Archive

Archive for the ‘Movies’ Category

As usual, few surprises in this year’s Oscar nominations

February 2nd, 2010 Nathaniel No comments

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences announced its list of nominees for this year’s 82nd annual Academy Awards which takes place on March 7, 2010. As expected, James Cameron’s Avatar, the blockbuster highest grossing film of all time, and The Hurt Locker, the low budget independent critical darling directed by Cameron’s second wife, Kathryn Bigelow, led the field with nine nominations, and Quentin Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds followed closely with eight nominations. All three films were nominated for Best Motion Picture of the Year, the category that the Academy expanded this year to include ten instead of the traditional five nominees, and all three directors were nominated for the Best Director trophy.

This should come as no surprise to moviegoers as the Oscar buzz surrounding all three films has been about as loud as it has ever been in recent years, and truly good, Oscar-worthy films have been few and far between throughout the past year.

Similarly, all we’ve heard about for months is how good George Clooney was in Up in the Air, how inspiring Gabourey Sidibe was in Precious: Based on the novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire, and what a star making turn Christoph Waltz had as Colonel Hans Landa in Inglourious Basterds. There was never any question that these actors would be nominated for Oscars, and their chances of winning in their respective categories range from “really good” to “guaranteed.”

Is there really anyone out there who doesn’t think that Mr. Clooney is taking home that Best Actor trophy in March? Ms. Sidibe has a bit of competition from Meryl Streep, who graced the screen with an amazing portrayal of Julia Child in Julie & Julia (and earned a place in history as the most nominated performer with 16 Oscar nominations and 25 Golden Globe nominations), and Sandra Bullock, who beat her out for the dramatic lead actress trophy at the Globes this year, but I think the strength of her performance and the type of character she played is a better fit for the Oscars than the Globes. And Mr. Waltz? Considering he has won every award there is to win (including the first one, the Best Actor Award at the 2009 Cannes Film Festival), I’d sooner bet on lightning striking the same person twice than on any other nominee in the Best Supporting Actor category.

Indeed, there’s little room for surprise at this year’s Academy Awards. Avatar has incredible momentum right now and is all but a lock to win at least every single “minor” award for which it’s nominated while its prospects in the top categories like Best Picture and Best Director are a little less clear with the aforementioned competition. Mr. Tarantino is definitely going to take home the Best Original Screenplay prize while Jason Reitman, the director of Up in the Air, is a lock to win the Best Adapted Screenplay award. And when Pixar’s Up is so good that it’s nominated in the Best Picture category (the last animated feature to show up in that group was Disney’s Beauty and the Beast in 1992), there can be little doubt that it will stand proud as the winner of the Best Animated Feature of 2009.

This is not to say that there were no surprises, though. As a big fan of the surprise sci-fi smash hit of the summer, District 9,  I’m pleasantly surprised to see it nominated in the Best Picture category although the realist in me knows that the only reason this happened was because of the field expansion for the category: if the Academy had stuck with the status quo, the nominees would assuredly have been Avatar, Up in the Air, Precious, The Hurt Locker, and Inglourious Basterds. I’m not so much a fan of the other major surprise – the nomination of Penélope Cruz for her supporting role in the huge flop Nine - but it’s not such a big deal since the statue is likely going to either Vera Farmiga for Up in the Air or Mo’Nique for Precious.

Perhaps the bigger surprise, however, will be the likely skyrocketing ratings for his year’s Academy Awards broadcast now that the Academy has finally had the good sense to nominate a film that is not only critically acclaimed but also a popular hit with the mainstream moviegoers for the Best Motion Picture of the Year award. It’s no secret that ratings for the show have steadily dropped for the better part of a decade because of the Academy’s shift towards artsy films that most people didn’t care about.

When the race is down to films like Atonement, No Country for Old Men and There Will Be Blood, you know that people are going to do something more interesting (like clip their toenails or do the laundry): the 2008 ceremony had the lowest ratings in Oscar history with barely 31 million viewers and had fully transitioned to a state of irrelevance to the American culture. The Academy didn’t learn their lesson last year when they failed to nominate The Dark Knight for Best Picture despite overwhelming critical and public support for the film, but better late than never.

Fate of Spider-man film franchise in question after the departure of Raimi, Maguire and Dunst

January 19th, 2010 Nathaniel 2 comments

When I came into work this morning, I certainly wasn’t expecting a Hollywood bombshell in my Inbox, but there it was: Tobey Maguire, Sam Raimi out of ‘Spider-Man.’

This is about as big a news story as there is in the Hollywood industry, what with the Spider-Man trilogy being one of the biggest film franchises in movie history and Sony Pictures’ top cash cow and that success being due mostly to the directorial efforts of Sam Raimi and the performance by Tobey Maguire as Peter Parker, a.k.a. the eponymous web-slinger.

Raimi managed to take a license that had been languishing in development hell for the better part of 20 years and not only make it work but make it tremendously successful. The first film, released in May 2002 nearly two decades after the Spider-Man comic book property was optioned to B-movie legend Roger Corman, was an immediate blockbuster smash with over $820 million in worldwide box office revenues. The second film earned even more critical acclaim and raked in more than $780 million globally. Spider-Man 3 was less loved by critics and diehard Spider-Man fans alike but managed to outperform its predecessors by earning over $890 million in theaters.

Unfortunately, the current problems with the economy, to which Sony was far from immune having announced an operating loss of ¥227.8 billion in their 2009 annual report, forced the company’s movie studio to adopt a cost cutting policy that tightened the planned fourth film’s budget to $230 million, less than Spider-Man 3’s $258 million price tag and far less than what Raimi felt he needed to make a bigger and better Spider-Man movie.

Furthermore, Raimi was uncomfortable with the time frame he had to work with. Sony wanted to release the film in May 2011 which would not give him enough time to work with Gary Ross, the most recent writer to take on the story, to rewrite the script to his standards. Add to that some tension between the director and the studio over who the villain would be – Raimi was in talks with John Malkovich to play the Vulture who, like the villains before him, would represent some metaphorical challenge to the evolution of Peter’s character, while Sony wanted to go with Anne Hathaway as the Black Cat for more of a “complex love triangle” theme to perhaps bank on the popularity of the Twilight movies – and you can see how the project was starting to become a bit of a mess.

As it became more and more obvious that the two sides would not be able to reach a common ground as to how to proceed with the film, Raimi and stars Maguire and Kirsten Dunst walked away, not interested in another fiasco with less than stellar results a la Spider-Man 3, prompting Sony to release their official plans for a franchise “reboot” which would take Peter back to his formative high school years when he first acquired his super powers.

This, of course, begs the question of why the company felt the need for such a drastic change. Some may feel that it would be difficult for audiences to continue with the series without Raimi behind the camera and Maguire and Dunst center stage, and they would be right. Specifically Raimi and Maguire have become so synonymous with the franchise that most moviegoers, for whom the films are the only glimpse into the world of Spider-Man, can’t imagine anybody but Maguire wearing the red and blue spandex or anybody but Raimi presenting the latest chapter in the development of everyone’s favorite superhero as a character as only he can.

However, if you’re Sony and you’ve already resigned yourself to continue making Spider-Man movies without the director and stars that brought you to the dance, why add on top of the confusion a whole new version of the story millions upon millions of people the world over already saw almost eight years ago?

A better strategy would have been to do something akin to The Incredible Hulk where the studio went in a different direction with a new director, new actors and a new backstory without rewinding the clock to redo the origin story. The movie wasn’t a major success, but that was mainly because it had issues stemming from heavy edits, which Hulk fan and lead actor Edward Norton took exceptional issue with, forced by the studio in an attempt to change the tone of the film.

And those people, including Sony’s studio executives, pointing at success of the Batman film franchise reboot should keep in mind that the series that started with Batman in 1989 and ended with Batman & Robin in 1997 was such a mess with two drastically different directors, three different lead actors, eight different villains (three just in the fourth film), two sidekicks, and a partridge in a pear tree that by the end fans and critics alike viciously derided the movies and moviegoers let their feelings be known with their wallets (Batman & Robin was a domestic flop with $107,325,195 in U.S. box office receipts against a $125 million production budget).

Let’s also not forget that Christopher Nolan’s reboot of the film franchise marked an important shift in direction for the Batman character from the colorful and comical material of the Joel Schumacher films to the more appropriate dark themes explored in Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, both of which were much more in line with the original comic book origins of the Batman character.

When you consider the direction Sony wanted to take with the Black Cat as the main villain of the fourth Raimi movie alongside the implications of the reboot, it becomes quite clear that this is little more than a shameless attempt to cash in on the current popularity of entertainment properties that appeal to the tween and teen audiences, which is disappointing and insulting enough to moviegoers the world over that Sony risks alienating most of the people that made the Spider-man film series a blockbuster success in the first place.

Unlinked sources: The Vancouver Sun, The Independent, Box Office Mojo

Blu-ray will fail

January 7th, 2010 Nathaniel No comments

No two ways about it: Blu-ray will fail.

Now, before all the Blu-ray, Sony and/or PlayStation 3 fanboys get their panties all bunched up, let me elucidate what I mean by “fail.”

While the technical goal of the technology was to introduce a physical media format by which high definition video content could be delivered to the consumer, the studios that threw their weight behind Blu-ray were understandably hoping that Blu-ray would reinvigorate the eroding home video market.

The advent of new technologies through which people could download pirated movies, the rise of a new mail order rental service model pioneered by Netflix, and the introduction of alternative sources for movies such as Apple’s iTunes and video on demand offerings from cable and satellite providers combined to start a downward trend in DVD sales that never reversed or even flattened out.

Sony and the other members of the Blu-ray Disc Founders and later the Blu-ray Disc Association pinned all their hopes on repeating the successes from DVD’s golden years on Blu-ray, and it is this goal that Blu-ray will fail to accomplish.

The crux of the problem is that Sony and the other companies that supported Blu-ray simply didn’t get the consumer due either to a misinterpretation of market research, poor implementation of said research or simple wrong assumptions (or some combination of these), and this led to those behind Blu-ray going in with the wrong strategy and expectations.

The biggest mistake the BDA made was believing that consumers would be enamored with high definition video, or more appropriately enamored enough with it to pay any real premium. Several factors come into play here.

First, most people are content with “good enough.” Does 1080p content look great? Sure. Is it so mind-blowing and amazing that the typical consumer is willing to buy a brand new player and pay higher prices for the movies? Hardly. Yet that’s what Sony and their compatriots were expecting. They all thought that once people saw the difference between the high definition content available through Blu-ray and the standard definition content on limited DVD technology, they would be more than happy to shell out several hundred dollars for a player and $30-35 per movie.

The only problem was that most people at the time couldn’t even benefit from these increases. When Blu-ray first hit the market in June 2006, HDTV penetration was at only about 30% according to the Consumer Electronics Association - roughly 70% of all households couldn’t benefit from Blu-ray Disc technology!

Furthermore, most of the households in the 30% HD slice of the market likely wouldn’t have even experienced the full benefits of Blu-ray. This chart details the screen size and viewing distance necessary for the human eye to perceive differences between standard definition 480p and high definition 720p and 1080p images. A person with a 42″ HDTV would have to sit about 6 feet away from their television in order to be able to see even a slight improvement from 720p to 1080p. Considering that there were already DVD players that could upscale the standard definition image quality of DVD movies to a remarkably good high definition quality, one has to wonder why anyone other than a videophile enthusiast would bother investing in Blu-ray early on.

Couple that with the widespread availability of high definition television broadcasts over-the-air or from cable and satellite providers and a more dire picture for Blu-ray becomes clear. Still, only about half of all HDTV owners at the time were willing to pay even the small additional cost to enjoy high definition television programming – what would make them willing to dish out significantly more money?

The return on investment from Blu-ray just wasn’t in line with the typical consumer’s perspective. Why bother spending all that extra money when you could simply pay a few extra dollars per month for more than ”good enough” – assuming you’re even willing to spend that?

There’s almost the matter of one’s existing library of DVDs. In the ten years between the launches of DVD and Blu-ray, consumers are likely to have amassed a sizable collection of their favorite movies. How does the BDA convince people to buy the Blu-ray of a movie they already own on DVD?

Blu-ray fanboys will no doubt point out that you can play DVDs on Blu-ray players so there’s no need to repurchase a movie. While that is certainly true, it’s unlikely that your typical consumer would want to spend the money to buy into a new format only to view their favorite movies in a lower quality than newer movies that they paid more money for!

Fanboys will argue that Blu-ray’s handy defeat of rival format HD-DVD and higher rate of adoption than DVD at the same time in the format’s life contradicts what I’ve said. What they won’t point out is that the only reason either of these things occurred was because of Sony’s sneaky little “Trojan Horse” tactic of incorporating Blu-ray drives in each and every PlayStation 3.

Every video gamer who bought a PlayStation 3 became a de facto Blu-ray adopter whether or not they actually watched Blu-ray movies with their console, artificially pumping up Blu-ray’s rate of adoption. When you look at only sales of standalone players, however, HD DVD bested Blu-ray until the tail end of its official life – Blu-ray didn’t have any sort of sales advantage until the PlayStation 3 came along.

Of course, this victory turned out to be a double-edged sword for Sony because the inclusion of yet another brand spankin’ new technology (Sony also pushed its cutting edge Cell processor) in the PlayStation 3 drove up the price causing the PlayStation 3 to fall into third place in this generation’s “console wars,” a spot from which they have not been able to climb even with huge spikes in sales from price drops and the launches of top tier games.

And this risky gambit has not paid off for Sony or their partners in crime. While Blu-ray did enjoy significant growth from both hardware and software sales perspectives, it still has a very long way to go to becoming a truly mainstream technology. These Nielsen VideoScan sales charts for the Thanksgiving holiday weekend show that only seven of the hundreds of Blu-rays available in stores had more than a 10% share of disc sales, and half of those succeeded based only on incredible Black Friday deals with prices at or near $10. Yet even with sub-$100 prices for Blu-ray players and ridiculously low prices for movies 3 years after launch, Blu-ray can only manage an average market share far less than 10% (remember that there are hundreds of titles that you can’t see on those charts).

Still, Blu-ray fanboys would have you believe that Blu-ray will persevere nonetheless, succeeding despite all odds, based on the idea that at some point everyone is going to have to switch over to Blu-ray as hardware manufacturers cease production of DVD players and retailers cease stocking them.

It seems a logical assumption at first since if companies stop producing DVD related goods, most consumers won’t be able to get their hands on them. Unfortunately, that assumption is itself based on the shaky assumption that consumers will continue to focus all of their resources on improving their home video experience.

On the contrary, consumers’ attention will have shifted to streaming and downloadable video content well before Blu-ray has the chance to become entrenched enough to be considered “the new DVD” (an accomplishment Blu-ray may never achieve since many will simply skip over disc-based high definition and jump right into online content).

I’m not saying that streaming and downloaded video content is going to somehow “replace” Blu-ray. Who knows when the United States, the biggest home entertainment market in the world, is ever going to have the network infrastructure to support the high bandwidth needed for quality high definition online content? The United States is so far behind Europe and Asia when it comes to network infrastructure that it would be funny if it weren’t so pathetic. But I digress…

Standard definition streaming content is a high-growth sector of the home video industry. Netflix has offered streaming movies and television shows for quite some time now with video game consoles and new set top hardware able to handle high definition content. With such video on demand offerings widely available and the ability to TiVo hours of television content, one has to wonder how long the average consumer will even bother with physical discs.

But that’s just one piece of the puzzle. There’s also the rise of portable media players to consider. More and more people are taking advantage of the convenience of watching television shows and movies not in their living rooms on big screen high definition televisions but on the small screens of their iPhones, Zunes or PlayStation Portables.

RoughlyDrafted Magazine goes into further detail as to why “low def” is the new HD and also discusses some of Blu-ray’s flaws that I didn’t even bother to touch upon, such as DRM security measures. The author points out that while the less-than-standard resolution video offered for consumption on mobile devices doesn’t directly compete with the high definition content available on Blu-ray discs, consumers will favor low definition content for pretty much the same reasons that they jumped at MP3 while ignoring the Super Audio CD and DVD-Audio formats.

While Sony can finally say that they created a proprietary format that actually “won” the right to be called the standard for its class, it really was too late a time to introduce this technology. The future lies in an entirely different direction with a focus on convenience and portability over fidelity, and any hopes from the studios that Blu-ray will be the new magic technology that brings them back to the golden age of massive sales throughput and vast profits is little more than a pipe dream.

Categories: DVD & Blu-ray, Movies, Technology Tags:

Movie review: The Princess Bride

December 30th, 2009 Nathaniel No comments

Despite what you may think from looking at the cover art for any of the several DVD or Blu-ray releases of this film, The Princess Bride is at its core a romantic comedy. To those hoping and expecting a swashbuckling fantasy adventure and especially to those who, after reading my previous sentence, dread yet another cheesy lovefest typically driven by some pairing of Matthew McConaughey, Kate Hudson, Katherine Heigl, Hugh Grant, or one of the three rom-com Jennifers (Aniston, Garner and Lopez), I say, “Fear not!”

The Princess Bride isn’t your typical romantic comedy. Yes, there’s a guy and a girl who end up together at the end of the movie, but they’re together almost from the very start. Yes, there’s comedy, but it’s the subtle, smart type of comedy that’s typical of director Rob Reiner’s work and doesn’t really have anything to do with the romance itself.

The star-crossed lovers don’t dance around the elephant in the room for the better part of an hour and a half or bumble through relationship after relationship until they realize that they were actually meant to be with the person who only an hour earlier in the film disgusted them.

You see, The Princess Bride is about that rare true love you rarely find in the real world and usually only read about in fairy tales, and the swashbuckling fantasy adventures a young farmhand must go through in order to be reunited with the beautiful young maiden with whom he shares an eternal and unbreakable bond.

This tale of princesses, pirates, giants, geniuses, swordsmen, and scoundrels is told by a grandfather, played by Peter Falk (television’s Columbo), to his sick grandson, played by The Wonder Years’ Fred Savage, who is initially resistant to listening to a fairy tale, let alone a romantic one.

The story centers on the love between a young boy named Westley (Cary Elwes in the role that introduced him to American audiences) who works on a farm and Buttercup, the daughter of the owner of that farm (Robin Wright, who was most famous for this role until she played Jenny in Forrest Gump).

Westley joins the crew of a merchant ship in order to make the money necessary for them to marry but is reportedly killed in an attack by the Dread Pirate Roberts, leaving a devastated Buttercup vulnerable to the advances of the arrogant Prince Humperdinck (Academy Award nominee Chris Sarandon).

When Buttercup is kidnapped by three thieves for hire, the Dread Pirate Roberts gives chase, apparently looking to claim the ransom for himself. Obviously, things aren’t what they seem, but I won’t spoil any of the revelations here as the clever story is part of what makes this movie so entertaining.

The Princess Bride features quite a diverse cast of actors who you normally wouldn’t associate with a fantasy adventure but seem to be quite at home in a comedy. The two most well known members of the cast have relatively small parts: the late professional wrestler André the Giant plays the kind-hearted Fezzik, one of the three kidnappers who possess incredible strength and has a penchant for rhyming, and famed comedian Billy Crystal plays Miracle Max, a former employee of Prince Humperdinck’s who provides a chocolate-coated pill that resurrects a “mostly dead” Westley and pines for “a nice MLT – mutton, lettuce and tomato sandwich where the mutton is nice and lean and the tomato is ripe.”

Veteran comedic actor Christopher Guest makes his first notable appearance in a mainstream feature film (he earlier appeared in a much bigger role in the cult classic “rockumentary” This is Spin̈al Tap as lead guitarist of fictional British rock band Spin̈al Tap) in The Princess Bride as the villainous Count Rugen, the chief advisor of Prince Humperdinck, who has a morbid fascination with pain and suffering and is actually “writing the definitive work on the subject.”

Wallace Shawn, another veteran comedic character actor known to most people as the voice of the insecure Rex in Disney’s Toy Story films, plays Vizzini, the Sicilian leader of the trio of kidnappers who is the brains of the group, boasting a genius-level intellect and a knack for complex strategy. He is the physically least imposing member of the group but belies that with his huge ego and condescending attitude.

Rounding out that group is Inigo Montoya, a highly skilled Spanish swordsman on a quest for revenge against the six-fingered man who murdered his father, a prominent sword maker. Inigo provides the most quoted line from the film: “Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.”

Inigo is portrayed by stage and screen actor Mandy Patinkin, most recently seen in television series Criminal Minds but most famous for critically acclaimed Broadway performanices – he won a Tony Award for originating the role of Che in Andrew Lloyd Webber’s Evita on Broadway, was nominated for another for playing the title character in Stephen Sondheim’s Sunday in the Park with George, and won an Emmy Award for his portrayal of Dr. Jeffrey Geiger on television’s Chicago Hope.

Inigo has the most depth of any character on the cast, with a developed backstory (unlike every other character in the movie) and a very defined sense of purpose. Despite his status as a secondary character to Westley’s hero role, I was naturally drawn to his character more than to Westley’s and ended up rooting more for him to finally exact justice upon his father’s killer than for Westley’s to rescue Buttercup. His desire to avenge his father’s death is every bit as compelling as Westley’s quest to be reunited with his true love. Patinkin turns in far and away the most memorable performance in the film.

The Princess Bride is at its core a heart-warming, feel good love story that has enough fairy tale fantasy and adventure to thrill youngsters and plenty of subtle, satirical humor to keep the adults chuckling to themselves throughout. Mix in wildly entertaining supporting characters, a noble quest for justice and a strengthening bond between a cynical child and his kindly grandfather, and you have the ingredients for a classic that you and your family can enjoy time and again.

Final score: 5 out of 5

Experience this for yourself!

2009 Golden Globe nominees

December 16th, 2009 Nathaniel No comments

The Hollywood Foreign Press Association released its 2009 Golden Globes nominations today with a good mix of expected nominees and surprise candidates.

The big news for me is that my two favorite new television shows of the season - Glee and Modern Family - were nominated for “Best Television Series – Musical Or Comedy.” In addition, Glee’s Matthew Morrison, Lea Michele and Jane Lynch were nominated for their lead actor, lead actress and supporting actress roles, respectively.

The “Best Television Series – Drama” is an interesting category in that only one of the five nominees, House, is on a broadcast network while the other four – Big Love, Dexter, Mad Men and True Blood – all reside on pay cable channels. I don’t know if that speaks more to the quality of these cable shows or the dearth of solid dramas on CBS, NBC, ABC and Fox.

On the other hand, the major networks own the “Best Television Series – Musical or Comedy” category with NBC’s 30 Rock and The Office alongside Modern Family (ABC) and Glee (Fox) with cable represented only by HBO’s Entourage, whose most recent season was fairly weak (I still love the show, though).

Congratulations go out to Steve Carell from The Office and Thomas Jane from HBO’s Hung, a show I got into earlier in the season that is also represented by Jane Adams in the “Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role” category, for their “Best Performance by an Actor In A Television Series – Musical Or Comedy” nominations.

And let’s not forget Neil Patrick Harris’s nomination for his portrayal of the ever-hilarious Barney Stinson on How I Met Your Mother and Jeremy Piven’s nomination for playing ruthless Hollywood agent Ari Gold on Entourage. I love ‘em both but admit that I’m pulling for NPH this time because Piven has already won 3 Emmy awards and a Golden Globe for this role.

I admit I’m a little disappointed that Jim Parsons was not nominated for his portrayal of Sheldon Cooper, Ph.D. on The Big Bang Theory, one of the funnier shows on television. He got an Emmy nod earlier this year, but I guess the Hollywood Foreign Press Association didn’t share The Academy of Television Arts & Sciences’ opinion.

On the movie side of things, nominees were pretty much as expected with a few surprises here and there. Movies like Precious, Up in the Air and The Hurt Locker – nominated in the “Best Motion Picture – Drama” category – and Julie & Julia and Nine – nominated in the “Best Motion Picture – Musical or Comedy” category – have had their fair share of Oscar buzz.

I’m a little surprised, though, by the nomination of Avatar for a top award although I suppose that maybe I should not be since the movie holds an 83% general rating and a 93% Top Critics rating at RottenTomatoes.com. I’ve read and heard a lot of backlash from film geeks about the lackluster story, snail’s pace of development and cheesy dialogue, and especially about the intimidating length (161 minutes).

The nominations of George Clooney (Up In the Air), Gabourey Sidibe (Precious: Based On The Novel Push By Sapphire), Morgan Freeman (Invictus), Tobey Maguire (Brothers), and Meryl Streep (Julie & Julia) were quite expected considering all the Oscar buzz surrounding each of them.

The surprise was in the nomination of Robert Downey, Jr. for his portrayal of literary icon Sherlock Holmes, Joseph Gordon-Levitt for his part in (500) Days of Summer and Sandra Bullock for her role in The Proposal, and in the number of dual nominees this year: Bullock scored another one for the drama Blindside, Streep got her second for It’s Complicated and Matt Damon was nominated for his lead role in The Informant! and his supporting role in Invictus where he goes up against Christoph Waltz’ portrayal in Inglourious Basterds of Hans Landa, described by many as one of the best movie villains in history.

More interesting to me, though, is the “Best Animated Feature Film” category since I’m a big fan of animated movies. For the first time since the Golden Globes and Oscars started honoring these films with their own category, there has truly been a wide field from which to nominate. Despite how good some of the other nominees are, however, it’s realistically going to boil down to a vote for either Up’s impressive accomplishment of being the film that shows the world that animated movies can be as deep and sophisticated as live action films or The Princess And The Frog’s impressive accomplishment of bringing back the magic of Disney’s traditional animation studio with a generous dash of nostalgia for people like me who grew up on Disney movies. If the people were to choose, I’m sure nostalgia would win out, but we’re talking about critics here so I’ll have to give the edge to Up.

My top ten favorite movies

November 25th, 2009 Nathaniel No comments

“What’s your favorite movie of all time?”

This question or some variant thereof is inevitably asked anytime you meet a film lover whether you’re at a party, on a first date, at a family gathering, on line for the opening show of the latest summer blockbuster, or just striking up a conversation with a stranger on the train or bus.

Film buffs are a notoriously opinionated lot. You can often see the baited anticipation in their eyes as they await your response. They’re ready to pounce on any answer that doesn’t fit into their world view, to rip apart any love for the latest Michael Bay action fest or a cheesy romantic comedy, and to tear down any illusions that you may have about Ben Affleck’s acting ability.

These elitists rabidly defend their chosen films like a lioness protecting her cubs – God forbid you make the mistake of revealing that you thought the Ewoks in Return of the Jedi were adorable or that you had a good time watching the second or third Matrix movies.

Having said that, I emphasize that the point of this entry is to detail the ten movies that I most enjoyed watching over the years and not to list what I think are the ten best movies of all time (that’s a different article ;-) ). These are the movies that I had the most fun watching and could watch over and over again, say, if I were stranded on a desert island that somehow had a television, a DVD player and some way to power them. 

  1. Aliens – My sister and I watched this movie at least once a day for a year when I was in junior high school. I had every line in the movie memorized at the time. ‘Nuff said.
     
  2. Finding Nemo – A perfect mix of adventure, drama and comedy with a heaping teaspoon of heart that speaks to both the parents and children in the audience created by the masters of storytelling that happens to involve animated characters – what’s there not to love?
     
  3. The Shawshank Redemption – Before I saw this movie in a college auditorium with my future wife, I didn’t know a whole lot about it: I didn’t even know that it was about a prison! I had heard good things about the film but went in with mild expectations only to be completely blown away by how powerful a film it was. Easily my favorite drama of all time.
     
  4. Forrest Gump – How anyone could not love Tom Hanks’ career-defining performance as one of the most likable film characters of all time escapes me.
     
  5. Labyrinth – I can’t count the number of times my sister and I watched this movie on VHS. Aside from being my first introduction to the beautiful Jennifer Connelly, the movie included an enchanting tale, an underrated performance by David Bowie as the King of Goblins, superb puppet work by Jim Henson and his crew, and some catchy if cheesy tunes.
     
  6. The Princess Bride – Probably the first fairy tale film for adults. Its clever premise and witty dialogue, not to mention memorable performances by Mandy Patinkin and Wallace Shawn, make it one of the best movies of its time.
     
  7. Dumb & Dumber – In my opinion, this was without a doubt the definitive comic performance of Jim Carrey’s career, thanks in no small part to clever writing and direction by The Farrelly Brothers. This is one of the few movies I saw three times in the theaters, and I laughed equally hard during all three viewings.
     
  8. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the RingPeter Jackon’s epic adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings trilogy is, as a whole, one of the most impressive pieces of filmmaking ever undertaken. I think the first film is the only one that feels like a complete film unto itself thanks to its task of introducing the characters, setting up the conflict and establishing the world unfolding on the screen. It also has a notably lighter tone compared to the darker aspects of humanity explored in the later films.
     
  9. Jurassic Park – I still remember the sense of awe I felt welling up inside me during the reveal shot of the brachiosaurus early in the film. This was, at the time, a truly amazing looking film with revolutionary effects. How can you go wrong with realistic dinosaurs?
     
  10. Pulp Fiction – This was the world’s first real introduction to Quentin Tarantino’s brand of writing and filmmaking. It reintroduced us to John Travolta’s undeniable charisma and established Samuel L. Jackson as the quintessential king of all things cool in Hollywood. Who can forget the intense recital of Ezekiel 25:17, the Jack Rabbit Slim’s twist contest and the gimp? This movie is chock full of some of the most fun and memorable movie moments of the past few decades.

Of course, because I enjoy watching movies so much I obviously had many favorites that simply couldn’t make it into the short list of the top ten. Among the movies that didn’t make the final cut are animated masterpieces like Shrek and Beauty and the Beast, sci-fi mainstays like Star Wars and The Matrix, and superhero adventures like Spider-man and The Dark Knight. Even some powerful dramas like Saving Private Ryan and The Silence of the Lambs are up there.

What are your favorite movies of all time and why?

Categories: Movies Tags:

Movie review: Aliens

November 20th, 2009 Nathaniel No comments
Corporal Hicks (Michael Biehn) shows Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) how to use a pulse rifle

Corporal Hicks (Michael Biehn) shows Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) how to use a pulse rifle

The common perception is that a sequel to the film is never as good as the original, and that belief holds true for the overwhelming majority of film franchises throughout history with good reason.

Most of the time, studio executives greenlight a sequel because they know that it is much easier to milk the success of a popular movie than to come up with a new intellectual property that has just as much chance of becoming the next The Adventures of Pluto Nash as it does of being the next Forrest Gump.

On a rare occasion, a sequel comes out that is notably better than its predecessor to a degree that critics and film buffs can point to it as an exception to the rule. Movies like Clear and Present Danger, Superman II and Back to the Future II were better than the previous films in the franchises, but it’s tough to say that Patriot Games, Superman and Back to the Future weren’t themselves great movies that were almost as good as their successors.

Even rarer are the films that surpass the originals in such a way that there is a distinct night-and-day difference between the quality of the two movies in favor of the sequel. James Cameron’s Aliens is one such film: a tense, thrilling, action-packed extravaganza with a great, if unknown, cast and a gripping plot that keeps viewers on the edge of their seats.

On the edge of my seat I was for a good part of one year during junior high school when my sister and I watched our Aliens VHS twice a day every day. The first viewing was always a full run-through of the movie followed by a ten-minute rewind session and a second viewing where we skipped to all of our favorite scenes (how useful DVD’s instant scene selection functionality would have been back then).

We knew every line in the movie by heart and had loads of fun reenacting some of the more intense scenes. The film even inspired me to write loads of fan fiction more than a decade before I had even heard the term. Regardless of whether they liked me, many of the kids in my classes waited to read the latest chapter of my “epic” battle between Colonial Marines and vicious aliens to see whether their character lived or died (and whether they went out heroically or died like a punk).

It probably wouldn’t surprise you to read that Aliens is easily my number one favorite movie of all time.

The premise of the movie is a grand evolution in many different ways of the one presented in Alien, a horrifying science fiction thriller directed by Sir Ridley Scott and first released in 1979.

In that original film, the crew of the commercial towing ship Nostromo, on their way home to Earth, are awakened from stasis by the ship’s computer after it picks up a transmission of unknown origin from a nearby planet. Acting on orders from The Weyland-Yutani Corporation, their corporate employers, they descend to the planet’s surface to investigate, damaging their vessel in the process. While several members of the crew work to repair the ship, the captain, executive officer and navigator head out to find the source of the transmission and discover that it originates from a derelict spacecraft. It is in this wreck that the X.O. becomes the victim of some strange alien creature that attaches itself to his head and puts him in a sort of comatose state only to later fall off and die. Of course, things don’t end well for the officer, as the viewer soon discovers in one of the most horrifying scenes in motion picture history due in part to the very real reactions from the other actors, who were not informed ahead of time by the rest of the crew exactly what was going to happen.

While Alien was essentially a survival horror film set in space where “no one can hear you scream,” Aliens is at its essence a war movie with the cocky Colonial Marines who think they can take out any enemy representing the technologically superior, gung ho United States military during the Vietnam War, the seemingly mindless aliens representing the more primitive North Vietnamese forces and the transformed mining colony representing the unfamiliar and hostile foreign environment that greatly favored the enemy.

There are, of course, some scares (one particularly gruesome moment early in the movie is very reminiscent of Alien’s defining scene) and plenty of thrills as the Colonial Marines, whose forces dwindle dangerously as the plot moves forward, fight desperately to survive long enough for their android executive officer to establish a communications link with the spare drop ship on board the warship Sulaco and remotely pilot it down to the planet’s surface.

Along the way, we’re treated to a roller coaster ride of high impact action scenes interspersed with eerie intermissions in which we’re never quite sure when the quiet safety will be torn away by another heart-pounding alien encounter. As fun as the guns, loud explosions and in-your-face thrills in Aliens are, however, the more compelling aspect of the movie are the characters, both in how they develop and what they represent.

Front and center, of course, is the lead character of Lieutenant Ellen Ripley, played with much gravitas by the very talented Sigourney Weaver who received her first Academy Award nomination (and one of the only such nominations for an actor in a science fiction film) for the role. Ripley is widely regarded as the first true action heroine of cinema, and while the seed for this was planted in Alien, it is in Aliens that she truly evolves into this pioneering character.

In the earlier film, Ripley is the sole survivor and manages to kill off the menacing alien creature, but the overwhelming impression is that a lot of her success can be attributed to luck. She’s not unlike Jamie Lee Curtis’s Laurie Strode at the end of Halloween, the same as when the movie started save for some emotional or psychological scars from the events that unfolded around her.

In Aliens, Ripley starts off as that relatively weak and timid character, still unsure of herself and perceived by the stronger people around her as having little to offer to the mission, but develops, quite necessarily, into a leader who is able to organize the few remaining soldiers and civilians into a semblance of a fighting force and eventually earn their respect (as begrudging as it is from some). In the third act of the film, it is Ripley who goes on the solo mission to rescue an abducted friend, and it is Ripley who again defeats the last remaining alien threat although this time it is very clear her decisiveness, ingenuity and courage are greater contributing factors than luck is.

For all that Ripley has to do and go through in order to prove herself to the Marines and win the respect of her fellows, and our respect as well, it’s ironic that she places the same responsibilities on Bishop, the android who acts as Sulaco’s executive officer. Ripley is clear early in the movie about her disdain and distrust despite Bishop’s insistence that it is impossible for him “to harm, or by omission of action allow to be harmed, a human being,” even as the marines complain about how annoying civilians are and scoff specifically at her attempts to contribute to the mission.

The actions Bishop, played by horror and science fiction journeyman Lance Henriksen, takes in order to rescue the remaining members of the mission, and subsequently earn Ripley’s trust and respect, actually elevate the character into another challenge to cinematic convention of the time. Just as Ripley made plausible the idea of a woman being the hero in an action film instead of a fragile creature to be ogled and/or protected, Bishop showed people that they could trust technology.

Amidst films like Westworld, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Demon Seed, and even Alien (in which the android Ash, portrayed by Sir Ian Holm, betrays the crew under orders) and Cameron’s own Terminator, which fed into the common fear and paranoia people felt towards the ever quickly advancing technology and machinery, Aliens instead portrayed technology as something to be depended upon with Bishop’s willingness to risk himself for a chance of rescue and ultimate success in getting the survivors back to the Sulaco. This new perspective on technology, an admitted obsession of Cameron’s, is something he again explored in Terminator 2: Judgement Day.

The other two civilian characters are for the most part predictable and flat. Carter Burke, played by comedian Paul Reiser, is a corporate lawyer for Weyland-Yutani who hitches a ride on the mission in order to watch out for his employer’s interests (it is their colony that the marines are investigating), and he is as slimy as one expects a movie corporate lawyer to be. And Newt, played by Carrie Henn in her only film role, is rather useless within the context of the film despite being played up as the only colonist to have evaded the alien infestation by using her wits – according to Ripley, she survived for more than 17 days “with no weapons and no training.” About all she does is look scared and run away from danger, although she is the catalyst for Ripley’s transformation into an action heroine.

The Colonial Marines are also, for the most part, a bunch of throwaway characters, mostly there to act all gung ho in the beginning of the film and then get torn apart by the aliens. Few have more than a handful of lines or moments of screen time and use them to act like the archetypical caricatures of soldiers we so often see in movies.

There’s Lieutenant Gorman (William Hope), the fresh-out-of-the-academy officer with no real field experience who quickly alienates the troopers under his command and subsequently, and quite predictably, doesn’t keep it together when the proverbial excrement hits the air circulation system.

There’s Sergeant Apone, played by real life Vietnam War hero Al Matthews in a casting movie similar to the one that put real life drill sergeant R. Lee Ermey in Stanley Kubrick’s Full Metal Jacket, who insults his troops, chomps cigars and looks down his nose at Ripley.

There’s Private First Class Drake (Mark Rolston, most recently seen in Saw VI), the stereotypical big thug wearing the perpetual snarl and oozing what ultimately is foolish bravado in the face of danger, and his fellow M56 “smart” gun operator Private First Class Vasquez of the hotheaded, tough-as-nails Latina stereotype (despite being played by the Jewish Jenette Goldstein) now represented faithfully by Michelle Rodriguez. Vasquez has a significantly bigger role in the film than Drake but ultimately doesn’t climb out of the “butch soldier woman” box.

The standouts of the squad, however, are Corporal Hicks, played by Michael Biehn in his second of three (four if you count his deleted scene in Terminator 2) James Cameron films, and Private First Class Hudson, the breakout role for Big Love’s Bill Paxton, who himself appeared in five James Cameron films and, coincidentally, five films with Biehn.

Hicks is the most grounded and level-headed of the Colonial Marines, and is the only one willing to give Ripley the time of day in the earlier scenes – in fact, one such scene, which was deleted from the theatrical release but reintegrated in DVD director’s cuts, had Hicks showing genuine concern for Ripley’s apprehension at entering the colony compound built near the crash site of the derelict ship from Alien. It is Hicks who is able to keep his head during the initial encounter with the aliens and get the survivors of his squad out of harm’s way, and to recognize the need to destroy the colony despite corporate interests. The role is not a stretch for Biehn, who also played the hero Kyle Reese in Terminator.

Hudson, on the other hand, is decidedly not level-headed, but that fits with his role as the everyman – his character represents the normal person dropped into a far from normal situation. He provides necessary light comic relief from the film’s tensity and reacts as I believe most people would if they found themselves trapped in an isolated place with an army of vicious aliens hunting them down. Paxton plays Hudson with just enough exasperation to be believable without becoming unlikable where the audience can’t root for or laugh with him, and, despite his inexperience at the time, provides us with the most memorable character of the film.

Aliens is ultimately a fun sci-fi romp with a good mix of thrill, excitement and drama that at the time of its release was generally unseen in such a genre movie. Like a master bartender concocting his signature cocktail, Cameron provides the perfect combination of ingredients to create one of the definitive films of 1986, one that turned many cinematic conventions on their heads and still stands today as a sci-fi action masterpiece.

Final score: 5 out of 5

Experience it for yourself!

Movie review: Finding Nemo

November 14th, 2009 Nathaniel No comments
Marlin and Nemo: father and son fin-in-fin

Marlin and Nemo: father and son fin-in-fin

Sometimes a movie comes along that has it all – a great story that speaks directly to the audience, well developed characters that moviegoers can relate to, a good mix of both comedic and serious scenes, and a great cast to boot. Finding Nemo is such a movie.

Disney and Pixar’s family feature masterpiece, directed by Andrew Stanton (who accepted the Best Animated Film Oscar at the Academy Awards) from a story he wrote and a screenplay he co-wrote with Pixar collaborators Bob Petersen and David Reynolds, is one of my favorite movies of all time and is easily my favorite Disney feature.

Finding Nemo has a spot in my top ten list not just because of its perfect mix of many of the elements that make a great movie experience but also because it is the first movie I took my nephew Jeffrey to see.

People who have known me a long time know that one thing I’ve always wanted, even as a little kid, was to have children of my own. I never viewed fatherhood as a speed bump I had to deal with on the road of life; rather, I prepared myself to embrace and cherish the privilege once fate saw fit to bless me with it.

When Finding Nemo came out in May 2003, I had not yet had any kids – in fact, I would not become a father for another four years – but I loved Jeffrey dearly and doted upon him almost as if he were my own son. Taking my nephew, who had just turned three years old, to his first movie was an honor I still treasure to this day and I imagine will only be surpassed when I take my sons Alexander and Aidan to their first movie.

The importance the relationship between someone and their child had to me factored greatly into my love for Finding Nemo, whose story focuses mainly on that subject. I value the perspectives offered by the movie even more now that I have two sons of my own, both for whom I feel an overwhelming concern and need to protect, and I have a greater sense of appreciation for how my parents raised me and why they did the things they did.

Thankfully, neither of my parents suffered the same fate that the title character’s mother does in the opening scene, but such a tragedy is not an ingredient of a parent’s protectiveness of their child but a catalyst to elevate that instinct to possibly illogical levels. In other words, you don’t have to have lost your spouse in order to want to protect your kids from the often harsh realities of life for as long as you can.

It’s really no wonder that Stanton conceived the idea of the movie from his own feelings of overprotectiveness of his child, and it is because of this origin that the story has so many resounding truths that speak directly to not only the parents in the audience but the children as well.

Indeed, one of the strongest qualities of the movie is that it overflows with insight into the perspectives of both parents who don’t want to let their children grow up and the children who think their parents are holding them down, and then poignantly flips those views around so each group can see things from the other side of the mirror.

Despite the depth and wisdom of the lessons, Finding Nemo is still first and foremost a fun family film (try saying that fives times fast) with plenty of hilarity for both adults and children alike. Much of this is supplied by Ellen Degeneres in the form of Dory, a scatterbrained regal tang with no short term memory who befriends Nemo’s father Marlin, a neurotic clownfish played by Albert Brooks, shortly after Nemo is captured by an Australian dentist on a scuba diving vacation. I’ve never really been a fan of Degeneres’ standup or television work, but her cheerfulness and good natured charm makes Dory quite the memorable character.

Equally humorous is the gang of fish who live in the aquarium in which Nemo ends up. Led by Gill, a scarred moorish idol voiced perfectly by Willem Dafoe (who portrayed the Green Goblin in Spider-man), the gang, which includes a puffer fish named Bloat (played by Everybody Loves Raymond’s Brad Garrett) who tends to expand like a balloon when he gets upset, a yellow tang named Bubbles (voiced by Office Space’s Stephen Root) who is obsessed with bubbles coming out of a plastic treasure chest and a friendly pink starfish named Peach (played by The West Wing’s Allison Janney), enlists Nemo to help them with an unlikely plan involving a toilet bowl and plastic baggies to escape the confines of the tank.

Adding to the fun factor are a trio of sharks (played by Barry Humphries, Eric Bana and Bruce Spence) who have sworn themselves to the mantra “Fish are friends, not food” as members of “Fish Eaters Anonymous,” a school of moonfish who arrange themselves into images to help Dory and poke fun at Marlin with a collective voice provided by Cheers’ John Ratzenberger (who has a long standing relationship with Pixar and plays a minor character in each of the studios’ films), and a friendly pelican strangely interested in dentistry played by Academy Award winner Geoffrey Rush.

Of course, Stanton couldn’t let the cast have all the fun and lent his voice to surfer dude hipster Crush, one of a clan of laid back sea turtles riding the East Australian Current who gives Marlin and Dory a ride after their particularly nasty encounter with a school of box jellyfish. Although Crush is only in the film for a few minutes, he plays an important role in Marlin’s development by giving him some sound, much needed advice on fatherhood, and in fact Stanton gets to convey the central lesson of the movie when Marlin asks his character about how parents can figure out when their kids are ready for the real world.

Finding Nemo also amazes from a technical perspective due to an incredible undersea world created by some of the most impressive computer animation techniques ever used in a feature film. Especially gratifying is the accurate portrayal of vision - distant objects are as blurry and unrecognizable in the murky depths of the ocean as they should be, and the whole movie has a sort of softness of focus, a realism born from various scuba diving trips the animators took to Australia’s Great Barrier Reef.

Nevertheless, even with this shroud of reality draped across the moving images on the screen, the world as perceived by Marlin, Dory and their aquatic friends is beautiful – from the cornucopia of colors adorning the reef Nemo calls home to the bubbly vortex of rushing water that is the East Australian Current, Finding Nemo is a breathtaking wonder to behold.

Considering how visually stunning the movie is, it’s puzzling that Disney has yet to release it on Blu-ray disc. As early as October 2006, the title has appeared in official lists of Disney movies that would be released on the high-definition format, and in January 2008, Walt Disney Studios Home Entertainment made an official announcement of the release, even going so far as to cite full motion picture-in-picture and a new 7.1 surround sound mix as features. However, the supposed release date of Fall 2008 came and went without so much as a whimper of news about when rabid fans like I could expect it.

Disney, the day you release Finding Nemo on Blu-ray is the day you make money hand over fist. The film is still your highest grossing cinematic release with a worldwide gross just shy of $866.6 million (The Incredibles came the closest to dethroning it with a little less than $635.6 million worldwide). So snap to it!

In conclusion, I highly recommend that anyone looking for a well written, visually impressive, funny, heart-warming family film that will tug at your heart strings while making you smile buy or rent Finding Nemo as soon as possible. I absolutely love this movie, and I honestly think that you’ll have a hard time not loving it, too.

Final score: 5 out of 5

Experience it for yourself!