportunity to apologize.  When Jeanette and I started the blog we didn’t take into account how the distance between us was going to affect it.  We both lead two separate lives in two completely different states.  Communication was always an issue as to when the two of us were going to find time and get shit done.  Her and I both picked up our fair share of the slack until we both agreed that perhaps it was best to wait until we could both fully commit.  Lucky for me and the future of the blog, Jeanette moved up to Chicago this summer, but we decided to wait until she adjusted and we both had the time to really throw ourselves into this.  Well, that time has finally arrived.  Jeanette and I have made a commitment that we will both post at least four times a week and will keep the blog going with movie reviews, various film related articles, film news, and plenty of Oscar guessing.  The awards season is upon us and that led to deciding that now was the perfect time to get this started again as there will be a wealth of things to write about in the coming months.  We also have a project that we will be working on from now until the end of December.  We are proud to announce the Steven Spielberg Retrospective.

The Steven Spielberg Retrospective is a project we came up with in order to honor the director who, as it turns out, is having one hell of a year.  He has two films that he directed coming out in the thick of Awards season at the end of December, not to mention the fact that he produced several hits this year including Super 8 and Transformers Dark of the Moon.  The other reason for starting this project is that Jeanette made the embarrassing confession that she has barely seen any of Spielberg’s major works.  This was after drinking quite a bit while watching the original Indiana Jones – Raiders of the Lost Ark.  So the goal is simple – we are going to work our way through Steven Spielberg’s filmography from the mid 70’s up until today.  We are not going to be hitting every single film, but a vast majority will be covered including some of his not so great efforts.  What will be most interesting about this is that you will be getting the perspective of someone who knows and loves Spielberg’s work (me) and someone for who most of the films we will be watching will be a completely new experience.  We will also both make detours along the way to cover certain films of his separately (I know Jeanette will be covering his vastly underrated Empire of the Sun on her own) as well as some projects that he only produced (I plan on writing up a piece on Super 8 when it is released later this month).  It is an exciting project for us and a great way to get the blog going again.  And we have already started.  Last week we screened Spielberg’s 1975 thriller Jaws.  Expect pieces on that experience within the next couple of days.  And tonight we are screening his 1977 sci-fi follow up Close Encounters of the Third Kind.  A full screening schedule is listed below if you would like to follow along with us.  So welcome back to the blog and thanks for bearing with us.  Enjoy!

Sean and J.J.

Steven Spielberg Retrospective Screening Schedule

(Dates are tentative, but all films listed will be watched by the opening of War Horse, plus there will be surprise screenings and posts along the way! All responses to the films listed will be posted within two days of the screening)

November 8^th – Close Encounters of the Third Kind (watching as we speak)

November 12^th – E.T. The Extraterrestrial

November 14^th – The Color Purple

November 17^th – Hook

November 20^th – Jurassic Park

November 23^rd – Schindler’s List

November 27^th – Amistad

December 1^st – Saving Private Ryan

December 5^th – Minority Report

December 9^th – War of the Worlds

December 13^th – Munich

December 17^th – Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

December 21^st – The Adventures of Tintin

December 25^th – War Horse