Academy Award Picks 2013

OK, I still have a number of films to see in the Best Picture Showcase tomorrow, but this is a list of Predictions rather than preferences. Sticking to just the top six categories for fun and simplicity.

Best Supporting Actor

Lincoln wa the most nominated film, but it is not going to win the Best Picture Award so I think there will be an attempt to spread the love around and therefore the pick here is Tommy Lee Jones.

Best Supporting Actress

Her name should have been engraved on this as soon as the first trailer came out. No Doubt about it      Anne Hathaway.

Best Actor

An even bigger lock than Anne Hathaway, he earned this one from the first poster. It felt like we spent 2 hours with America's greatest leader. Daniel Day-Lewis as Lincoln.

Best Actress

The toughest category to call. Emmanuelle Riva was amazing, but I think the Academy will jump on the Jennifer Lawrence bandwagon.

Best Director

Another win for Lincoln by default, no Ben Affleck in the category. Who would ever think Spielberg would be a winner in this competition as a result of attrition. The amazing Steven Spielberg picks up his third director Oscar.

Best Picture

The winner, and as of now my personal favorite,

All the Best Picture Winners in Four Minutes

Academy Awards: Best Picture Oscar Winners from Nelson Carvajal on Vimeo.

Just found this when looking around on line. Nice work by the editor. Enjoy

AMC Best Picture Showcase Day 1

Today is the first day of the Best Picture Showcase. I will be updating posts on the Kirkham A Movie A Day Facebook Page, and later will transfer them here. If you want the live updates, just go to Facebook. Looking forward to a great day.

OK, I had a little trouble here. There was a post about the first two films we saw but when I went to update, I accidentally posted an earlier draft and wiped out my comments.

So here are some insights on the movies we saw today. A little later than I had hoped for, but worth talking about nonetheless.

AMOUR

I had been warned that the movie was bleak and that it was claustrophobic. It is after all about two old people in their apartment facing death. No spoiler here because the very first scene reveals that the wife Anne is dead in her bed. The film chronicles the sudden decline and painful process of coping with a debilitating illness while still maintaining the love and dignity that a partner of many years deserves. I found it much more interesting than I had expected. There were some light touches here and there, the kinds of daily moments that all of us have that make a hard day bearable.

The dialogue is all in French, and there is basically no film score. Music does play a part in the story but it is not used in background, it is integrated as a small part of the events that take place. One blog I read said that it is not a movie, in large part because nothing happens. It is very deliberate in it's pace, but there are small events chronicled and the characters do go through an arc of developing changes.  My friend Anne sat next to me and there were two moments where she jumped and grabbed my arm in alarm. That is not a movie that has no drama in it.

Having been married to my wife for thirty two years, I understand how complex the emotions were for the two people involved. Sometimes we are at our best, but it does not take long for us to be at our worst either. The two lead actors in this are amazing. The story is small and slow and mostly painful, but it is also filled with the kind of love that is deep and abiding. May we all make it to the end with this kind of courage and devotion.

Les Miserable

I have already written about this film but I do have a couple of minor modifications. I found the music still quite good, and the main songs are often excellent. The problem with the singing transitions and lack of tunefulness continues. Anne Hathaway will deserve her award, she has the two most moving moments in the film. I thought Hugh Jackman did himself credit and the last sequence where he reconciles  his love with having touched the face of God, brought the tears that I had missed the first time around.

I think for a neophyte like me, the immersion into the story the first time, with it's talk singing transitions was a bit overwhelming. I still see flaws and it almost certainly works better as a stage show. On stage the pace would break for scene changes and applause. The big moments would feel more like they were earned rather than dumped on us. The film tries to overpower continuously, and the camera work is much to busy and excessively close.

ARGO 

This continues to be the favorite for the Academy Award and it was my favorite from the moment I saw it. Nothing has changed for me. The tension starts right away, you are plunged into a world of terror masquerading as a people's revolution, and nothing ever feels safe. I will add a couple of comments on issues that I did not discuss before. I was provoked to laughter when watching the Iranian Foreign Minister criticizing the Canadians for their supposed breach of International Law. That actually happened while the Iranians were holding the hostages. I also liked the authenticity of the era even more when I remembered that the Warner Brother's logo at the start of the film was the 1979 era design. It was a clever little touch that I'm not sure everyone noticed.

The brave part of this film making is to actually acknowledge that our people there were just doing their jobs. Many of them despised the Shah also, but what they got in his place is not much better and in so many ways worse. The C.I.A. are the good guys in this story, and we get some Hollywood history to boot. One of my wife's friends thinks this is really just a TV movie. I'd like to subscribe to the programming she must be seeing, because this is top notch film work by everyone involved.

DJANGO UNCHAINED

Quentin Tarantino makes movie for people who like movies more than films. Yet there is also an aspect to the movies he makes that raises them to art status. This revisionist western, that attacks the easy target of slavery, does so with gusto and outrageous violence. There is so much to laugh at in the film, you might sometimes miss the stern rebuke our ancestors receive for allowing this institution to thrive anywhere in the U.S.

This made my list of the best films of the year but it is not necessarily Tarantino's best film. The three leads are all excellent but once again I suspect that Christoph Waltz has stolen the show. His bounty hunting dentist, with a clearer grasp of English than all the Americans he interacts with, is a character to treasure in your movie going memory. Django gets the big shootout, but Dr. King Schultz has all the best lines. 

 

Next week we have the other five nominees. Three of those will be new to me and I will try to write them up a with a fresh attitude. See you all next week.

DP/30: Skyfall, sound re-recording mixer Greg Russell

A Good Day to Die Hard

To say "A Good Day to Die Hard" is a disappointment is an understatement. Many people may have had low expectations for the film. There were a large number of fans who rejected the last film "Live Free or Die Hard" as not being a true "Die Hard" experience, so they had no hope for this to begin with. At our house however, John McClane is an icon, and we all enjoyed the hell out of the 2007 entry. If I can find the photo of the standup that we have, I will post it later (see below). There may have been some flaws in the last film but they were inconsequential from our point of view. From the first strains of Beethoven's Ninth Symphony in the trailer, we were anticipating and excited that a new film featuring one of our favorite characters was coming. Ten minutes into the new film I started to worry and half an hour in, I knew it was pretty much a lost cause. This movie is flaccid, confusing, and put together in a way that shows a severe weakness in story telling and an utter disregard for the things that make McClane a great character.

This is a generic spy film, masquerading as "Die Hard". There is ultimately a heist element to it, but by the time you get to it, there is very little left that is interesting. We all want plenty of action in a film like this, but it has to be connected to the story and character to pull us in. There is very little set up to this movie, and the events that start the first action sequence are confusing. Within a short period of time we are plunged into an elaborate chase where people we don't know, are chasing people we don't know and are being followed by a character we should know but who gets behind the wheel for reasons we can't know. Yeah, that's the way it feels. The car chase has three vehicles chasing each other, in circumstances that are not always clear. There is a communication between McClane Junior and his C.I.A. handlers, that features a drone over Moscow, and there is some kind of time window that they are up against. There is no explanation of what the time window means, what the objective is for the lead vehicle, and the mayhem that ensues is simply random. Here is one of the ways the film fails to be "Die Hard": there are quips but they are disconnected from character. McClaine makes apologies to invisible drivers in anonymous cars for no reason at all. None of the quips are funny and they don't have the edge that characterizes our NYPD Lieutenant.

 As we spoke of it last night, there is a pretty obvious reason the film fails. There is a severe lack of a demonstrably intelligent and evil villain. Alan Rickman, Jeremy Irons, Timothy Oliphant are each solid actors that can convey smarts with a word, a look or inflection. Even William Sadler's Col. Stuart had personality and confidence. Here we have two competing villains from the beginning, neither of which gives us much of an impression of themselves. One of them is supposed to be brilliant, we know this because he plays Chess against himself. That's it for character development. There is a snotty henchman that kills randomly, including his own men, but can't be bothered to shoot our heroes at much more provocation than he gets in the rest of the movie. All of the other "Die Hards" feature exchanges between the bad guys and our hero. That's where John gets to smirk, insult and generally push their buttons to the boiling point. There is no boiling point here. Everything is hot from the beginning and one hot item is replaced with another when it is convenient for the plot despite being unbelievable for the characters. The plot turns are so obvious and dull that it would surprise me if anyone could be bothered to explain why any of it happens.

 The third and fourth films in the series, added side kick characters so that McClane could bounce off of them and they would provide some relief from all of his deliberate actions. They provide a little spark to the film. McClane's son is supposed to provide that here, but his character barely has anything to say and when he does say it, it is muttered under his breath. Samuel Jackson's colorful vulgarities and race baiting and Justin Long's hipster geek irony were fun. Jai Courtney as Jack, has little chance to match insults or vent with his dad. He mostly glowers for reasons that we are supposed to understand without being told. His role in the spy plot is partially hinted at but vanishes in an instant and we are left with a chase film where we don't understand who is chasing who. The whole movie consists of shootouts and jumping. Jack shoots and jumps but does not seem to think or analyze. John McClane apparently has second sight, because he gets suspicious twice of characters that we have barely met when they turn around on the heroes.

 There was one point a third of the way through the movie that gave me a brief moments hope. The henchman character thinks he is insulting the two Americans when he says, "it's not 1986 and Reagan isn't President." Here is a chance for some sparkling cowboy swagger to go with our long awaited Yippee Ki Yea, instead there is just some laughter used to cover an escape attempt. Nothing creative or connected to what the other characters are doing or saying. Where is John McClane? Look Bruce Willis can still sell a movie but he has to have more than his looks to do so. The stunts, shootouts, chases in this are all so by the numbers that, you can count the moments till the next one, in your head. We went to an advance 10:00 pm screening and were the only people in the theater. Somewhere some one smelled this coming. We would not have listened, but that doesn't mean that we should not have.

The Impossible

If you can get through the trailer without a tear in your eye, you might be able to make it through this movie dry eyed. I freely admit I could do neither. The story of one family's survival in the face of the 2004 Tsunami is truly moving and quite frightening to anyone who has a family that they love. The pain and hardship that all families effected by the disaster is hard to imagine. Visualizing it for us is a harsh reminder of all that was lost but also an inspiring story of hope and love. Once upon a time, disaster movies were all star affairs, where nightmares were invented. "Earthquake", "The Towering Inferno" etc. Getting through a fictionalized story with cardboard characters is an exciting vicarious experience. Watching a real family, even though portrayed by actors is nearly traumatizing.

In 2004, there was no YouTube and the clips of the tsunami were limited. Two years ago, in the Japanese event, the cameras were ubiquitous, and the clips on-line were numerous. The terrifying power of the ocean, rising across the vista, sweeping away all in it's path fascinated me. I spent hours watching in torment as I could see people and cars being swept away from helicopter shots overhead. This film brings us to the ground level and puts us in front of those waves with the endangered family. The sequence of the tsunami striking the resort where the family was vacationing is incredibly realistic. The vision of being pulled under and tossed about while objects bashed you or cut you or worse is something that the film makers have recreated with intimate reality. Because the focus is on one family, this does not feel much like an entertainment, but more like a well realized visual diary of their experience.

Naomi Watts plays the mother of this group, and she and the oldest son are the main focus. Her performance has been nominated for an Academy Award and it is understandable why she was singled out. She is strong and terrified all at once. The stunts and makeup must have been grueling, and it is hard to imagine the difficulty of being able to act in those contexts. Her performance is primarily in non-verbal expression of love and determination. Although she has dialogue, it is not the words that anyone will remember from her performance, it is the anguish of her scream as she clings to a tree. It is the breathless facial expression she gives to her son in the overcrowded and frustratingly chaotic hospital. The look of hopeful gratitude she conveys to everyone who helped her and her son is an expression that I imagine all of us would have when aid is offered to the desperate.

Ewan MacGreggor plays the anguished dad. He is also excellent but with far less screen time and a story that does not have the same traumatic physical action to it, I think he has been overlooked when passing out praise. I have to say however, that the real star of this film is the young actor Tom Holland, who portrays "Lucas" the oldest son. Much of the film rides on our ability to relate to the story through the eyes of a ten year old boy. His actions are heroic at times, and when there was selfishness, he made it seem like the natural reaction of a scared child. There are long periods of time where the camera lingers on his face and sagging shoulders. This is not a performance that is overly emotive. His tears come at appropriate moments and do not overwhelm the story. This is what a great child performance looks like.

The other two children are also very good but they largely get by on the sweet faces and innocent manners of kids everywhere. Geraldine Chaplin turns up for one brief memorable scene and she gives the boy playing the middle son an opportunity to shine and make us care even more about this family. While the family is the center of the story, in the background we can see the story of thousands of others. The details are not delved into, but the difficulty is something we will be able to related to. This is a true horrifying story of survival. It did not need to be tweaked to bring the drama to home and change the label to "Inspired by True Events". That human beings of any type managed to crawl out of the debris left by this powerful event is amazing. That a family of five, including three small children, survived, got lost, and separated and found each other again is Impossible.

Spiders 3D

Here is a film that sneaks into theaters today and will be in your video store in a month. It is a movie that is clearly planned for a straight to DVD release but probably had contractual obligations to play in a certain number of theaters to get the kind of promotion and upfront fees it needed. I went and looked and even BoxOffice Mojo did not have the number of screens it was playing on. Spiders (3D) is being played off pretty quickly because that is the way the movie business has gone. It won't be long until all these kinds of movies never play in real theaters, just home theaters.

I have to say from the standpoint of a guy who grew up in the 1960s and 70s, that's too bad. Creature feature ought to be enjoyed in a theater on a Saturday afternoon with a bag of popcorn and three of your buddies. Spiders (3D) is not a self aware camp classic. There is no tongue in cheek here. I saw a trailer for a very similarly themed film called "Big Ass Spider" and it looks like it will fall in the same venue as "Snakes on a Plane"or "Eight Legged Freaks". Movies with a high level of irony and hipster sensibilities. Spiders (3D) is not hip, it doesn't try to be funny or fresh. In fact in some ways the story is downright creaky. All it does is tell a traditional Sci Fi/Horror story for a brisk ninety minutes. It has a lot of traditional elements to it and it is exactly the kind of movie that you might have found as a second feature attached to the main attraction in a 1970's film release.

 Basically, spiders from an experiment on a old Soviet Space Station, end up in the subways of New York and bad things start to happen. There have been dozens of movies with giant creature themes and almost all of them have been entertaining in one way or another. The giant bunnies in "Night of the Lepus" are so silly that you will laugh at the movie. The swarm of spiders in "Arachnophobia" will make your skin crawl as you are laughing and squealing. The giant ants in "Them" are clunky but creepy for the time, and the bugs that attack the Earth in "Starship Troopers" are swarming with CGI badness. "Spiders" has some of the same kinds of thrills but they are all very mild. Early on we get the creepy from the way spiders move and the idea of them planting eggs inside a body. In the later parts of the movie we are treated to Godzilla style spectacle with Army and Air Force units fighting against the arachnids. None of it is very gruesome, this is not a spatter zone like Troopers was. This is just fighting back against big spiders.

 Two very traditional archetypes are present here. First you have the splintered family being tested and restored by adversity. The lead characters are a NY Transit official and his soon to be ex-wife public health inspector, who discover the nature of the threat. They have a tween daughter that is neglected but loved and an older babysitter who plays protector when the mom and dad can't be around. The second cliche in the movie is the military conspiracy which wants to weaponize the species. There is a hard headed colonel who leads the network of evil insiders against the general population but also the troops themselves. Nether story goes very far, they are just convenient frameworks upon which the story can rely to move to the next scene. There are no surprises in the resolution of the story, there is not a high level of fear, just a little bit of creepy.


The film was competently made, none of the actors seemed amateurish even when the story and dialogue seemed to be. The special effects are mostly screen work and CGI with a few practical on camera prop pieces. I did think there was a nice shot early on in the film when the one of the small spiders aggressively attacks a rat in the subway tunnel as the bureaucrats are talking in the background. This is a family friendly little science fiction flick that was put together on a budget, tells a conventional story and finishes quickly. It would be a very high class film for the SyFy network, but it would only rate graveyard hours on most cable networks. Don't go out of your way to find it, you can show it to the ten, eleven and twelve year olds in your house on a rainy day. Afterwards you can play a game of "Monopoly" or "Clue" and have a safe,pleasant evening at home.