Popcorn Talk Oscar Reactions, Vol. III: Best Picture- The Good, The Bad and the "Gigli"

Finally, we have arrived at the biggest award of the night of the Awards: yes folks, I'm talking about costume design! I kid, of course, the main attraction is obviously the Academy Award for Best Picture. The nominees were Amour, Beasts of the Southern Wild, Django Unchained, Les Miserables, Life of Pi, Lincoln, my personal favorite Zero Dark Thirty, and the winner, Ben Affleck's Argo. This year has a wonderful selection of films, but it is actually very obvious why Argo won, underneath all the fluff. Both Django Unchained and Les Mis are, as I have mentioned before, niche films. Despite their acclaim, each has a target audience that loves the movie through thick and thin; I consider myself to be a member of the Tarantino fanbase myself. However, niche and cult films are often losers, despite all acclaim, such as with Looper. Amour also lost in a similar fashion to the two aforementioned films. It was a foreign film that, while it was acclaimed, failed to achieve widespread exposure due to the fact it did not boast anything special enough, as a foreign film, to interest the filmgoing masses in the United States. Beasts of the Southern Wild is something of a curious case. It was Benh Zeitlen's directorial debut and an unexpected hit, but the director (and cast's) youth prevented its success at the awards. Life of Pi, despite featuring a moving story and masterful direction by Ang Lee (who earned the Oscar for Best Director this year), I personally feel the film relied too much on cinematography and computer generated imagery than its story, detracting it like a PowerPoint with one too many effects. Lincoln's biggest attraction was Day-Lewis's excellent acting and the star power of Sally Field, Tommy Lee Jones, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt in attracting audiences. However, it does't do it in a corny or callous fashion; it, like Les Mis, uses it star power in good measure and excellent choice by the casters and directors, unlike the cornucopia of films who abuse star power into being their main and only attraction.  Otherwise, it's a roughly strait-forward film that presents its topic excellently, but not Oscar-worthy. Now to the final films: Argo and Zero Dark Thirty. Why I thought the latter would win was multifaceted: it was visceral, thought-provoking, allegorical, brilliant, and, overall, relevant. More relevant than Argo. Both films possessed a thrilling story, superb acting choice, and excellent direction. But that's what differentiates Argo from Zero Dark Thirty: Ben Affleck is an absolutely incredible director. He's long since abandoned flops like Jersey Girl, Daredevil, and his barely forgivable Gigli, and broken into the upper echelon of filmmaking with Gone Baby Gone, The Town, and his period piece opus, Argo. It's even more impressive than Kathryn Bigelow's career, and it is his historic comeback that earned him this award. 

Popcorn Talk Oscar Reactions, Vol. II: Best Actor- For a Few Analyses More

For the second entry in the Popcorn Talk Oscar Reactions, I'll be dissecting the choices in the Best Actor category. The nominees were Denzel Washington (Flight), Joaquin Phoenix (The Master), Hugh Jackman (Les Miserables), Bradley Cooper (Silver Linings Playbook), and the winner, Daniel Day-Lewis, for his portrayal of Abraham Lincoln in Steven Spielberg's Lincoln. Phoenix, whose most famous role was Johnny Cash in 2005's Walk the Line, failed to generate enough publicity for Paul Thomas Anderson's superb film The Master, which admittedly was a more intellectual film, something not commonly enjoyed by the average American filmgoer (summed up here beautifully by Peter Travers). Jackman, on the other hand, was magnificent as Jean Valjean in Les Mis, and also managed to achieve a high degree of publicity for the direction, ensemble cast, and singing, but also acted in something of a niche film, reserved almost entirely for musical lovers. That said, it was wonderful, but unfortunately not "mainstream" enough for the voters of the Academy. Bradley Cooper had excellent chemistry with his costar Ms. Lawrence, and also portrayed a character with a never-failing sense of optimism despite his condition, simply failed to compare to his fellow nominees, though I am thankful he has expanded from raunchy comedies like The Hangover and is making his migration to more sensitive films. Day-Lewis's closest competitor in the race was undoubtedly Denzel Washington in Flight. He also portrayed a deeply flawed character (something of a theme this year, no?) who is inherently good in is heart, but struggles with addiction to the point where it cripples his career but follows him during his trial for drinking while flying, but saving the passengers from dying a fiery death in a crash, all while his fate hangs in the balance. However, Washington's excellent acting ability pales in comparison to Day-Lewis's Lincoln. A well-known method actor, he takes his own reputation and expands it beyond his wildest beliefs. He nailed the voice and character of Lincoln, who worked hard to unite a divided Congress and cabinet through the power of persuasion and his unparalleled gift of gab. In short, Daniel Day-Lewis deserved that award more than he deserved it for his role as Daniel Plainview in There Will Be Blood.

Popcorn Talk Oscar Reactions Vol. I: Best Actress- A Fistfull of Analyses

The Academy Awards were last night, and I will be the first to admit that a good amount of my predictions were actually incorrect, ranging from not so incorrect (Best Supporting Actor: Christoph Waltz versus Phillip Seymour Hoffman) to terribly incorrect (Best Cinematography: Life of Pi won, contrary to my prediction of Django Unchained). However, this will not be an article focusing on the lesser Academy Awards, such as sound mixing, but rather the core group of three, Best Actor, Best Actress, and the ubiquitous Best Picture (I am eschewing other prestigious awards, such as Best Director and Best Screenplay, due to length concerns, despite the fact that I hold the recipients in the highest regard). Of course, they will not be presented in a series of rants that describe my pleasure or displeasure with the Academy's choices, but rather a series of in-depth critical analyses describing why the actors and films won the award, regardless of my position. I'll be sharing each volume in three days, beginning with Best Actress and concluding with Best Picture. First, here were the winners: Jennifer Lawrence won Best Actress for Silver Linings Playbook, Daniel Day-Lewis won Best Actor for his portrayal of Abraham Lincoln in Lincoln, and the winner for Best Picture was Argo. We'll begin with Best Actress. The nominees were Jessica Chastain (Zero Dark Thirty), Emmanuelle Riva (Amour), Quvenzhané Wallis (Beasts of the Southern Wild), Naomi Watts (The Impossible), and of course the winner, Ms. Lawrence. Perhaps one of the most-hyped nominees was Ms. Wallis, who, at nine years old, is the youngest nominee for Best Actress in the history of the Academy Awards. While it is a proud moment for film historians, critics, and bloggers alike, it should be remembered that she is still but a child; a talented child, but a child nonetheless. She is not yet ready to compete with such high-caliber actresses like Jessica Chastain, Jennifer Lawrence, and Naomi Watts. Then there was Ms. Riva, who was nominated for the French film Amour, which surprised critics and audiences alike by scoring a high amount of nominations for a foreign film, much like The Artist, last year's winner for Best Picture. However, Riva and Amour in general did not receive as much publicity as their American counterparts, which some might say is unfair. Of course, it should be expected, as the average filmgoer in the states doesn't care much for foreign films, unless the boast something incredible, such as the German Das Boot (one of the most expensive films ever made), or The Artist, which was a silent film, something oft unheard of in today's day and age (The Artist also boasted an adorable dog actor named Uggie. Everyone loves puppies). Jessica Chastain, despite starring in one of the most acclaimed films of the year, failed to secure the award, perhaps due to the character she portrayed. Yes, she was a shoo-in, but her character was a type of allegory for the United States post 9/11, which is a touchy subject within itself. While I applaud this trait, the award deserves to go to someone who plays a riveting character, not a symbol. That said, I really did expect Naomi Watts to be taken a little more seriously. In The Impossible, she plays the exact type of riveting, tragic woman that is so often Oscar-bait, but there is one small problem. She was playing a woman who is still alive, and this may have been a contributor. By playing a living human, you have a high standard to uphold, and so much as a single side-by-side interview may disrupt this delicate balance. It's not believable to have a blonde bombshell like Watts play a humble Spaniard woman who was scarred by a tsunami. Should Watts have taken an approach similar to a character actor, like Daniel Day-Lewis or Robert de Nero, she may have won the award. Now, Jennifer Lawrence was the riveting, tragic woman that the Academy was looking for. She played a recovering sex addict with deeper issues that truly committed herself to the performance. Her character, in some ways, reminded me of April Ludgate (Aubrey Plaza) of Parks and Recreation: facetious and deadpan, though Lawrence adds the emotional side masterfully. She even possessed incredible chemistry with costar Bradley Cooper. She is an incredible actress who should perform excellently in the future. 

Review: "Identity Thief"

Identity Thief is the latest film from director Seth Gordon (whose filmography includes 2011's Horrible Bosses, which also featured Jason Bateman) and stars Jason Bateman and Melissa McCarthy. The story is fairly straightforward; Bateman plays a Denver native and accounts executive Sandy Bigelow Patterson, who was named after baseball legend Sandy Koufax by his late father. He is working at a firm run by cinema's 2,789th horrible boss, Harold Cornish (Jon Favreau), and leaves the firm at the beginning of the film to work as a VP at a new firm set up by coworker Daniel Casey. His identity is stolen by Diana (McCarthy), an identity thief living in Winter Park, Florida. She uses his credit cards to make outrageous purchases, including massive amounts of alcohol at local bars, a Fiat 500 with a custom paint job, and numerous appointments at a local salon. When a Denver detective tells him he missed a court date in Florida, he realizes his identity has been stolen. His credit score has been ruined, and Daniel mentions that it will deter possible clients. Patterson realizes who the thief is, and travels to Florida to apprehend Diana and bring her to justice in Denver, because apparently the Denver police force is incredibly inept and cannot afford to expend a single detective to catch an identity thief. Patterson arrives in FLorida and promptly finds Diana, and he takes her on a road trip to Denver, as his plane ticket sare rendered invalid by the identity crisis and Diana secretly owes debts to a drug dealer who is now in prison, and the duo is pursued by his enforcers Marisol (Genesis Rodríguez) and Julian (T.I.). From that point on, "hilarity" ensues on their road trip throughout the country. I use the term "hilarity" loosely here because it really doesn't apply. When watching the film, I couldn't help but notice the numerous corners director Gordon had cut when making his film, and it shows in the final product. The movie felt so... cliché, to say the least. Favreau's character seems as if he was made from the same cookiecutter as Kevin Spacey's character in Horrible Bosses, who also happened to play the role of Bateman's boss. The police force is so inept that it makes them look like they come out of a superhero film, as they cannot even expend a single officer to apprehend a criminal, preferring to send the victim and risk his life. There is also massive amounts of typecasting in the roles of the lead characters. Bateman has, unfortunately, often been thrust into the role of the imperiled everyman, when in fact he has more talents as an actor. We appreciated this in Arrested Development, but from there it goes downhill. There's The Switch, Horrible Bosses (which is the most forgivable of these films), and, worst of all, The Change-Up. He almost always plays an upper-middle class office worker who is being screwed over at work and has to go to extreme measures to solve his unusual problems. As for McCarthy, her character feels like a criminal variation of Megan, her character from Bridesmaids, one of her first major successes as an actress. It is from here on out that her films have been loaded with crude humor that has started to become unappealing. Yes, it can be funny in small doses, but only when coupled with decent jokes of another nature. Unfortunately, this film had a high density of shock humor and nothing to back it up, resulting in a failure of a film. That said, Bateman and McCarthy has excellent onscreen chemistry; their scenes that show their evolution as friends is good, aside from the obvious fact that jokes have been crammed into their dialogue, much as a squirrel would cram nuts into its cheeks. John Cho's role actually avoided being typecast, with his Harold & Kumar past, and he has evolved into a fine actor who can play a comedic strait man.

Consensus: Identity Thief is a below-average comedy film that takes road/buddy film clichés and amplifies the typecasting of its actors to create this monstrosity, only redeemed by the lead actors' chemistry.

Rating: 2/5

Coming Up This Week

This week I'll be sharing a review for Identity Thief, and I may share an analysis regarding early German cinema. Keep an eye out for these new posts.

Analysis: "The Departed" versus "Reservoir Dogs"

The Departed, Martin Scorcese's 2006 Irish Mafia opus, is the story of two moles planted in the Massachusetts State Police, Colin Sullivan (Matt Damon), and Frank Costello's (Jack Nicholson) crime ring, informant Billy Costigan (Leonardo DiCaprio). As they existence of the moles becomes clear, each man must discover each other's identity before their own cover is blown. Also featuring Mark Wahlberg, Alec Baldwin, and Martin Sheen, the movie won the Academy Award for Best Picture and best director for Scorcese, along with the award for Best Adapted Screenplay (it was adapted from the Hong Kong film Infernal Affairs, which was also acclaimed) and Wahlberg was nominated for Best Supporting Actor. Reservoir Dogs, on the other hand, tells the story of eight gangsters, Mr. White (Harvey Keitel), Mr. Blonde (Michael Madsen), Mr. Blue (Eddie Bunker), Mr. Brown (Quentin Tarantino in one of his famous creator cameos), Mr. Orange (Tim Roth), Mr. Pink (Steve Buscemi), and mob boss Joe Cabot (Lawrence Tierney) and his son "Nice Guy" Eddie (Chris Penn). The eight of them have planned a jewelry store heist, headed by Eddie. When the heist goes haywire, when the police show up, killing Mr. Brown and Mr. Blue and injuring Mr. Orange, Mr. Pink suggests that there is a rat in the group. It's up to the survivors to figure out who the rat is before the police show up.  The film marks Tarantino's directorial debut, and marks the first appearance of some of his trademarks: profanity, violence, pop culture references, and a nonlinear narrative. It was actually renowned for its brutality; there is a scene in which Mr. Blonde, an ax-crazy psychopath, disfigures a captured police officer and cuts his ear off with a strait razor, all set to the least-appropriate music for such a scene. It was a classic of 1990s independent cinema and achieved higher popularity after the success of Tarantino's Pulp Fiction. Each film is a classic in their own rights; each was highly acclaimed, though The Departed received more awards while Reservoir Dogs received none. However, the similarities go beyond the superficial. Each has a theme having to do with a police officer, or criminal, in the case of The Departed, going undercover and the effect it has on them. The Departed takes a much more thriller-type stance, as both Sullivan and Costigan try to discover each other's identities. The movie has a theme of identity and association, and what it does to the individual. In the case of police mole Sullivan, it works out nicely. He gets a nice apartment in Boston, is a respected "cop," and begins dating a psychologist, despite being a wicked criminal. He reveals his true colors as such when he shoots down Costello after discovering he was an FBI informant, and receives commendation, and when he withholds details about his true career from his girlfriend. Costigan, on the other hand, draws the short straw as an undercover cop. He is forced to live in a filthy South Boston neighborhood, cut off all familial contact, and lives in constant fear of being discovered by Costello's crime ring and being brutally reprimanded. It is at this point where he realizes he is in too deep and begs his superiors, Cpt. Queenan (Sheen) and Sgt. Dignam (Wahlberg) to be let out. It is in this vein I would compare him to the rat of Reservoir Dogs, Mr. Orange. Both are police officers, highly trained and prepared for their no doubt dangerous missions. As both films progress, the begin to realize the desperation of their situations and realize where they went wrong. Reservoir Dogs differs in the details, however. Since Orange was only inserted for this one job, he was in a different situation than Costigan. He also was accidentally shot in the chest, one of many accidents in the film's plot, such as the actual police ambush. He formed a bond with Mr. White that stuck throughout the entire film, even to the point where White killed lifelong friend Cabot and Eddie in a Mexican Standoff (not the last Mexican Standoff Tim Roth would appear in). Orange clearly feels retribution for causing Mr. White to turn on his friends for his own sake, acknowledging the fact that he is a rat. This is the theme in a modern-day heist caper gone wrong that is, to an extent, the cautionary tale of a rat who got too deep into his own cover.