Election time!

Final results from the last poll:

The question:
What was the best performance of the year?

Choice	Votes
Javier Bardem (No Country for Old Men)	18 (25%)
Cate Blanchett (I'm Not There)	8 (11%)
Daniel Day-Lewis (There Will Be Blood)	11 (15%)
Angelina Jolie (Beowulf)	1 (1%)
Kid who played McLovin (Superbad)	12 (17%)
Britney Spears (MTV VMAs)	5 (7%)
None of the Above	15 (21%)
Total	70 votes

My question - if one of those ain't the winner, what was? Who are you 15 that voted for None of the Above?

Anyhow, the new poll is up, and it centers on one of the people listed above. Have fun...

And then...

Fletch's Film Review: Cloverfield

What is left to be said about Cloverfield? I've read probably 20 reviews since it was released a week and a half ago, and they're all right in one form or another. Some have praised it as a visceral moviegoing experience, an allegory for 9/11 and the birth of a new form of cinema. Others have claimed it to be nothing more than an idea, a shell and sham of a movie created by marketers, complete with bad acting, bad judgement by the characters and a frustrating third act.

To which I say: yes. Cloverfield is all these things. People are reading too much into it, looking for answers where there lies only more questions, creating a mystery where there isn't really one to be had. But that's the point, of not only being a fan but of being creator J.J. Abrams, right?

Just as its cinematic predecessor The Blair Witch Project did with the ghost story, Cloverfield starts as nothing more than a simple (but brilliant) idea: what would a monster movie look like through the eyes of the people running from the monster. That's really all it took to jump start a mini-phenomenon. Around that simple premise, 6 or so characters were born, as was a Godzilla-like monster. Throw in a decapitated Statue of Liberty and stretch it out to 90 minutes or so and you have an instant blockbuster.

But where others might have gone wrong, the makers of Cloverfield acted wisely, eschewing many of the things we've come to expect from blockbusters. You won't find product placements for Chrysler or Doritos, nor will you get a wink-wink overacting cameo from a lovable character actor. The laws of physics won't be flouted, nor will the characters turn into Superman and Wonder Woman. There will be no hot single from the band of the moment blaring over the end credits, and the dialogue won't make you wish you watched the film with the mute button pressed.

The end result is a quasi-intelligent, non-insulting, popcorn-stuffed roller coaster ride that serves its purpose in spades, giving the audience all the smashy destruction it can take, all the while staying true to its concept and delivering some mystery with its mayhem. Dig too far and you're bound to come up with logic issues (Worth the trip for Beth? What was Marlena thinking? Can the camcorder battery really last that long? Was that Dumbo dropping into the ocean?), but to do so is to miss the point. Sit back, take a couple Dramamine and enjoy the show.

Fletch's Film Rating:

"Darn tootin!"

And then...

Build 'em up...Tear 'em down: Terrence Howard

Though he's been acting for over 15 years, Terrence Howard didn't burst onto the mainstream scene until 2004-5 with the one-two punch of Crash and Hustle & Flow. With his tremendous acting and bright green eyes, the man who had played "Customer" in 1993's Who's the Man had earned his time to shine. And shine he did, earning an Oscar nomination for his performance in Hustle & Flow as well a winning a number of other awards between the two films.

With all this newfound attention, Terrence was most likely flooded with scripts - directors and producers all eager to work with this shining star. Apparently, Terrence was pretty eager, too - for paychecks, anyway. Howard starred or co-starred in six (6!) movies that were released in 2007, and has another three on tap for release in '08 (amongst them: Iron Man). Let's reflect on his '07 output:


















Well, that was a fun trip down memory lane, right? Of course, I didn't see a single one of the above movies, so I can't (or at least, shouldn't) comment too much on their respective qualities, but I can let IMDb voters talk for me:

Pride: 3.7/10
The Hunting Party: 7.2/10
The Brave One: 7.0/10
August Rush: 7.3/10
Awake: 6.5/10
The Perfect Holiday: 2.1/10

Overall, a 5.6/10 average, which, to be honest, is higher than I thought it would be. Still, would it hurt to say no every now and then, Terrence? Even John Travolta thinks you should ease up a bit.

And then...

The LAMB Devours the Oscars

If you like the Academy Awards, do yourself a favor and head over to the LAMB. Every weekday for the next couple weeks, a new post written by a different LAMB will be published, each covering a different category (or more) of the Oscars (there are 24 in all). This looks to be an excellent series, with a number of great movie bloggers participating. Tune in each day to the LAMB to see which award will be dissected and overanalyzed next; if nothing else, check out that day's blogger if you like their stuff. Enjoy!

And then...

Fletch's Film Review: Cassandra's Dream

Woody Allen's latest London-based family drama (see Match Point) stars Ewan McGregor and Colin Farrell as a pair of lower-middle class brothers (because they look so much alike) trying to make their mark on the world. As their mother says, Farrell's Terry is the athletic one and McGregror's Ian is the brains; Ian splits his time between managing his father's restaurant and borrowing Jags from the garage Terry works at to impress the ladies. Ian is constantly chasing pipe dreams, from romancing an actress to investing in California hotels. Terry, meanwhile, is content to be the mechanic he is, provided that he's able to support his gambling problem - he's partial to the dogs and the poker table, and he capable of some mighty streaks, both winning and losing.

We first meet up with the brothers just prior to one of Terry's winning streaks, as they prepare to negotiate the purchase of a small boat. After said streak (and a pocketful of pounds), the boat is theirs; it is fittingly named Cassandra's Dream, after the dog that Terry bet on to win.

Shortly thereafter, Ian meets Angela, an upcoming actress. He falls for her quickly, but feels the pressure of keeping up his GQ lifestlye on his limited wages. Meanwhile, Terry's winning streak comes to a blunt end, as he gets himself in debt to the tune of 90,000 pounds to the local bookie. Around this time, their rich uncle (Tom Wilkinson), an L.A. plastic surgeon, comes to town. And wouldn't you know it, they almost immediately solicit him for monetary help. As it turns out, though, Uncle Howard has some problems of his own - his practice is is in trouble, he's soon to be sued, and oh by the way, he'd like the boys to "get rid of" a colleague of his that's set to testify against him.

To share more might be spoiling it, but it also might be unnecessary. Allen's tale is beyond straightforward, travelling along a straight line that never wavers until the end, where it doesn't so much as end as it just plays itself out and stops. In between, McGregor and Wilkinson do their solid work, but Farrell steals the show, playing against type as a morally troubled soul who can't handle the request of him, much less the subsequent actions. Unfortunately, the women of the film are all but afterthoughts, with Hayley Atwell's actress Angela getting the Scarlett Johannson-in-Match Point treatment - she may have significant screen time, but her character is more or less an unlikable whore.

By the end, though, you won't really care about any of the characters - this is not a tale of ordinary people doing extraordinary things; instead, it's a tale of stupid people that compile mistake after mistake, compounding their stupidity with every available turn. You'll be more relieved than the characters by the time the credits roll.

Fletch's Film Rating:

"Whatever."

And then...

TGITDNMAR (1/25/07)

It's that time again for TGITDNMAR, which (obviously) stands for Thank God It's The Day New Movies Are Released.

No comments this week. I'm coming in cold and going out colder...

Untraceable
Gregory Hoblit, the director Primal Fear and last year's Fracture returns with this remake of The Net. What's that? Not a remake? My bad. But seriously, this is a thriller starring Diane Lane and Colin Hanks about a YouTube killer of sorts, who posts videos of his victims online. Sounds ho-hum, but Hoblit has a decent track record, so who knows?
Fletch's Chance of Viewing (in the theater): 13%

Meet the Spartans
"From the makers of Epic Movie." Need I say more?
Fletch's Chance of Viewing: 0%







4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days
Those who have seen this on the festival circuit have nothing but good things to say about it. I can't say that I've seen much about it or know anything, either, but it's hard to ignore all that buzz. No, seriously, the buzz is deafening. I, like, can't even hear you right now, but if I could, you'd probably be saying this is a lame joke.
Fletch's Chance of Viewing: 66% (depends on if it comes to town)

Rambo
Here's the film I've been waiting 20 years to see! No, that's not true at all. I could not care less about John Rambo, but I am impressed at two things: first, that, like last year's Rocky Balboa, Sylvester Stallone directed this edition and second, that the first 1,000 voters on IMDb have given this an 8.8/10 rating. Sure, that may be consisted solely of fanboys ("fanmen" at this age?), but I'd expect a number of them to be overly critical as well. Stallone himself resurrected at 61? We'll see...
Fletch's Chance of Viewing: 2%

And then...

Why Movies Made Prior to 1963 Don't Ring My Bell

A short while ago, I wrote a post about the 11 worst films on the IMDb Top 250. In it, I admitted to having seen a scant 45% of the movies that made up the list at the time. Part of the reason that percentage was so low, I explained, was that "I'm an ageist when it comes to film. For a number of reasons that don't need to be re-hashed right now, I'm not all that interested in seeing films made prior to 1963 or so."

Little did I know, a firestorm was about to ignite. Shortly after the publication of the post, it was picked up by my guardian angel at the Internet Movie Database, and the post was the launchpad for a daily poll of theirs. As such, those few, mostly innocuous words became incendiary, earning me the ire of every "classic" movie lover from Anchorage to Annapolis, or at least it seemed that way. The comments I received on that particular opinion ranged from "You're truly objectionable" to "You're a complete idiot," though there were the few people who understood or agreed with the sentiment.

Though the time for my rebuttal has long since passed, I did promise to make one, complete with the poor title you see above. Before I get started, a disclaimer: The year 1963 is by no means an absolute, nor was it derived particularly scientifically. It's a somewhat pinpointed time based on what I've seen. Think of it the same way that some sports refer to certain time frames as their "modern eras." With that said, here are some reasons why movies made prior to...you get the picture.

I'm Stupid
Now, I don't mean that literally (though many might argue to the contrary) - what I truly mean is that ignorance, above all and of a great many things, is the chief thing that prevents me from enjoying older films. For example, Citizen Kane is heralded as one of, if not the most innovative film of all time, and was voted (at one time) as the greatest film ever by AFI. (There's a laundry list of innovations at Kane's Wiki page). Similarly, I know that Hitchcock is credited with having pioneered a slew of film techniques as well. Both of these are good things; unfortunately, if one wasn't there to experience these innovations firsthand, they tend to lose their meaning. What good is an innovation to someone that doesn't know it's one? A more modern example of this is The Matrix - for the contemporary film lover, the film's celebrated use of "bullet time" was an awe-inducing event. But what about today's children who were born after 1999, and by the time they have seen the film will have seen such a technique (or, more likely, one that surpasses it) done a hundred times? The Matrix might not seem like such a groundbreaking film to them.

Now, there is a solution to this, but it's not a very realistic or pragmatic one: I need to watch every film (or at least, most of them) from the beginning of time, thereby granting myself the opportunity to watch the innovations chronologically, and to be able to grant the deserved respect to those warranted. This seems unlikely. As it stands, I can go back and watch Kane or Vertigo or Rear Window (all of which I have) and be underwhelmed, left thinking that I've seen all this before. It's not fair to the filmmakers, but it's a fact nonetheless.

Ignorance also rears its ugly head when it comes to "current events," for lack of a better term. Suppose, for example, that a modern satire included digs at such people as Condoleezza Rice, Britney Spears or even Michael Jackson. These are all household names to you and I, but will they be to the 31 year olds of 2066? Now, I realize that there probably aren't many films from the past that would have this specific phenomenon occurring, but it's not limited to people - the "lost reference" could be a person, place or cultural happening (say, texting or iPhones). Put enough of these things together and you have a viewer that's missing out on a lot.

Bill Shatner looks subtle by comparison
An easier and more recognizable element that I take issue with is the writing/acting styles of yesteryear - Gloria Swanson may be lauded for giving one of the best performances of all time as Norma Desmond, but it's hard to watch that performance and not see and egregious amount of overacting. Another Sunset Boulevard example (fresh in my mind as I just watched it a few days ago) comes when Joe Gillis is revealing the truth about his situation to Betty Schaefer. After hearing the details of his deceit, Betty breathlessly says "Joe, I can't look at you any more." At this point, she not only turns her body away from Joe, but raises her forearm to her eyes to physically shield them from gazing upon him. It's truly a painfully awkward scene.

I realize these two examples from one film are limited; that said, I defy anyone to tell me that the acting styles of the 50s resemble those of today in any shape or form. Early cinema was quite blunt and theatrical, and (shocker) I'm not much a fan of plays, either.

Been There, Done That
It's a well known "fact" that there are no original stories to tell in Hollywood anymore - all that's left are sequels, remakes and rehashes of the same old thing. While this may or may not be true (I'll say it isn't, but it's not far from being true), the fact remains that if you've watched a large number of films of the past 20-30 years, there's a pretty good chanced that you've seen movies that ripped off their predecessors (a recent revelation like this for me was when I finally saw Annie Hall for the first time and realized just how much When Harry Met Sally... "borrowed" from it). Should I (or anyone else) punish the classics because someone liberally stole their ideas (or techniques)? Absolutely not - but once you've seen a story told to you (most likely with better equipment, more money and better effects, if applicable), it's difficult to then go back and watch an "inferior" product and think it better, regardless of the fact that it came first. This premise does not attribute a greater quality in the general public to newer movies, and certainly does not assume that newer must equal better (see: The Manchurian Candidate), but would you rather have a flat screen LCD or the big box you grew up with that had no remote?


As with any argument like this, I'm sure many out there could cite examples of movies that don't fall into any of these traps; if that's the case - great. Please let me know what they are. I try to enter into any movie going experience with an open mind, and attempt to give even more of a benefit of the doubt to classic films, given the respect they're granted by so many. It's just that I often walk away disappointed. In the end, I feel better avoiding them altogether; my image of them can't be tainted, and I don't have to debate the merits (or lack thereof) of something I haven't seen. What can I say? I'm "truly objectionable."

And then...

Heath Ledger found dead?

The Yahoo story.

Wow. This ought to be a big story...

Edit: I know the situation isn't the same at all, but considering the age of death for both of them (28) and the fact that their last characters look awfully similar, it really reminds me of this:

And then...

Nomination predictions and nominations that must happen (2008)

Last year, I wrote a similar post on this topic. It can be seen here. For now, seeing as how it's nearly 10 PM and I haven't put anything up regarding the nominations, I felt the urge to put up some things that need to happen, as well as my predictions for the nominations for the major awards. First, the predictions (forgive my lack of italics for movie titles - I'm being lazy):

Best Picture
Atonement
There Will Be Blood
No Country for Old Men
Michael Clayton
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly

Best Actor
Daniel Day-Lewis - TWBB
Viggo Mortenson - Eastern Promises
George Clooney - Michael Clayton
Emile Hirsch - Into the Wild
Johnny Depp - Sweeney Todd

Best Actress
Julie Christie - Away From Her
Marion Cotillard - La Vie En Rose
Ellen Page - Juno
Angelina Jolie - A Mighty Heart
Keira Knightley - Atonement

Best Supporting Actor
Javier Bardem - NCFOM
Phillip Seymour Hoffman - The Savages
Tom Wilkinson - Michael Clayton
Hal Holbrook - Into the Wild
Paul Dano - TWBB

Best Supporting Actress
Amy Ryan - Gone Baby Gone
Cate Blanchett - I'm Not There
Catherine Keener - Into the Wild
Tilda Swinton - Michael Clayton
Saoirse Ronan - Atonement

Finally, some off-the-beaten-path nominations that ought to happen (some of which will and some of which won't):

Tommy Lee Jones - Best Actor - In the Valley of Elah
Paul Dano - Best Supporting Actor - TWBB
Laura Linney - Best Actress - The Savages
Juno - Best Picture
The Savages - Best Picture
Irfan Khan - Best Supporting Actor - The Namesake

(Edit: Here's the list of nominations: Paul Dano was robbed, but I'm ready glad that Laura Linney and Tommy Lee Jones got their respective nods. Also a bit shocked (but gladly) that Juno earned a Best Picture nod.)

And then...

Fletch's Mini Film Review: El Orfanato (The Orphanage)

Juan Antonio Bayona's feature debut is a haunting fantasy (the horror label hardly applies) presented by the reigning rey (español for "king," gringos) of haunting fantasies, Guillermo Del Toro. It's punctuated by strong performances by all, and a story sprinkled with a little Never-Neverland dust that lends it some magic, and some very real human concerns (HIV, um, oprhaned children) that lend it some depth. A moody thriller with a great twist, this one should have you thinking about it long after you leave the theater - just don't think about the inevitable American redux starring Sarah Michelle Alba...

Fletch's Film Rating:

"It's in the hole!"

And then...

TGITDNMAR (1/18/08)

It's that time again for TGITDNMAR, which (obviously) stands for Thank God It's The Day New Movies Are Released.

January = dumping grounds? No way, says J.J. Abrams, who unleashes one of the more anticipated films of the last year with Cloverfield. The question is: will there be any moviegoers left for the rest of this week's slate?

Cloverfield
J.J. Abrams. Lost. Monster. Shaky-cam. Monster. Statue of Liberty decapitated. Shaky cam. Party. Monster. J.J. Abrams. Lost. Monster. Shaky-cam. Monster. Statue of Liberty decapitated. Shaky cam. Party. Monster. J.J. Abrams. Lost. Monster. Shaky-cam. Monster. Statue of Liberty decapitated. Shaky cam. Party. Monster. J.J. Abrams. Lost. Monster. Shaky-cam. Monster. Statue of Liberty decapitated. Shaky cam. Party. Monster.

That about sums it up, right?

To be honest, thought I still planned on seeing it, I was starting to get a bit "meh" on Cloverfield - that is, up until both Adam and Shea praise it after having seen a preview. My interest is piqued again...
Fletch's Chance of Viewing (in the theater): 100%

Cassandra's Dream
Though I've seen this poster plastered about for at least a month, I've yet to see a trailer or commercial for this. Are Ewan McGregor and Colin Farrell not big enough stars? Is Woody Allen not a big-name director? You'd think the combination of all three would be worth at least a mention somewhere. As such, I can't say that I have much of an opinion one way or the other on this, though I will say that Match Point was slightly overrated and Scoop was downright awful. Also, Colin Farrell's next film, In Bruges (co-starring Brendan Gleeson and Ralph Fiennes) looks like a lot of fun.
Fletch's Chance of Viewing: TBD

27 Dresses
Daniel over at Box Office Report is predicting a 30 million dollar weekend for the Katherine Heigl starring romantic comedy. Though Daniel is right a lot (and is worlds smarter than I when it comes to predicting the box office), I think he's off his rocker here. For the record, Knocked Up's opening weekend was $30.6 million, and there were actually people looking forward to that - does anyone care about this one??

For the record: for what appears to be a poorly reviewed, run-of-the-mill romantic comedy, I love the poster for this. Sure, it's expectedly girly (not that that's a bad thing - just not my style), but the concept is brilliant and the creative use of the credits makes it stand out from every other movie poster out there.
Fletch's Chance of Viewing: 1%

Mad Money
On the other side of the coin, there's just something about recent Diane Keaton movies that leads to awful posters (do a Google Image Search for "diane keaton posters" for examples like Because I Said So, The First Wives Club, and Hanging Up).

Mad Money follows in the tradition. And I will follow in my own tradition - of not seeing these.
Fletch's Chance of Viewing: 0%

Teeth
Sure, it definitely sounds like a gimmicky movie. But after reading "The Buzz" on IMDb, you might think differently:

"When our boss saw this film nearly a year ago, he said: '... perhaps the biggest discovery is Jess Weixler as Dawn, the young woman with a set of radulated teeth in her vagina in Mitchell Lichtenstein's funny, scary, smart Teeth. Weixler is a great comedienne, able to convey much with just her eyes but whose delivery is pitch-perfect. She pulls off moments of great despair, disgust, lust, duplicity and hope, reminding me of a young Reese Witherspoon. The film, as tacky and lurid as it sounds (and is!), is a daring blend of comedy and horror, something that almost never works. It's anchored by Lichtenstein's direction and his ability to never let the scenarios get too broad while nodding ever so slightly to the horror genre he's tampering with. Dawn's innocence gives way to world-weary experience as she is propelled into the world of her own sexuality and Weixler makes the transformation both tender and horrible, much like most initiations into sexuality. It's a crackerjack film which transcends the horror film genre and is sure to be a staple of college courses on feminism and cinema for decades to come.'"
Fletch's Chance of Viewing: 50%

And then...

Imagining sequels that will never happen...

It's a favorite pastime of mine to come up with sequel names for movies that will either never be made due to performance, critical response, or just because of their subject matter. A long time ago, Premiere magazine had a feature where they did this (minus the awesome MS Paint work done on the posters, as seen below). My favorite one they came up with was a sequel to the Nic Cage-Bridget Fonda movie where he plays a cop that gives a waitress a two million dollar tip. The first film was titled It Could Happen to You. The sequel? It Could Happen to You All Over Again. Anyway, here's some "possibilities" for some 2007 flicks:

This critical bomb surely won't have a sequel, but the naming convention could go on forever...



















Or perhaps, We Own the Day, Too. Personally, I'd like to see We Own Dusk.



















A genre switch isn't out of the question with a title like that.



















In the first film, Nic Cage could see two minutes into the future (or something like that). I'm guessing he can see at least 7 minutes into the future in the sequel, thanks to the help of his wise mentor, Mr. Miyagi.



















First, they brought you Daddy Day Care. Then, they brought you Daddy Day Camp. Now, the best of both worlds have been combined!



















Who saw this? Seriously, raise your hand.



















Oh wait - they actually already made this one...

And then...

If an award show falls in a forest...

Before I start, I want to give a plug for Reel Whore's monstrous "Confessions of a Reel Whore" post-a-thon, his a-bit-late-but-made-up-for-with-length 2007 blowout. Today brought us part four of his seven day ordeal - be sure to read the first three as well. Just great stuff all around.

Anyway...

No, I didn't watch the Golden Globes, either. But I am good at going to Yahoo, grabbing a list of the winners, going to Google and getting a funny/topical picture, then making snarky and/or extremely insightful comments about all of it. Winners in italics.

Best Motion Picture - Drama
American Gangster
Atonement
Eastern Promises
The Great Debaters
Michael Clayton
No Country for Old Men
There Will Be Blood

Comment: At first, I looked at this and thought "Really? Atonement?!? (Granted, I haven't seen it - or The Great Debaters, but I'm going off what I've heard and my own educated guess). But then I remembered that this is the Hollywood FOREIGN Press and not A.M.P.A.S. No Country? There Will Be Blood? Too American, too artsy, and too subtle. American Gangster? American is in the title for chrissakes (otherwise, a normal type of film for H.F.P.A.). The Great Debaters? Too talky. Ditto Michael Clayton. This left Atonement as the perfect film - epic, not American and straightforward (I'm guessing).

Best Performance by an Actress in a Motion Picture - Drama
Cate Blanchett - Elizabeth: The Golden Age
Julie Christie - Away From Her
Jodie Foster - The Brave One
Angelina Jolie - A Mighty Heart
Keira Knightley - Atonement

Comment: For all the movies I've seen this year, I've seen but one of the films that the actress pool came from (A Mighty Heart). Deduct one point from my score.

Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture - Drama
George Clooney - Michael Clayton
Daniel Day-Lewis - There Will Be Blood
James McAvoy - Atonement
Viggo Mortensen - Eastern Promises
Denzel Washington - American Gangster

Comment: On the other hand, I've seen all here but for Atonement, and we all knew McAvoy had the slightest chance of winning, considering the heavyweights in this category. No shocker here from a Day-Lewis win.

Best Motion Picture - Musical or Comedy
Across the Universe
Charlie Wilson's War
Hairspray
Juno
Sweeney Todd

Comment: Meh. Juno should win this, but again - too talky for the foreign press.

Best Performance by an Actress in a Motion Picture - Musical or Comedy
Amy Adams - Enchanted
Nikki Blonsky - Hairspray
Helena Bonham Carter - Sweeney Todd
Marion Cotillard - La Vie en Rose
Ellen Page - Juno

Comment: The Globes really need to fix/get rid of their splitting of the films into "Drama" and "Musical or Comedy." It makes almost no sense - in this case, La Vie en Rose is a straight drama, but since it's a biopic about a singer, it's a "Musical" all of a sudden. Huh? I think Joaquin Phoenix and Jaime Foxx were in this category (not for Actress, obviously) for Walk the Line and Ray, respectively. I propose that Animated films (also currently their own category) be lumped in with "Dramas" from now on, just for the fun of it.

Best Performance by an Actor in a Motion Picture - Musical or Comedy
Johnny Depp - Sweeney Todd
Ryan Gosling - Lars and the Real Girl
Tom Hanks - Charlie Wilson's War
Philip Seymour Hoffman - The Savages
John C. Reilly - Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story

Comment: I know not that many people saw it, but please, please, please tell me how Lars and the Real Girl got placed as a "Comedy." I think the nominators (that's a word, right?) saw Bianca the sex doll and just assumed it had to be a comedy. In a manner of speaking, I guess...

Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role in a Motion Picture
Cate Blanchett - I'm Not There
Julia Roberts - Charlie Wilson's War
Saoirse Ronin - Atonement
Amy Ryan - Gone Baby Gone
Tilda Swinton - Michael Clayton

Comment: JD, I demand a reaction. I'm cool with Cate winning, personally. She rocked (no pun intended).

Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role in a Motion Picture
Casey Affleck - The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
Javier Bardem - No Country for Old Men
Philip Seymour Hoffman - Charlie Wilson's War
John Travolta - Hairspray
Tom Wilkinson - Michael Clayton

Comment: "Call it." No surprise here, either.

Best Animated Feature Film
Bee Movie
Ratatouille
The Simpsons Movie

Comment: But would it have won were it lumped in with "Drama?" That is the question...

Best Foreign Language Film
4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
The Kite Runner
Lust, Caution
Persepolis

Comment: I still think this is a dark horse to land an Oscar nom for Best Picture, but it will probably be held back by not having enough people see it. A strong category this year, nonetheless - but where's El Orfanato (review coming soon)?

Best Director - Motion Picture
Tim Burton - Sweeney Todd
Ethan and Joel Coen - No Country for Old Men
Julian Schnabel - The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
Ridley Scott - American Gangster
Joe Wright - Atonement

Comment: Wow - the painter takes out quite a few big names. The bigger story: where the hell is Paul Thomas Anderson's name (There Will Be Blood)??? He's your Oscar winner.

Best Screenplay - Motion Picture
Diablo Cody - Juno
Ethan and Joel Coen - No Country for Old Men
Christopher Hampton - Atonement
Ronald Harwood - The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
Aaron Sorkin - Charlie Wilson's War

Comment: And Juno got shut out. For shame, considering how spread out the winners were. Ditto for The Savages. Also strange because a) the Coens won this award for an adapted screenplay (the Globes don't split them out, and original should always trump adapted) and b) a friend who's read the book says that the movie is more or less line-for-line filmed according to the book. That deserves an award? Boo!

Best Original Score - Motion Picture
Michael Brook, Kaki King, and Eddie Vedder - Into The Wild
Clint Eastwood - Grace Is Gone
Alberto Iglesias - The Kite Runner
Dario Marianelli - Atonement
Howard Shore - Eastern Promises

Best Original Song - Motion Picture
Despedida - Love in the Time of Cholera
Grace Is Gone - Grace Is Gone
Guaranteed - Into The Wild
That's How You Know - Enchanted
Walk Hard - Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story

Comment: Uh, Soundtrack Geek - you wanna handle these two? Thanks.

And then...

Fletch's Film Review: There Will Be Blood

How much of what we perceive as great acting comes from our previous knowledge of the actor? Should we be truly shocked that Brits and Australians and the Irish regularly dominate the Academy Award nominations for acting? Would that it could be possible to juxtapose Daniel Day-Lewis with an American in There Will Be Blood - would we feel as strongly about his performance knowing that the accent used isn't much of a stretch?

These are but some of the thoughts that ran through my mind after seeing Paul Thomas Anderson's latest. Make no mistake, Daniel Day-Lewis is a force to be reckoned with; I just wonder, if he made eight films in 10 years rather than four, or was from Kansas rather than London, would we think less of his performance? Also, how much influence is thrust upon us by the tales of his immersion into the characters that he plays?

Looking as objectively as I can, in the end, the answers I come up with to all these questions tell me that we most likely would feel the same way, that we would be no less impressed by the performances given had they been done in his native tongue (in a manner of speaking) or were done with no preparation. But that's not to say that the media and the facts don't color our perception.

It's hard to see that it matters much in this case. Simply put, Day-Lewis owns the screen, whether in a fit of rage or silent as a mouse. He's given plenty of meat to chew on - Daniel Plainview will be compared by many (for years to come) as a character in line with Citizen Kane, all ambition and greed, with no time for the concerns of the common man, and even a distaste for them. There is no end to his determination, and he uses the smallest slight against him, just as Michael Jordan once did, seeing insults where there were none and thus fueling his fire that much more. What's most impressive is that Day-Lewis does not rely upon demonstrative histrionics to show us all this; it's right there in his eyes the entire time.

Somewhat unfairly lost in all this is the show put on by Paul Dano. In what is essentially the story of two men and their separate but mirrored quests for their personal goals, Dano (all of 23 years old) and his character, stand toe-to-toe against Plainview/Day-Lewis, and will no doubt cement himself as a standout actor of his generation based solely on this film.

Other aspects of the film shine just as bright as the actors, from the cinematography (sure to give No Country for Old Men a run for the Oscar) to the out-there score by Radiohead's Jonny Greenwood. It ratchets up the tension the entire time, leaving you almost gasping for what will come next (though it reminded Mrs. Fletch too much of the music heard in Lost). It's the kind of unorthodox thinking that has made Paul Thomas Anderson the director that he is, using a thoroughly modern, almost Philip Glass-like score for such an old West tale.

Stepping outside his realm as well, Anderson has produced an American classic, in scope and execution, and seemingly unreliant on today's cinematic tools. Everything in the film (which is set in the early 1900s, mostly) seems absolutely authentic, from the oil fires to the details of a house. (Of course, the inclusion of Method man Day-Lewis doesn't hurt here; early on, when his character injures himself pretty badly, I was convinced that Day-Lewis enacted the same pain upon himself that his character felt, just so that he could get it right.) It's as if it was filmed in 1911 with today's tools and transported to our time for our enjoyment, giving us a lesson in American History along the way.

Fletch's Film Rating:

"It's in the hole!"

And then...

Fletch's (Mini) Film Review: The Savages

(Editor's note: this movie really deserves a better review, but it's getting a mini one for a few reasons. First, it's been a couple weeks since I've seen it and I want to get something down before the freshness goes away, and second, I'm getting behind on reviews as other posts pop into my head and I place priority on them. So, I apologize to The Savages for not giving it the review it deserves. I suck. Thank you.)

Tamara Jenkins' first feature, 1998's Slums of Beverly Hills was a (great) comedy about a family that was poor financially but rich socially. They might have been forced to move from "luxury" apartment to apartment in and around Beverly Hills in their facade of upper middle class-ness, but their foundation never foundered. They loved and cared for each other, and it showed.

With her latest feature (what took so long?), The Savages, we find a family that might have WASPy intellectual children, but they are bankrupt when it comes to family values. Though brother Jon (Philip Seymour Hoffman) and sister Wendy (Laura Linney) are close, they haven't spoken to their Sun City residing father in years, and their mother (though alive) doesn't seem to be in the picture at all. So imagine their dismay and confusion when the siblings are called to Arizona to look after their dementia-ridden father, who can't take care of himself and doesn't have the means or the know how to get someone else to do it for him. Thus begins a journey that none of them wanted to take, filled with struggles over responsiblity and maturity that even "kids" in their forties aren't ready to handle.

It almost goes without saying that the acting is stellar. Neither Linney nor Hoffman seem capable of giving a bad performance at this stage in their careers, and they play quite well with each other, even when they're fighting. Meanwhile, Philip Bosco, as their father Lenny, is alternatively hilarious and heartbreaking.

The film is a roller coaster of emotions, finding humor in the darkest of times, with Jenkins never pandering or patronizing the audience. She knows that, just as in life, comedy is sometimes the best way to deal with tragedy, and sometimes the only way. Wendy and Jon basically turn their lives upside down, all for a man they never really knew, and one that they felt never cared for them as much as they are caring for him now. They grow, they learn more about themselves and each other, and we all feel what it's like to go through this situation, That might sound sappy, but it's really not. And the ending? Beautiful - let's just say it almost got a little dusty in the theater. Almost.

Fletch's Film Rating:

"It's in the hole!"

And then...

The 20 Best Movie Characters of the Last 20 Years (part II)

(Editor's note: Part I ran Wednesday. It can be found here. Below is a quick recap of the first 10, followed by the second half.)

Character: Tyler Durden
Film: Fight Club
Year Released: 1999



Character: Wolverine
Films: X-Men, X2, X-Men: The Last Stand
Year Released: 2000, 2003, 2006


Character: Trent Walker
Film: Swingers
Year Released: 1996



Character: The Joker
Film: Batman
Year Released: 1989


Character: Napoleon Dynamite
Film: Napoleon Dynamite
Year Released: 2004


Character: Darth Maul
Film: Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace
Year Released: 1999



Character: Silent Bob
Films: Clerks, Mallrats, Chasing Amy, Dogma, Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back, Clerks II
Years Released: 1994, 1995, 1997, 1999, 2001, 2006


Character: Forrest Gump
Film: Forrest Gump
Year Released: 1994



Character: Tracy Flick
Film: Election
Year Released: 1999



Character: Anton Chigurh
Film: No Country for Old Men
Year Released: 2007



Character: Doc Holliday
Film: Tombstone
Year Released: 1993
Chief traits: Loyalty, Perseverance
Trademark line: "I'm your Huckleberry..."
Additional comments: If you read just the script, you might think that Doc Holliday was some sort of a pansy. He starts nearly every sentence with "Why [Wyatt or whomever]!" and often says "You're a daisy!" (or the alternate "You're no daisy!"). But this is all part of what makes him one of the most interesting characters (especially for a Western) in all of film - as portrayed, he was smarter and deadlier than most any around him.

Character: Captain Jack Sparrow
Films: Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl, Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest, Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End
Years Released: 2003, 2006, 2007
Chief traits: Mischievous, Lucky
Trademark line: "Savvy?"
Additional comments: Part of what made the first Pirates movie special is how out-of-nowhere it was. How high could the expectations have been for a flick inspired by, of all things, a theme park ride, when even video games (presumably a better source material) can't even be turned into quality films? So imagine everyone's surprise when not only is the film great, but Johnny Depp (of all people) stars and turns in one of the best performances of his career, full of quirks and winks to the audience? One for the ages (though the shtick got old in the sequels - too much of a good thing and all...).

Character: Gollum/Smeagol
Films: Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers, Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
Years Released: 2002, 2003
Chief traits: One-track mind, Schizophrenic (or MPD, I'm not sure)
Trademark line: "My precious."
Additional comments: Before you LOTR nerds tell me that Gollum was in the first film, I know - but it was only for a few seconds and he never spoke, so that hardly counts. However, the little CGI guy was probably the most compelling (and sympathetic) character on screen for the second and third films, with his puppeteer Andy Serkis playing him (in a way) as 3 different characters (the split personality Gollum/Smeagol and as the real-life Smeagol that is shown in the intro for ROTK. The back-and-forth internal battles (Smeagol: Master is our friend! Gollum: You don't have any friends; nobody likes you!) would probably be sufficient on their own for entry here - they're that good.

Character: Max Fischer
Film: Rushmore
Year Released: 1996
Chief traits: Involved, In Love
Trademark line: "The secret, I don't know... I guess you've just gotta find something you love to do and then... do it for the rest of your life. For me, it's going to Rushmore."
Additional comments: One of the best written characters of all time, Max Fischer is not your typical high schooler ("Maybe I'm spending too much of my time starting up clubs and putting on plays. I should probably be trying harder to score chicks."). He's brilliant, involved, and loves his school so much that he neglects to, you know, study and get good grades, prompting his expulsion. He then decides to work in his father's shop as a barber. Oh, and he's in love with a Rushmore teacher (as is his millionaire friend) who lost a husband. A classic character and film.

Character: Hannibal Lecter
Film: The Silence of the Lambs
Year Released: 1991
Chief traits: Brilliant, Hungry
Trademark line: "A census taker once tried to test me. I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice chianti."
Additional comments: From a review by Stephen Greydanus of Decent Films Guide: "Lecter fascinates us because he embodies qualities that we associate with civilized, reasonable existence, yet he is murderously sociopathic. In our therapeutic age, he’s a shocking reminder that, beyond all psychobabble about "behavior modification" and the like, there remains the sheer reality of good and evil. The doctor is in: God help us all."

Character: Bill Lumbergh
Film: Office Space
Year Released: 1999
Chief traits: "All that is soulless and wrong," Humorless
Trademark line: "Yeaaahhhh..."
Additional comments: Of all the characters on this list, Lumbergh might be the least drawn out, but that doesn't make him any less memorable. As played by the vastly underrated veteran character actor Gary Cole (The Brady Bunch movies, Talladega Nights), Lumbergh is basically the boss from hell - incompetent, insensitive and highly paid.

Character: Jules Winfield
Film: Pulp Fiction
Year Released: 1994
Chief traits: Audible, Spiritual
Trademark line: "The path of the righteous man is beset on all sides by the iniquities of the selfish and the tyranny of evil men. Blessed is he, who in the name of charity and good will, shepherds the weak through the valley of darkness, for he is truly his brother's keeper and the finder of lost children. And I will strike down upon thee with great vengeance and furious anger those who would attempt to poison and destroy my brothers. And you will know my name is the Lord when I lay my vengeance upon thee."
Additional comments: Jules was a study of opposites. A killer on one hand, a bible-verse-quoting spiritual man on the other. Cool on one hand, wearing dorky surfer bum clothes on the other. The question is: was Jules the character that MADE Sam Jackson, or was it the other way around?

Character: Jeff "The Dude" Lebowski aka "Duder" aka "El Duderino" (if you're not into that whole brevity thing)
Film: The Big Lebowski
Year Released: 1996
Chief traits: Lazy, Unmotivated
Trademark line: "That rug really tied the room together."
Additional comments: F*ck it, Dude - let's go bowling. (Edited to add: it's also worth noting that about three more characters, at the least, could be considered for this list, especially Walter and "the" Jesus.)

Character: Ace Ventura
Film: Ace Ventura: Pet Detective, Ace Venture: When Nature Calls
Years Released: 1994, 1995
Chief traits: Animal lover, Odd
Trademark line: "Ree-hee-heeally?"
Additional comments: Though the second film was seen by most as, well, awful, the first caught Jim Carrey at the height of his powers, taking a truly bizarre character (a spazz, for lack of a better word) and not only making him hilarious, but likable as well. Shameless, ingenious, and more than willing to literally talk out of his ass, Ace is nothing if not memorable.

Character: Dr. Evil
Films: Austin Powers: International Man of Mystery, Austin Powers in: The Spy Who Shagged Me, Austin Powers in: Goldmember
Years Released: 1997, 1999, 2002
Chief traits: Eeeevil (Duh!), Defrosted
Trademark line: "I demand the sum... OF 1 MILLION DOLLARS."
Additional comments: Mike Myers took a totally unoriginal character (he is said to be a combination of Lorne Michaels and Bond villain Ernst Stavro Blofeld, amongst other Bond villains) and made him the standout star of the series, above even the titular Austin Powers (who was funny but essentially a one-note joke).

Finally, here are some honorable mentions, to those characters that juuuuust barely missed the cut:

* Amelie Poulain (Amelie)
* Austin Powers (the Austin Powers series)
* Don Logan (Sexy Beast)
* Edward Scissorhands (Edward Scissorhands)
* Garth Algar ( the Wayne's World series)
* Karl Childers (Sling Blade)
* Keyser Soze/Verbal Kint (The Usual Suspects)
* Lester Burnham (American Beauty)
* Raoul Duke (Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas)
* Shrek (the Shrek series)

And then...