DVD Reviews: Micmacs

Micmacs ** ½
Directed by: Jean-Pierre Jeunet.
Written By: Jean-Pierre Jeunet and Guillaume Laurant.
Starring: Dany Boon (Bazil), André Dussollier (Nicolas Thibault de Fenouillet), Nicolas Marié (François Marconi), Jean-Pierre Marielle (Placard), Yolande Moreau (Tambouille), Julie Ferrier (La Môme Caoutchouc), Omar Sy (Remington), Dominique Pinon (Fracasse), Michel Crémadès (Petit Pierre), Marie-Julie Baup (Calculette).

On a purely surface level, Jean-Pierre Jeunet’s Micmacs is a joy to behold. The director of such films as Amelie and A Very Long Engagement has always been among the most visually inventive of modern directors, marrying his strange stories with visuals that somehow make them all the more compelling and strange. Watching Amelie is still a breath of fresh air – and hugely original take on a genre that more often than not seems to simply be going through the motions. Sadly though, there is a similar feel to Micmacs – that Jeunet is simply going throught the motions this time around.

The movie is about Bazil (Dany Boon) whose father was killed when he was a kid, and as an adult he goes outside his job one day when he hears gunshots, and ends up getting hit in the head with a stray bullet. The bullet, now lodged in his brain, cannot be removed because it could kill him or turn him into a vegetable, so in his brain it sits, waiting for the moment when it cause his head to blow. When he gets out of the hospital, he has lost his apartment, all his things and his job. He starts working the streets, and is soon adopted by a ragtag group of misfits who salvage material to build their weird contraptions. But Bazil wants revenge – not on the people who killed his father and shot him in the head – but on the weapons manufacturers who gave them the means to do both. Luckily for him, they are located in town, across the street from one another. He and his new found family get together to try and destroy the two companies – by making each one think the other is trying to sabotage them.

All of this is told by Jeunet in his typical, inventive, irreverent style. His camera is free and moves along effortlessly through the streets. The visual effects are pretty much a constant – and the primary joy of the movie is to watch as this motley crew of people devise more and more devious ways to get back at the weapons manufactuer. These people spend as much time planning elaborate hoaxes as Jigsaw does with his death machines in the Saw films.

All of this is quite enjoyable for a while – unfortunately the point in which it stops being enjoyable is about the half way point in the film. From there on in, we realize that none of these characters are people we actually care about – and Jeunet is so focused on the visuals and the contraptions that they aren’t likely to develop into those characters either. Everyone is pretty much defined by their physical characteristics and what they can do – because that is all the movie requires them to be. The two weapons manufactuer CEO look so similar that even now I’m not sure which one produced the bullet that is lodged in Bazil’s head, and which one produced the landmine that killed his father. And I don’t think it matters all that much either.

There is invetiveness in every frame of Micmacs, and perhaps I should be easier on the film than I am. Afterall, it isn’t many directions who would throw so much at the screen, and have so much of it stick. But in the end, I didn’t really care about what happened in the film. It glides along on its pluck and visual ingenuity, but sooner or later I grew bored with it all. So much talent went into this film, and so little comes out.

DVD Review: The Square

The Square *** ½
Directed by: Nash Edgerton.
Written By: Joel Edgerton and Matthew Dabner.
Starring: David Roberts (Raymond Yale), Claire van der Boom (Carla Smith), Joel Edgerton (Billy), Anthony Hayes (Greg 'Smithy' Smith), Lisa Bailey (Wendy), Lucy Bell (Martha Yale), Paul Caesar (Sergeant Gary Miles), Kieran Darcy-Smith (Barney), Brendan Donoghue (Leonard Long).

The Square was the first of two Australian crime dramas to be released in America this year by a related group of filmmakers that together represent a new wave of Australian filmmakers – one more promising than anyone since Peter Weir came out of there decades ago. The other film was Animal Kingdom, and although it was released second, I saw it first, and no matter how good this film is, that one is even better. Perhaps that’s because Animal Kingdom was more focused on its characters, whereas The Square is pretty much all plot from the word go. But it is a great plot – a twisty, turny thriller that goes off in multiple directions that I never saw coming.

The setup is classic noir – a normal guy Ray (David Roberts) is having an affair with a younger woman, Carla (Claie van der Boom). They are both married, but want to run away together – he perhaps because he is bored with his life and his wife, and Carla makes him feel young. She because her husband, Greg (Anthony Hayes) is a violent asshole. But Greg does have a lot of money hidden in their house, and Carla knows where it is. They hit on a plan to steal the money, and then burn the house to the ground so Greg won’t know the money was stolen. But of course, things never goes as planned in a film like this.

And that’s all the plot I will reveal about The Square – because the biggest pleasure of the film is to watch the plot unfold. It isn’t the only scam Ray has on the go though, and as this and all his other scams blow up in his face, and as more and more people start finding out what is going on, more and more bodies start to pile up. And it was all supposed to be so simple.

The Square is a movie where literally everything that can go wrong in their plan does go wrong. If I were to lay it all out for you step by step, you would rightly think that the series of events in the film were improbable at best, impossible at worst. And yet, each twist in the movie, each mistake that leads to another dead body, seems completely plausible at the time it takes place in the movie – not just that it seems inevitable and inescapable. The film plays like one of the Coen brothers thrillers – something like Blood Simple or Fargo, where things go wrong simply because they can, and the characters try and readjust and move forward, and do a remarkably good job of it, until the next castrophe catches them and they start all over again.

I admired the film a great deal because nothing in it seems forced, not the plot twists, not the characters, not any of the violence in the film. It unfolds naturally, and though there are some typical “thriller” scenes, like a car chase, they play out naturally, and don’t go for heightened effect. The same goes for the characters. Ray, although he is the typical noir hero, drawn in by a beautiful woman into doing something he doesn’t want to do, isn’t quite the sap we often get here. He didn’t really want to do what they did in the first place – but he went along, probably because he’s thinking more with his dick than with his head (one of the things I admired about the film is that it joins the story already in progress – we never find out how Ray and Carla met, or when they hooked up). Carla for her part plays the part of the femme fatale, but really isn’t one. For that to be true, I think there needs to be some sort of malice on her part, and she is innocent of that. She simply wants out of her unhappy marriage, and sees the money and Ray as her ticket out. She doesn’t use him, like a femme fatale would, but actually does seem to want to run away with him.

I also liked the end of the film. While it would appear that it wraps everything up neatly, I wonder if it actually does. I see Ray still squirming at the end of the film, still trying to get out of the mess he has made for himself, and still letting the bodies pile up all around him. Poor guy never knew what hit him.

DVD Review: The Killer Inside Me

The Killer Inside Me ** ½
Directed by: Michael Winterbottom
Written By: John Curran based on the novel by Jim Thompson.
Starring: Casey Affleck (Lou Ford), Kate Hudson (Amy Stanton), Jessica Alba (Joyce Lakeland), Ned Beatty (Chester Conway), Elias Koteas (Joe Rothman), Tom Bower (Sheriff Bob Maples), Simon Baker (Howard Hendricks), Bill Pullman (Billy Boy Walker), Brent Briscoe (Bum / Stranger), Liam Aiken (Johnnie Pappas).

Casey Affleck has such a sweet, young baby face that it makes his performance as a sexually sadistic psychopath in The Killer Inside Me all the more chilling. Outwardly, his Sheriff’s Deputy Lou Ford seems like the nicest guy you could possibly want to meet – with his shit eating grin, his constant barrage of clichéd speech and his slow, Southern drawl, he seems like a perfectly normal, if somewhat hokey 1950s Texas lawman. But behind all that exterior is a cold, cruel man who he doesn’t want anyone to see.

Based on Jim Thompson’s 1950s novel, that apparently Stanley Kubrick was such a huge fan of that he hired Thompson to write The Killing for him, The Killer Inside Me as a novel is one of the most chilling books ever written about the mind of a psychopath. Keep in mind that it was written long before psychiatrists starting studying psychopaths, and it is even more remarkable at just how eerily good Thompson’s novel is in its details. Told entirely from the point of view of the psycho in question – Lou Ford – the novel places us directly inside his mind as he murders his way through his small Texas town, and it is completely chilling.

But something has been lost in the translation from book to screen, and Michael Winterbottom’s movie just doesn’t quite feel right. Affleck is amazing as Ford, a man whose violent, sexual relationship with a prostitute (Jessica Alba) reawakens his dark desires that he had long since suppressed, and thought he was over. His violent tastes start to consume him – not just when he’s with Alba, but when he’s with his sweet, naïve, innocent fiancée (Kate Hudson) as well. He comes up with a plan to hopefully rid himself of the demons once and for all – and it involves murder – but once that is done, he has to continue killing, more and more people, to keep from getting found out. By the end of the film his demons have completely consumed him.

Winterbottom is one of those interesting directors who seems at home in pretty much any genre – from costume dramas (Jude) to sci-fi (Code 46) to documentary (The Road to Guantanamo) to heart rending dramas (A Mighty Heart) to goofy comedy (Tristan Shandy) to Westerns (The Claim) to art porn (9 Songs). He wants to try every genre imaginable in his career. In The Killer Inside Me, he has made a hard boiled, Southern noir, and gives the film a dark look, and the whole thing seems sort of surreal – kind of like a film noir directed by David Lynch. I liked the visual look of the film that harkens back to the past. The violence in the movie is harsh, unrelenting and somewhat sickening – but then again that is how it should be in a film like this. The charges that the film is misoganystic are ridiculous, because just because its main character hates women, it doesn’t mean the film does.

The problem with the movie I think is that Thompson’s novel doesn’t really lend itself to the movie treatment. Its strength is that it traps the reader inside the mind of a psychopath and doesn’t let them go. The fact that the other characters in the novel aren’t fully drawn out makes sense in a novel – after all, he doesn’t really have any feelings, and views people just as a means to an end to get what he wants out of them. That works in the book, but in the movie it is unsatisfying. It’s not that Jessica Alba or Kate Hudson are bad in the film – they really are about as good as they can be given what they have to work with – but Ford sees them merely as objects, and the screenplay by John Curran doesn’t develop them, or anyone else any further.

It must be said though that Casey Affleck truly is great in the lead role – and he does an amazing job at showing us behind the mask that his character has spent a lifetime building up. It is a haunting performance. But the movie remains slightly distant in every other sense. Absent the true inner workings of a psychopath, that the books long passages allowed us to glimpse, this is just another neo-noir that decides looking cool was more important than anything else. It’s a shame, because there is greatness in the movie, but the overall effect is lacking.

Movie Review: The Social Network

The Social Network ****
Directed by: David Fincher.
Written By: Aaron Sorkin based on the book by Ben Mezrich.
Starring: Jesse Eisenberg (Mark Zuckerberg), Andrew Garfield (Eduardo Saverin), Justin Timberlake (Sean Parker), Armie Hammer (Cameron/Tyler Winklevoss), Rooney Mara (Erica Albright), Max Minghella (Divya Narendra), Joseph Mazzello (Dustin Moskovitz), Rashida Jones (Marylin Delpy), Brenda Song (Christy), Malese Jow (Alice).

The Social Network has already been compared to Citizen Kane, and while most of the time, I would dismiss this as critical hyperbole, in this case the critics who have said this actually have a point. Not because this film is as good as Welles masterpiece, but because thematically the two movies are linked. Both are about the American Dream gone wrong - about a man who has accomplished everything that he should have longed for, but is still desperately alone. And when his one true friendship ends, because of his own actions, it signals that he has finally gone too far to come back. The difference of course is that when Citizen Kane ended, Charles Foster Kane was dead. But when The Social Network ends, Mark Zuckerberg is still in his early twenties, and has most of his life ahead of him. While it was too late for Kane, it’s not for Mark Zuckerberg.

The Social Network opens which is perhaps the best opening scene of any movie this year. Zuckerberg (Jessie Eisenberg) is sitting in a bar with his girlfriend Erica (Rooney Mara) telling her about the Harvard Final Clubs, and how great it would be to me in them. Their conversation moves at light speed - as most in the movie do, in classic Aaron Sorkin style, who has perhaps written the best screenplay of the year - but it essentially boils down to this - Zuckerberg is smarter than almost everyone else, especially his own girlfriend, and he wants to be cool. But he never will be cool - he will always be a nerd. When Erica finally has enough of being insulted she stands up and tells him “You’re going to go through your whole life thinking that girls don’t like you because you’re a nerd. But that’s not the reason. The reason is that you’re an asshole”. Everything Zuckerberg does for the rest of the movie is essentially done to both disprove and prove her argument.

Zuckerberg is one of the smartest guys at Harvard, which is saying something. But he is still a loser, who hangs out with his loser friends, and when Erica dumps him, he decides to get some revenge. He hacks into multiple Harvard databases, all in one night, and pulls out a picture of every undergrad girl on campus and creates a website called “Facemash”, where you can vote on which one of two girls is hotter. He not only does this all in one night, he also live blogs it. The site is an instant hit, but collapses almost right away, and when the girls in Harvard find out who is behind it, he is even more of a pariah than he was before. But then he decides to create another website - this one called The Facebook, which allows users to find out what their friends are doing, who is single, who is available. His essential idea is to take the college experience and put it online. This becomes an even bigger hit.

The film is structured in flashback, looking at how Zuckerberg and his friends built site, and then flashes forward to depositions being given in not one, but two, lawsuits against him and Facebook. One is filed by the Winklevoss twins (both played by Armie Hammer). The Winklevoss are spoiled rich kids, who row crew for Harvard, and say that they had the idea for Facebook first, and that Zuckerberg screwed them over. The other is by Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield), who was Zuckerberg’s best friend, and original financial backer - and first CFO of Facebook - who Zuckerberg will also screw over.

Zuckerberg, as written by Sorkin and acted by Eisenberg, is one of the most fascinating characters of the year. They don’t take the easy way out and portray Zuckerberg either as a misunderstand rebel genius, nor as an unrepentant asshole. He is neither and both. What he really seems to be is someone who has no real clue at how to interact with other people. He doesn’t understand what he said wrong to Erica in that opening scene - even though he implied she was stupid because she was only going to UB (“why do you need to study”) and that she should be grateful that Zuckerberg is willing to date her at all. Later, when he clearly screws over his best friend, he again doesn’t seem to realize why he is so mad at him - the fact that he essentially tried to screw him out of hundreds of millions of dollars doesn’t seem to enter Zuckerberg’s mind.

David Fincher is a little more subdued than normal in his direction of this film - although there are some virtuoso sequences in the films, and his use of Trent Reznor’s music is the best it has ever been in a Fincher film. This is a more straight forward film for him - one that follows the lead of the great screenplay by Aaron Sorkin that captures college life perfectly, is full of whip smart, rapid fire dialogue that actually works, and creates vivid characters., not just Zuckerberg. The Winklevoss twins are a perfect example of spoiled, rich kids who as Zuckerberg correctly says is only suing him because “for the first time in their lives things didn’t work out how they were supposed to for them”. Andrew Garfield’s Eduardo Serverin is perhaps the only truly sympathetic character in the movie - he is the only one comfortable in his own skin, the only one who truly likes Zuckerberg for who he is, not for what he can do for him. Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake) represents to Zuckerberg what he wants to be - a cool nerd, who can get any girl, and walks around like he owns everyone - even though as the founder of Napster, he actually has no money. For his part, Timberlake plays the role brilliantly - that of the nerd with no self confidence who has tried so hard to be cool, that he has fooled everyone, including himself, into think it’s actually true. His best scene is when he is being arrested for drug possession, and has to admit that what is in his pocket is his epee pen and inhaler. No matter how cool everyone thinks he is, he will always be a nerd.

And that’s true of Zuckerberg as well. He hates being a nerd - and that is perhaps why he screws over the Winklevoss twins. He is good enough for them to want to work for them, but when it comes to their Final Club, they won’t invite him past the bike room because he isn’t a member. And maybe that’s what angers him about Eduardo as well - that he was invited to belong to a Final Club, and he never was, and because he gets some of the credit for creating Facebook, when to Zuckerberg, it was all him and everyone else just tagged along behind him. He comes across as an asshole, but as one character observes “you’re not an asshole. You’re just trying really hard to be one”. No matter what Zuckerberg accomplishes, no matter how much money he has, he will always be the guy who hesitates before inviting the girl he likes to be his friend on facebook - and then constantly hits refresh to see if she has accepted.

Movie Review: You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger

You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger ** ½
Directed by: Woody Allen.
Written By: Woody Allen.
Starring: Naomi Watts (Sally), Josh Brolin (Roy), Freida Pinto (Dia), Anthony Hopkins (Alfie), Gemma Jones (Helena), Lucy Punch (Charmaine), Antonio Banderas (Greg), Anna Friel (Iris), Pauline Collins (Cristal), Ewen Bremner (Henry Strangler).

The films of Woody Allen have become something like comfort food. Every year, the filmmaker makes another film, which is always undeniably a Woody Allen film as he remains one of the most distinctive filmmakers of all time - in terms of dialogue, visual approach and themes, Allen really has been doing something similar for more than 40 years now. He has always been a hit and miss filmmaker, and even if fewer of his films are hitting, and many more are missing, he still has the talent As he has proven in recent films like Match Point, the criminally neglected Cassandra’s Dream and Vicky Cristina Barcelona, he can still make a great film. But for the most part, we continue to get films like You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger - a mildly diverting, but ultimately although pointless film.

Returning to London, setting of Match Point and Cassandra’s Dream after shooting his last two films in Spain Vicky Cristina Barcelona, and New York City for Whatever Works. But no matter where Allen sets his films, they all have a similar feel, and are about similar people - people who are overeducated, who are constantly thinking that what they don’t have is better than what they do have, and they spend too much time overanalyzing their lives, and too little time actually living them.

This time, Allen focuses his gaze on Sally (Naomi Watts) who is married to Roy (Josh Brolin). He is a writer who had a success with his first novel, and has spent years trying to figure out how to follow it up. She works in an art gallery to try and support him as he works on finishing his latest novel - but basically they spend much of their time arguing. They are unhappy, and he has started to spy on his neighbor across the street - Dia (Freida Pinto) - and his peeping tom behavior actually leads to a relationship of sorts. She has started to see her boss (Antonio Baderas) in a different light - like her, he is caught in a marriage that makes him unhappy. Then there are Sally’s parents - Alfie (Anthony Hopkins) has just left Helena (Gemma Jones) because he doesn’t want to admit he’s old. He falls for a prostitute Charmaine (Lucy Punch), and makes the mistake of marrying her, and then being surprised to find that she did it because he has money. Meanwhile Helena spends all her time visiting a psychic, whose advice she bases all of her decisions on.

All this is is handled with skill and smarts by Allen. He does know how to write dialogue, and provide us with some interesting characters. Unfortunately this time around, it all rings kind of hollow. It’s not that Allen’s films in the recent past have seem overly original - they are all variations on a theme - but this time, he seems to be going through the motions a little too much. Everything feels just slightly warmed over and derivative. I did quite like Lucy Punch as the call girl that Hopkins marries, who is a little more complicated than we first think. But everyone else is essentially established early, and never really become more complex. Especially Frieda Pinto who is little more than female perfection personified - she doesn’t even get the typical dose of Allen neurosis. Allen, who hasn’t acted in one of his films since Scoop back in 2006, is well known for providing surrogated for himself in the film even when he isn’t in them - this time, I suppose he can be seen in Josh Brolin as the struggling author, and in Hopkins as the older man trying to convince himself he’s still young, but eventually realizing he cannot fool himself any longer. Both do an fine job with their roles - although at times Hopkins simply seems like he’s going through the motions, much like Allen himself. Naomi Watts is one of the harsher female characters in Allen’s recent works - there is very little to like about her, as whenever we see her she is complaining and has a sense of entitlement which is off-putting. I did like Gemma Jones as her mother Helena, but that’s because she does a really good job at being really annoying. I think that Banderas does a very good job at playing aloof - a man who we, just like Watts, seem to deliberately misread because we want him to be something he is not.

Perhaps I am being too hard on Allen and this film. After all, one of the first things he has the narrator say in the film is a paraphrase of Shakespeare’s famous quote about life being nothing but sound and fury signifying nothing. That is a pretty much perfect description of You Will Meet a Tall Dark Stranger, so I guess who much you like the film will depend on how much you like all this sound and fury, because there really is nothing else here.

Movie Review: Catfish

Catfish *** ½
Directed by: Henry Joost & Ariel Schulman.

Spoiler Warning: The filmmakers of Catfish really do not want you to know the secrets of the film before you see the film itself, and this is something I concur with - because I’m not sure the film would be as effective if you know too much about it. You can probably read the first four paragraphs of this review and not have too much spoiled for you, but if you are planning on seeing the film, then I would stop reading at the end of paragraph four - or perhaps even at the end of this warning - and come back after you’ve seen the film. But because it really is the surprise in the third act that makes the movie as good as it is, I don’t think I can write a proper review without revealing the twist. So once again, stop reading if you want to preserve the experience of seeing it for yourself. Consider yourself warned.

Facebook has allowed people who never would have met in the past to find each other and bond. This sounds like a good thing - and it can be - but the problem is that meeting people on facebook, or any other social website, still allows a degree of anonymity. People would never think of saying the things they say online in person, but because all it is typing, they feel more confident online - and more prone to lying.

The new documentary Catfish tells the story of Nev, a freelance photography who has one of his photos published in the New York Post. A few months later he receives a painting of that photo - and is told that it is done by an 8 year old. He starts corresponding with the girl, her mother and her older sister. Hat starts out as a friendship between him and the older sister turns into something more. They start flirting with each other online and via text message, and even start talking on the phone. But every time Nev tries to figure out a time and place where they can actually meet in person, there are excuses. And then he discovers that some of the songs she has sent him aren’t really her singing. And this makes him dig a little deeper, and discover more and more inconsistencies with reality between what she has told him, and what he knows to be true. He, and his two friends - the directors of the film - eventually decide to find out the truth they are simply going to have to travel to her house for an unexpected visit. And that, of course, when things get truly weird.

A few people have questioned the veracity of this documentary, but since as far as I can tell no one has been able to prove they faked anything, and because what I saw when I watched the film struck me as legitimate, I have a tendency to believe that its true. If they did fake it all, well then they did a much better job than Joaquin Phoenix and Casey Affleck did in I’m Still Here. As to why the filmmakers decided to start filming all these interactions when they and Nev still took everything that was being said to them at face value, I really don’t have trouble believing it. After all, isn’t the whole concept of Facebook that will all believe that everyone else is interested in even the tiniest details of our lives?

The first act of the movie is interesting because it seems so universal - two people meeting each other online and seemingly share a deep connection. At this point, we have all seen too many movies, too many TV reports about real life connections between people online where one person turns out not to be the person they have made themselves out to be, so we have an uneasy feeling about what will happen. The second act, when Nev and the filmmakers start digging into everything that he has been told, and piecing together all the lies feels inevitable. And yet nothing really prepares us for the final act of the film - which is something that I didn’t really see coming.

Once again, I would advise you to stop reading here if you don’t want to know the secret of the film. Final warning,
When the filmmakers and Nev arrive at the address they are given for this family - in upstate Michigan (they are from New York), they meet who is undoubtedly the most fascinating character in the movie. This is Angela, the mother of Abby, the supposed 8 year old art prodigy, and Megan, the older sister Nev has been flirting with for months on end. She looks nothing like her picture, and Abby doesn’t seem to know too much about Nev, or painting for that matter. Her husband looks different that normal as well, and she has two seriously disabled stepsons, that for some reason no one ever mentioned. When she tells Nev that Megan isn’t home, because she lives upstate at a farm, we already know this is a lie - the farm, was the filmmakers first star, and they find it empty.

Of course it turns out that everyone Nev has been communicating with is all Angela. She does all the paintings, she has been talking, testing and flirting with Nev as her daughter Megan - who does appear to actually exist, although we never find out anything verifiable about her. Angela created unique Facebook profiles for herself, Megan, her other son Alex (who is completely fake) and a host of friends - all to try and fool Nev into thinking they are real.

Angela is a fascinating person, because there doesn’t seem to be a malicious bone in her body. Yes, she was playing a trick on Nev, but she didn’t do it to be mean, but to make up for own life - in which she is somewhat miserable. In Nev, she found someone she could talk to, and kind of be herself - which of course is strange since she is lying constantly. But we simply feel sorry for her, not angry. Not even Nev can bring himself to be angry. He just wants to know why - and that is perhaps the only thing Angela cannot accurately explain to him.

Catfish is a fascinating documentary - about an issue that even 10 years ago wouldn’t have existed. I have no idea how it will play if you know the secret of the film - or on a second viewing for that matter - but the film drew me in, and held my attention - and unlike most films, it gets better, more complex, more interesting as it goes along. If it turns out the film is a hoax, than bravo to the filmmakers. They had been fooled. Because Catfish feels all too real.

Oscar Update: The Best Picture Contenders

It’s October, which means the Oscar Race is already in full swing. Pretty much every week between now and the end of the year, we will get something that is vying for awards attention. And oddly, the race is already starting to settle a little. There are really are only 8 films that will be trying for a Best Picture nomination that NO ONE has seen yet – True Grit, How Do You Know, Morning Glory, Due Date, Love and Other Drugs, The Fighter, The Tourist and For Colored Girls. When you consider that Morning Glory and Due Date are comedies from untested Oscar directors, For Colored Girls is the first time Tyler Perry, who the critics hate, has had a film even being mentioned at Oscar time, that may mean that the other four maybe the only legit ones left to be seen barring a last minute game changing entry – like Million Dollar Baby or Letters from Iwo Jima were. Perhaps Peter Weir’s The Way Back, which has been seen, will move into the season and shake things up.

And yet, for some reason I’m still not all that jazzed about the race this year. Perhaps its because I’m still waiting for MY film. At this point last year, I already had it – hell I had already seen what would become my top five films of the year – Inglorious Basterds, A Serious Man, The White Ribbon, Where the Wild Things Are and The Hurt Locker. At this point, my top five films from 2010 are A Prophet, Shutter Island, Inception, Toy Story 3 and Animal Kingdom – and while I definitely see the first three on my top 10 list, and perhaps the other two as well depending on what comes out, it just isn’t the same.

But let’s look at the top 20 Oscar contenders anyway. I am leaving the three films I see as possible contenders that NO ONE has seen at the bottom of the list. I seriously get tired of discussing film like Invictus, Nine, Charlie Wilson’s War etc. that everyone thinks will sweep the Oscars before they have even been seen by anyone.

The Seen By at Least Someone
1. The Social Network - Will seemingly be the critics pick this year, and has already drawn comparisons to Citizen Kane – lofty indeed. The Academy is notoriously old though, so who knows what they’ll think of a movie about Facebook. Still remains my most highly anticipated film for the rest of the year however, and I cannot wait to see it this weekend.
2. The King’s Speech – This is a guaranteed audience pleaser after taking the People’s Choice Award at Toronto this year – the last two, Precious and Slumdog Millionaire did pretty well at the Oscars. Plus, it is a costume drama, with Oscar friendly actors, which is Oscar bait, even if it has been a while since a film like this has actually won.
3. Toy Story 3 – I really don’t think this has a chance to win, but it’s silly to think the highest grossing, most critically adored film so far this year won’t crack the list considering they are going with 10 nominees again. Like Up, it will get its consulation prize in animated.
4. 127 Hours – A harrowing true life tale of survival. I thought the film was gritty and intense, and anchored by a great lead turn by James Franco – and I was one of the critics whose review was least positive. Since director Danny Boyle won for Slumdog two years ago, I have my doubts about a win for him or the film, but Franco carries this one into the nominees.
5. Another Year – The Academy either loves Mike Leigh films, or completely ignores them. From everything I have read, this strikes me as one of his that they are going to love. It has been a while since he broke the Best Picture line-up (back in 1996 for Secrets and Lies), but I think Topsy-Turvy and definitely Vera Drake would have been here had they had 10 nominees in those years.
6. The Kids Are All Right – A light, fun comedy with some serious issues underneath, that will allow the Academy to show off their liberal street cred. Plus, it has Oscar friendly actors – Annette Bening and Julianne still trying to win an Oscar, Mark Ruffalo still trying to get nominated. A solid run at the box office for an indie helps as well. Bank on it.
7. Inception – As the Academy proved last year, they are not adverse to audience friendly sci-fi, even it doesn’t come from James Cameron (District 9 was one of the cooler nominations in the past few years). Some will feel they owe Christopher Noland for snubbing The Dark Knight – and this time the film isn’t about a man dressed as a bat fighting a clown. Big box office helps a lot.
8. Black Swan – Darren Aronofsky has yet to break into the Best Picture Line-up, even when he has critically adored films like Requiem for a Dream and The Wrestler. I missed this one in Toronto, but the reviews have been amazing, and people are already saying that it could be Natalie Portman’s Oscar to lose. But I still wonder if the Academy will true go from something like this, from a director like Aronofsky.
9. The Town – The Town is a solid, dependable action movie for grown ups. The reviews have all been strong, the box office surprisingly good and the film feels like a classically structured crime film from the 1970s that we don’t see much anymore. I have trouble believing it will be ranked #1 by too many voters – but I can see it being ranked on a lot of different lists.
10. Made in Dagenham – Another audience pleaser, this one the story of a British woman (Sally Hawkins) who helps to get herself, and her female co-workers equal pay for equal work. Has been described as Norma Rae lite, but I do think that if they can convince enough older viewers to watch it, it could very well sneak in.
11. Hereafter – Clint Eastwood is beloved by the Academy, so you should never rule him out. Yes, the reviews coming out of Toronto for his latest were mixed, but you do have to wonder if the older Academy will respond to a film about death from an older Academy member that they love. If the film gets strong box office, it could hold on.
12. Rabbit Hole – A dark, depressing movie about family and loss, Rabbit Hole is an actors showcase for Nicole Kidman, Aaron Eckhart and Dianne Wiest – I think the women are almost assured of nominations. Since the actors make up the largest branch, they could get behind it. But I say it again – it is DEPRESSING.
13. Winter’s Bone – A critical darling from early in the year, the buzz on Jennifer Lawrence is simply growing louder as the year moves on. It will be one that the Academy members make sure they see, but it is dark, and the actors unfamiliar, so I wonder if they’ll vote for it.
14. Get Low – Solid reviews, Oscar friendly cast (Robert Duvall, Bill Murray, Sissy Spacek), a film about old people coming to grips with death and regret, but not one that is overly depressing. Solid box office for an indie film, expect this one to move up if other contenders start dropping.
15. Somewhere – A surprise winner at Venice, where the film was met with polite, if not spectacular reviews, before winning the top prize. They have nominated Sofia Coppola in the past for Lost in Translation, so if other film disappoint, they could nominate her again. Then again, the film stars Stephen Dorff, not really an Oscar name.
16. Secretariat – The Academy does love inspiring sports movies – Seabiscuit, The Blind Side, Rocky, etc – so this has to be seen as in the running for that inspirational movie slot that they often leave open. It needs to hit big at the box office though for that to happen.
17. Biutiful – The have nominated an Alejandro Gonzalez Innaritu film in the past (Babel), so it’s possible that they will do so again. The problem this time is the whole thing is in Spanish, and it is said to be really, really depressing. Javier Bardem will help get people to see it, but will they vote for it?
The Unseen
18. True Grit – The preview released earlier this week looked absolutely stunning. Now that Jeff Bridges is an Oscar winner, and the Academy seems to have warmed to the Coens, this one could easily move up the list. Even the fact that it a remake of a John Wayne film, that won the Duke his Oscar, won’t deter it. No one really liked the original anyway, they just felt bad that they had ignored Wayne for so long. I expect this to move up, but until someone actually sees the movie, I remain cautiously optimistic.
19. The Fighter – The Academy does love a good boxing movie, and this looks like it could fit the bill with Mark Wahlberg as an aging fighter giving it one more shot, but having to leave behind his brother Christain Bale to do so. Co-stars Amy Adams and Melissa Leo are recent nominees as well. The film is directed by David O. Russell, who is pretty much hated by Hollywood (except Wahlberg who is making his third film with the man), so that could hurt him. What could also hurt it is if it is a little too by the numbers – and the preview suggests it could be.
20. How Do You Know – I never count out a James L. Brooks film until it has actually been seen. After all, the man has only directed five films in his career – and three of them, Terms of Endearment, Broadcast News and As Good As It Gets, were Best Picture nominees. The preview doesn’t scream Oscar to me, but until the reviews and box office are in, I won’t count it out.

So what other films are possible? Never Let Me Go has some passionate supporters, but I wonder if the film is too dark, too cold for the Academy, and the box office is weak. Love and Other Drugs could hit, but it’s a romcom, not their favorite genre, from Edward Zwick, who doesn’t know the genre well, and its unseen, so I didn’t rank it. The Tourist has Johnny Depp and Angelina Jolie, and is from Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck who won the foreign Oscar for The Lives of Others. But it doesn’t sound very Oscar-y, and no one has seen it. They seem to have high hopes for Barney’s Version, but I am nervous for any film at this point that doesn’t have a definitive release date. I remained unconvinced that Tyler Perry is capable of directing an Oscar film, but will definitely be seeing For Colored Girls when it comes out anyway. Conviction has a chance at some acting nominations, but I didn’t hear anyone doing cartwheels over it in Toronto. The Tempest is Julie Taymor’s take on Shakespeare, so it could be brilliant, but will almost definitely be too weird for Oscar. I think that perhaps releasing Blue Valentine on December 31st is a mistake – small movies like that need time to build. I really doubt that Due Date from Todd Philips is an Oscar film, but The Hangover may have come closer than we think last year. Finally, if all else fails, turn to Martin Scorsese and Shutter Island which some, like me, absolutely love.

Tune in Next Friday, when I’ll go over the two lead acting categoris.