Salmon Fishing in the Yemen Review

One of my favorite things about watching movies is experiencing movies without any foreknowledge of the film. I did that a couple of times in the last few days with films like Duplicity, Robot & Frank, Kill List, and Salmon Fishing in the Yemen. I feel like knowing nothing about films going in makes the experience so much better and much more immersive. I fully intend to review at least one of those movies in the future, if not two. But for now, I just want to talk about Salmon Fishing.

The movie is about a fisheries expert (Ewan McGregor) who is recruited a financial advisor (Emily Blunt) to bring salmon fishing to the Yemen desert, at the behest of a sheikh. That is the best way to describe it, and, if I may toot my own horn, is a pretty damn good description. The movie is way more than that basic description, but I think that is a great basic plot overview.

I always find it fascinating when a book like Salmon Fishing is adapted into a screenplay. The book is written in a diary/article format (which I've come to learn is called an epistolary novel.) I absolutely applaud anyone who can adapt a book like that and make a fluid and understandable screenplay out of it. I still cannot phathom how Christopher and Jonathan Nolan adapted The Prestige from a similar format, and this movie is equally as baffling. The story is really well written, and all of the plot threads seem to flow so fluidly between each other. Not all plot threads are important to the overarching plot of salmon fishing in the Yemen desert, but they all contribute something to the story or to character development. I'm really impressed with what Simon Beaufoy did with the source material. I think it was an excellent adaptation.

The direction for this movie was really nothing special. It isn't bad direction, it just isn't great. I really didn't notice anything going on with the camera or anything (I was far too busy fawning over the script and acting.) The direction definitely did not detract from the film, so that's a plus. I just wish it had been utilized better to...fuck it. I don't care enough to talk about this anymore. 

The acting in this movie was definitely the selling point for most people who saw this film. I mean, Ewan McGregor and Emily Blunt. Both eye candy. Both excellent actors. And neither disappointed. While I don't think that this was either of their best performances of the year (that being The Impossible and Your Sister's Sister, respectively) I thought they were both quite moving. I really loved McGregor's character arc and watching how he portrayed such a drastic change over time. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overall, this movie was surprisingly good. I can honestly say I wasn't expecting anything amazing from this film, but was pleasantly surprised. It really hinges on several strong performances (not just the two I mentioned; everyone was great) and a really well adapted screenplay. Everyone should see this movie (especially if you want to freak out when you see Varys with hair; I nearly shit my pants.) 

Writing: 8/10

Directing: 6/10

Acting: 8.5/10

Pacing: 6.5/10

Rewatchability: 7/10

Score: 7.2/10

Perks of Being a Wallflower Review

The "coming of age" genre has always been really hit or miss for me. I seem to be one of the few people that hates most of the cherished coming of age films like: Breakfast Club, Pretty in Pink, Sixteen Candles, and Superbad. That's not to say I hate every film in this genre, I just find that I like one in twenty, and that's a very generous estimate. Needless to say, I was not expecting to love Perks of Being a Wallflower.

Perks of Being a Wallflower is a coming of age story about a quiet, loner boy named Charlie (Logan Lerman) and his struggles with being a freshman in high school (among other things.) He befriends a group of seniors: Patrick (Ezra Miller), Sam (Emma Watson) and Mary Elizabeth (Mae Whitman). I'm not going to say much more than that, to avoid even the slightest bit of spoilers. The story covers everything from drugs to just how awkward it is to be a teenager. Let's just say that it's all about high school life and how it can get very complicated.

I was really impressed with what Stephen Chbosky did with his own material. Normally, you would think that having the book's author write the screenplay and direct the film would be a great idea, but I was a little worried by this concept. When adapting a screenplay, it's important to know exactly what needs to stay and what can be removed, and I was really worried that Chbosky might be too attached to his own material that he wouldn't want to slash it up. This could have led to a very lengthy, drawn-out film that would have bored most people. Thankfully, he didn't do that. The script for this film was really well done. All of the dialogue seemed really well placed and well phrased. It made the entire film seem like every scene was absolutely crucial to the story. Though there were a few lines that made me look at the screen and say "what the fuck?!," I'm assuming they would make a little more sense if I had read the book.

On the other side of the coin, Chbosky also directed the film. That part I can't say I was super impressed with. He didn't do a bad job, and I think he did pretty well for his second directing gig, but it didn't really wow me. There were a few really pretty shots, like Sam going through the tunnel, or Patrick and Charlie looking out over the city, but overall it was fairly mediocre direction. I do see some real potential here, though, so I hope he directs more things and tries to experiment a little more. Some of the drug related scenes were strangely reminiscent of Aronofsky's Requiem for a Dream. But they weren't nearly crazy enough to impress me.

I think the real strength in this film was (surprise, surprise) the acting. The three leads (Lerman, Miller, and Watson) all delivered very moving performances. Let me just give a quick sound bite about each one. Ezra Miller has been in my sights ever since he blew my fucking mind in We Need to Talk About Kevin. After that I knew he was destined to be one of this generations best actors, and he hasn't disappointed me yet. I would love to see him do more mainstream stuff like this. Hermione Granger...I mean, Emma Watson was great in this as well. I really love how quickly she has gotten into meaty, emotionally demanding roles (a far cry from what she was doing in HP.) After a brief but important role in My Week with Marilyn, I was glad to see her tackle something like this. I can't wait to see her do more (like The Bling Ring!) 

Logan Lerman was the only actor that I was slightly worried about. I've only really seen him in family-oriented, not-so-hard roles like Percy Jackson and Three Musketeers. Knowing this, I didn't really know how well he could carry a very serious coming of age film like this one. Clearly, I was worried for no reason. Lerman absolutely blew me away with his acting range. His character goes through such a roller coaster of emotions throughout the entire film and Lerman didn't miss a beat. It was really stunning to watch, not only the character grow through the film, but also the actor. This film was a big step in his career, and I'm hoping he takes more roles like this in the future.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Perks of Being a Wallflower is one of the best coming of age films that I have seen in a long while. While I do have some problems with the scripts, and found the direction to be lackluster, the film really hit me hard with it's deeply emotional themes. I'd be lying if I said I didn't get choked up a little bit at the end. I highly suggest this film to anyone and everyone.

Writing: 8/10

Directing: 6.5/10

Acting: 9/10

Pacing: 9/10

Rewatchability: 8.5/10

Score: 8.2/10

Anna Karenina Review

 
Joe Wright made his directorial debut with 2005’s Pride and Prejudice. That movie solidified him as one of this generations auteurs. From there, he went on to make movies like Atonement, The Soloist, and Hanna. All of his films share a very similar vision and the same style, which (in my opinion) is absolutely beautiful. So, when I heard that Joe Wright was going to try and tackle Leo Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina, I was pretty excited. I didn’t know much about the story, though I had heard that it was cherished by many, and a lot of people were not looking forward to it. My view was: Joe Wright is going to make this movie something spectacular to look at, even if it doesn’t fully deliver on story (like Hanna and The Soloist before it.) Needless to say, I was right...to an extent.

The plot of Anna Karenina is really hard to sum up in a short paragraph, so let me just put it this way: it is a story of love. The film depicts several different relationships and shows just how variable love can be and tries and shows a distinction between love, lust, and infatuation. The main plot revolves around Anna Karenina (Keira Knightley), her husband Karenin (Jude Law), and Vronsky (Aaron Taylor-Johnson.) This plotline is contrasted by the story of Levin (Domhnall Gleeson) and Kitty (Alicia Vikander.) There is also a beautiful plotline that shows exactly what happens when love breaks down between Oblonsky (Matthew Macfadyen) and Dolly (Kelly Macdonald.) This, like the Levin/Kitty story, perfectly contrasts the story of Anna/Karenin and how their relationships deteriorates.

One thing about Joe Wright’s direction that has always captivated me was his use of lengthy shots. His direction is so excellent in the sense that he has the actors movie in certain ways that complement the movement of the camera. These lengthy shots have almost become a staple of his films that you usually expect them by now. Needless to say, he did not skimp in this regard with Anna Karenina. Since the entire film takes place in this theatre setting, a lot of the long shots were used to show changing of scenery. I thought this was beautifully done by Wright, because instead of just showing scenery changing, he showed the characters moving around the cinema while things changed around them. The scene where Levin and Oblonsky go from Oblonsky’s office to the “soiree” was absolutely breathtaking.

The contrast between this quick-to-action type of love between Anna and Vronsky and the slow realization of love between Levin and Kitty is so beautiful. I imagine it is just like this in Tolstoy’s original text, but I found it incredibly moving on screen. All of the contrast between the different relationships were deeply moving. Tom Stoppard’s script was really well put together to make these contrasting themes resonate so deeply throughout the entire film. I thought the film did drag at some points, but it wasn’t enough to completely take me out of the story and make me feel like the pacing was awful. I can’t say enough about Tom Stoppard’s writing, because he wrote two of my favorite films (Brazil and Rosencrantz and Guidenstern Are Dead) and I will forever praise him for that. I think he really nailed the style of the film really well, and a lot of the dialogue (especially from Levin) was very eloquently written.

Joe Wright seems to have noticed that what he did with Pride and Prejudice and Atonement seems to have worked. So, it’s no surprise when he teamed up with a lot of the same people that he worked with on one/both of those films. Cinematographer Seamus McGarvey comes back after having been Wright’s DoP on Atonement and The Soloist to deliver his best work yet. The cinematography here is stunning. McGarvey knows exactly how to frame shots so that the lighting is absolutely perfect.

One thing that I’ve found I don’t talk about enough on here is music. I might need to change my rating system to incorporate that, since I find that ridiculously important for a film. Wright is collaborating with Dario Marianelli for the fourth time with Anna Karenina. Just like with Pride and Prejudice and Atonement, Marianelli has written a beautifully poetic score that not only complements the film, but adds a completely new element that was not there in the other collaborations. This score is absolutely essential in this film because it makes the whole “this all takes place in a theater thing” feel real. I really hate that so many people are talking about the Life of Pi score so much when scores like this exist. It absolutely blows any other score from this year out of the water (except for maybe Alexandre Desplat’s score for Argo.)

I’ve noticed that I talk a lot about individual performances in most of my reviews, so I’m going to try and not dedicate like seven paragraphs to talk about each individual performer. Let me just say this: this was truly an ensemble piece. Every single actor was just a cog in a bigger mechanism. They all played their parts so well that it made the entire film seem that much better. Some people that stood out to me were: Domhnall Gleeson, Jude Law, and Matthew Macfadyen. That’s not to say that everyone wasn’t amazing, I just found that these three guys gave the strongest performances. Especially, Gleeson. Every seen that he was in was absolutely captivating. He made me really feel for his character and root for him through the whole thing. After having seen him in Never Let Me Go, I was really waiting for his breakout performance, and this was it. To me, he has ceased to just be Bill Weasley and will forever be Levin.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To sum it up (which I feel obligated to do, since most people on read this section) Anna Karenina is another ace from Joe Wright. It is the perfect meld of writing, directing, acting and scoring. The visuals in this film (physical and cinematography) are absolutely breathtaking, and I wouldn’t be super offended if that was all you enjoyed from this film. The pacing is a little off at times, and if you don’t enjoy period pieces like this, it could jarr you out of it. But I absolutely loved this movie and fully intend to see it again (and might even buy it when it comes out on Blu-Ray.)

Writing: 8/10

Directing: 9/10

Acting: 9.5/10

Pacing: 8/10

Rewatchability: 8/10

Score: 8.5/10

Letterboxd

So, normally my posts are about movies or award season,  but this time I wanted to talk about a new site that I've come across.  It's not entirely accurate to say that I "came across it." More accurately,  I was pointed in the direction of it.

While I'm at work,  I usually listen to music when I'm getting shit done. But recently,  I started listening to a movie podcast that I've been aware of for a while,  but haven't always had the time to listen to.  That podcast is Operation Kino,  off of CinemaBlend. Last week,  in OpKino 96, one of the guys, David Ehrlich,  talked about a social networking site that revolves around movies that was in beta stages.  That site is what I'm here to talk about: Letterboxd.com

This site is really cool,  especially for people who love movies as much as I do. This site works very similar to Twitter,  in the sense that you can "follow" people that you like/know, but it's function is much different, in the sense that it completely revolves around movies. It reminds me a lot of the old Flixster app for Facebook, before it became super shitty.  Pretty much you can say which movies you saw,  if you liked them or not,  and give them a star rating. And on top of that,  you can also write movie reviews of the film,  if you want.

The best thing about this site is how versatile it is. I don't think that this site is only for people who love movies,  it is for anyone who has even the slightest interest in film. A couple of the best features of this site seem to be really geared towards people who aren't as devoted to film as I am (which isn't to say people like me won't enjoy it,  but I'll get to that later. )

On top of just being able to keep track of what movies you've seen,  you can also keep a "diary" of when you saw specific films (and if it was a film you had seen before.) While all of these features are cool,  I think the best thing about this site is how it can help you branch out your film choices. I've only been on this site for a week now,  and I've already learned about completely obscure movies that I never would have heard of otherwise. I also think that the reviews on this site,  since they are coming from people who are really passionate about films,  are much better representations of the quality of the film. When you go on sites like RottenTomatoes and such,  you are mostly just seeing if critics liked it,  which usually isn't the opinion of the general public (I'm not saying RT is bad,  I just have found that I disagree with the scores fairly often.)

One last thought on this site,  I promise. I think that,  now that I'm out of college and in the real world,  most people don't have time to waste on shitty films. I guess it's even more than that: most people don't hear enough about the slightly more obscure movies. If you aren't looking out for a specific movie and when it comes out,  you can miss some of the best movies of the year when they make it into theaters. I think this site is a great and easy way to keep up with what has just come out and what people (those that you choose to follow) are buzzing about.

I hope this all doesn't just sound like a shameless pitch to get more people onto this site, but I really think people will enjoy it, especially my friends who enjoy reading my reviews on here. If anyone is actually interested in joining, I will gladly get you a beta code. All you have to do is ask.

Another Earth Review

I've come to a conclusion in the last couple of weeks: I fucking love Brit Marling. I've seen her in three movies in the last two weeks: Sound of My Voice, Arbitrage, and now Another Earth. Even in the not-so-great Arbitrage, she managed to shine. And Another Earth was no exception.

Another Earth tells the story of a 17 year old student, Rhoda (Marling), who crosses paths with a composer from Yale university, John Burroughs (played by William Mapother), on the night that a second earth is discovered in our galaxy. I hesitate to say anymore about the plot, because I would hate to spoil it for anyone, but just think of it as a vaguely science fiction film. Slightly more so than something like Never Let Me Go, but not real heavy sci-fi. I knew absolutely nothing about this film going in, I pretty much only saw it because I knew Brit Marling was in it. Don't judge. I was honestly surprised at how great the movie was.

The script for this movie, written by Marling and director Mike Cahill, was nothing super impressive, but managed to have a couple of really deep conversations and scenes in it. A couple of parts that stood out as really well written were: Rhoda's essay, Rhoda's monologue about the Russian cosmonaut, and a scene late in the film between Rhoda and John (spoilers.) Other than those few scenes, and a couple of lines smattered throughout the film, the script was still alright. The concept of the film was definitely the best part, it was very thought provoking and really touched on a lot of deep subjects. I was really impressed by how well these characters were written/developed. I really felt for both of the main characters, which is usually something I don't really say (yea, I'm a heartless dick.) There was also some great use of voice over dialogue in between major scenes, having professors and scientists talk about Earth 2, which I felt added to the atmosphere of the whole film. Overall, I was pretty impressed with this script.

The direction for this movie was...alright. I hesitate to say that it was great, because, while I did enjoy a majority of the way scenes were shot and framed, etc, I thought there were a handful of scenes that were trying to be too artsy. I usually don't mind the occasional artsy shot (as long as it isn't the entire movie, like Tree of Life) but these ones seemed to jar me out of the flow of the film.  They didn't work in the context of the film, and definitely didn't fit into this body of work. One of the few scenes that really stood out in the movie as amazing was: when Rhoda was standing by the ocean looking up at Earth 2. The shot was so perfectly framed and beautifully encapsulated exactly what this film was (kind of) about. I see a lot of potential from Mike Cahill, and I'm excited to see more feature films from him.

The strongest part of this film, to me, were (surprise, surprise) the performances. I thought Brit Marling and William Mapother were really great together (and separately, in Marling's case.) I thought they both brought a lot of emotion to the table and really made these characters come to life for me. Mapother's performance, especially, made me feel so heartbroken for this man. I was always pulling for him throughout the entire film. Conversely, I always felt terrible for Marling's character and was dreading what she was going to have to do. Both performances elicited a huge response from me, and I felt bad for both of them, but on completely different levels.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To sum it up, I really enjoyed this film. It may be a little bit slower than most people will enjoy, but I didn't find that it dragged too much. I was really impressed by almost everything that was put on the screen before me, and most importantly, I was kept entertained. These characters are really well written and portrayed. If you appreciate great acting and nothing more, then you should definitely see this film.

Writing: 7/10

Directing: 7.5/10

Acting: 8.5/10

Pacing: 6.5/10

Rewatchability: 7/10

Score: 7.3/10

Beasts of the Southern Wild Review

Alright, I'm probably gonna get a lot of flack for this review, but, as always, I don't care. This is all my opinion, and you don't have to listen to me if you don't want to. That being said, if you liked this movie...I would suggest leaving now. I would hate to offend you. Just kidding, I aim to offend.

Beasts of the Southern Wild tells the story of Hushpuppy (played by Quvenzhane Wallis) and her father Wink (played by Dwight Henry) and paints a picture of what their lives are like in the "Bathtub." This takes place in a future where the polar icecaps are melting and the poor have, essentially, been left outside of the levies to drown.

Now, don't get me wrong, Beasts was a fairly well-acted and directed film (both of which I will cover later.) But what really killed me was the script and the pacing. I thought the entire concept had so much promise, being a semi-sci-fi/fantasy film, but being rooted in reality. Almost like Never Let Me Go. But this film just failed to capture my interest at any point. It really just seemed like the entire script was black people screaming about really mundane shit. All I really took away from this film is: in the future, apparently all black people are poor and homeless. Oh, and irrationally angry. And apparently they solve this by getting drunk. Ummm...right....?

Where the movie really shined, to me, was in the direction. This was Benh Zeitlin's first feature film, and I was really impressed with what he did with it. Several of the scenes only held my interest because they were just so beautiful to look at. It reminded me a lot of watching Tree of Life, where nothing interesting was happening, but every shot was so well framed and the editing was so spot on, that I couldn't look away. Now that I've seen this movie, I can honestly say I'm glad that Zeitlin got the Oscar nom for Best Director, but he definitely didn't deserve it over Affleck, Bigelow or Tarantino. People keep saying that he "stole" their spot, but I think that he earned his spot more than Haneke (and possibly David O. Russell.) I know he won't win, but I'm really glad to see such a strong first performance from an up and coming director. I just hope he didn't peak too early...

Another strength in the film was the acting. Wallis and Henry were amazing together. It's really stunning when you see a nine year-old girl deliver such a moving performance. In a movie that is, essentially, two people walking (or boating) around for 90 minutes, its really on the actors' shoulders to keep the viewer interested (and the director, to an extent.) And with such a shitty script, it took even more than usual from these actors. Both of them showed such emotion and developed their characters so well that it was hard not to enjoy the performances. I think all of my rage about this movie really came from the script, so I can't say anything bad about the acting. Wallis was great (especially for her age) and it took a lot for Henry to keep up, but he definitely did. I'm surprised I haven't heard more about him this award season. I guess he is just being overshadowed by Wallis.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Overall, I didn't hate this movie. I didn't really love it, either. I will, most likely, never see this movie again. Even though it was short, if felt like an eternity when there is no real plot development. A movie really can't be carried by two actors and some pretty direction. It can't. Not with an abysmal script. I imagine two retarded monkeys could have written something better. No joke. I think Zeitlin should stick to directing and leave the writing to more talented folks.

Writing: 2/10

Directing: 8/10

Acting: 8.5/10

Pacing: 3/10

Rewatchability: 2/10

Score: 4.7/10

Golden Globes Wrapup

Since the Golden Globes were on Sunday, I thought I would do a kind of random talk about what surprises there were, good and bad, and what these wins can tells us (or not tell us) about the Oscars.

Let me start off by saying: I absolutely missed Ricky Gervais this year. Yes, Amy Poehler and Tina Fey did a good job, but they didn’t bring the crass kind of humor that I love from Gervais. The best joke of the night, in my opinion, was when they said "When it comes to torture, I trust the lady who was married to James Cameron for 3 years,” about Zero Dark Thirty director Kathryn Bigelow. Other than that, they were decent hosts. Nothing special. Two highlights of the night for me were: Kristen Wiig and Will Ferrell presenting Best Actress in a Comedy/Musical and Robert Downey Jr. presenting the Cecille B. Demille Award to Jodie Foster.

Now about those awards. None of the winners really shocked me, as no award category had a clear winner in any of them (save for Best Actor in a Drama and Best Supporting Actress.) That being said, some of the winners were pleasant surprises.

Best Supporting Actor

This category is loaded with phenomenal performances, so it was really hard to predict who was going to win. Most people had Alan Arkin or Tommy Lee Jones down to win this one, but everyone was a viable candidate to win. I, personally, wanted to see Arkin or Waltz win, and lucky for me, I did! Waltz pulled out a win that most did not predict. This gives him huge momentum going into the Oscars, with a real chance to claim his second Best Supporting Actor statue.

Best Supporting Actress

Unlike Best Supporting Actor, this category was already locked for Anne Hathaway to win. If anyone else had won, it would have shocked everyone around the world. I’ve heard maybe one or two people say that Amy Adams could have won, but let’s be seriously for a second: the HFPA had a huge boner for Les Miserables (just like the Academy seems to have a huge boner for Silver Linings Playbook.) So, there was no way she was gonna lose.

Best Screenplay

Probably the biggest surprise of the night was the Best Screenplay award. A lot of people expected either Chris Terrio or Tony Kushner to take home the award for Argo and Lincoln, respectively. As someone who has always loved Tarantino and was a huge fan of the script for Django Unchained, I was pulling for a surprise win here. I fully expected Terrio to win, and wouldn’t have been upset if he had, but I was ecstatic when they announced Tarantino’s name. This was a well deserved win, and could mean an upset going into the Oscars. As everyone expects Mark Boal to take home his second statue for Zero Dark Thirty, I would much rather see Tarantino take his second ever Oscar. Sadly, I don’t think the Globes win will give him enough momentum, since there is so much controversy around the film.

Best Actress

I think both of these categories were near locks. Jessica Chastain has been raking in all of the awards this season, and looks like she is on her way to her first Oscar win. She was virtually “running unopposed” here. If anyone else had won, it would have been a HUGE injustice. And I’m saying this having loved Naomi Watts in The Impossible. I think that says a lot about how great Chastain really was.

Like Chastain, Jennifer Lawrence has a bunch of awards this year for Silver Linings Playbook. In fact, most of the awards she lost were to Chastain. Lawrence was up against absolutely no competition this year. I mean, Streep was only nominated because she is Meryl Streep. The rest were just...alright. Nothing near as amazing as Lawrence. And it definitely makes sense that she one, seeing as how she is the only one of the five nominated for an Oscar.

These two wins were absolutely expected, and tell us nothing about who is going to win the Oscar. If Watts had upset Chastain, I could say that means something. But no, all we know going into the Oscars is that these two are in a deadlock, and it’s impossible to predict who will win. It’s essentially a coin toss.

Best Actor

Daniel Day-Lewis. I think that’s all I really need to say about the drama category. There was no way he was losing this year (as he has so many times at the Globes.) This was his year to shine, and he did. I fully expect him to take the Oscar too, just as everyone else does (except those few who think Joaquin Phoenix will upset him.)

The Comedy/Musical category, on the other hand, was a close call. Most people were split between Jackman and Cooper for Les Miserables and Silver Linings Playbook, respectively. I was a staunch supporter of Cooper, who gave a truly remarkable performance in this film. I really never expected to love him enough to say he deserved an award (yea, he’s funny in Wedding Crashers and The Hangover, but he’s never been anything special.) Now, I’m not saying Jackson wasn’t excellent. Don’t get me wrong, I absolutely loved him and was so glad he got an Oscar nod, but I really didn’t think he was better than Cooper. Maybe that’s just me and I’m crazy. Whatever.

Best Director

This is my favorite category this year. Favorite because the right person won and got to give the metaphorical finger to the Academy for snubbing him. Yes, you heard me right, Ben Affleck deserved this honor. I was shocked at how many people were surprised at him winning. This definitely has implications, but not for the Oscars (obviously.) I think the win at the Globes, coupled with his win at the Critic’s Choice Awards means that Affleck is the frontrunner for the DGA Award. And if he wins, which is looking more and more likely, he will join Ron Howard as the only director to win the DGA Award and not be nominated for the Oscar.

Best Picture

Let’s start with drama, once again. This category was filled with worthy films. Any of them could have won and it wouldn’t have been that much of a surprise. Honestly, I would have been shocked if Life of Pi had won, but many people wouldn’t have been. I ruled out Django Unchained and Zero Dark Thirty as winner, purely based off of all the controversy around both films. Usually movies like that don’t do great during award season. In my eyes, that narrowed it down to Argo and Lincoln. Now, of those two, most people would say that Lincoln was the better film. Hell, it may have had a more effective cast (not to say Argo wasn’t well cast) but I wouldn’t consider it a better film (probably why Argo made number 3 on my top 20 over Lincoln which was at number 5.) I really wanted Argo to win, and even though it was a slight underdog, it pulled it off. I was so pleased, and I hope that win gives it the push it needed to win the Oscar for Best Picture. I think it was definitely good enough, and it would really stick it to the Academy for not nominating Affleck for the award that he deserved to win.

Best Comedy/Musical went to Les Miserables, and while I loved the movie, I really didn’t think it deserved the win. I can’t really complain about the script, since it was virtually a carbon copy of the musical, but I have a lot to complain about. First off: Russell Crowe. Need I go on? Fine. That man was absolutely abysmal. He butchered some of my favorite songs in the entire show. Sure, he can play the character of Javert well, but when that idiot opens his mouth, it is jarring. I wish he had tried talk-singing, like any sane person would have. Then he could have just been a badass, without making me bleed from the ears. Then there was Tom Hooper’s direction. Let me first say that I loved his direction in The King’s Speech. That being said, he fucking blew it here. He decided that the only way to show emotion in a scene is to do extreme close-ups of everyone’s face (I’m sorry, I know I’m repeating myself from another post.) If not for the phenomenal performances from Jackman and Hathaway, I think he could have ruined this movie. All on his own (oh, and maybe with Crowe’s help.) When you compare that with what David O. Russell made, it really should be a no brainer. Silver Linings Playbook had, no only an excellent script, but a perfect ensemble of actors, each better than the last. And David O. Russell’s direction in this film was spot on. Yes, there were a few issues with this movie, like pacing, and predictability. But it was fun and funny and just plain amazing. I expected it to come down to these two movies, but I really didn’t think Les Miserables should win. Sadly, it did. I guess I’ll just have to be happy knowing it won’t win many Oscars (other than Hathaway.)

Django Unchained Review

I just saw Django Unchained for the second time this weekend with a friend of mine, and since I ranked it as my number one film of 2012, I thought I should write a full review to explain just why I loved it so much, and why you should too.

I don't really know where to begin, so I might as well just start from the top: the script. As always, Quentin Tarantino put together a new exquisitely written script. The entire script flow very smoothly, not only during scenes, but also in scene transitions. All of the dialogue either developed the plot or gave us great insight into the characters. One of my favorite scenes in the movie was the scene with the KKK, not only because of the acting, but because the dialogue was just so hilarious. I also love all of the shots that are clearly homages to the old Spaghetti Westerns that Tarantino is a huge fan of. The quick zooms/pans and the long shots of people riding through the desert are absolutely spot on. They really add to the feeling of the movie and show just how much he loves film in general.

To continue my praise for Tarantino, let's talk about the direction. Just like all of his films before this, he makes even the most mundane thing look beautiful. For example, towards the beginning of the film, Dr. Schultz is filling two glasses of beer, and somehow Tarantino made me so interested in it! And the flashback scenes to Django and Broomhilda are beautifully stylized. As always, Tarantino nailed it.

The acting in this film was absolutely amazing. As expected, Chrisoph Waltz was perfect as bounty hunter Dr. Schultz. It reminded me a lot of his performance in Inglourious Basterds as The Jew Hunter. He was perfectly cast, and I couldn't imagine anyone else playing the role this well. On the other hand, I was not sure about how well Leonardo DiCaprio would do as the slave owner Calvin Candie. Needless to say, this character was much different than anything he's ever done before, and he surprised me with how beautifully he played this fucking psychopath. When these two guys were on the screen, I couldn't take my eyes away.

If I was forced to say one bad thing about this movie, it would be Jamie Foxx's performance as Django. Now, I'm not saying he was bad, per se, just that he didn't live up to my expectations, not did he even come close to matching the other performances in the film. After seeing him give such great performances in films like Ray, Collateral, and Dreamgirls, I expected him to knock this one out of the park. He didn't wow me, but he definitely played the role well, and had he not been overshadowed by Waltz and DiCaprio, I would be writing a much different review.

Tarantino's films have always been known for two things: gratuitous violence and excellent music accompaniment. This movie, as expected, delivered in both departments. I'll skip over the violence for now, because it's better to just see it, but the music in this film was so perfectly chosen. Ever song accurately captured and enhanced the feeling of the scene it was used in. Even if you don't like Tarantino's style or writing, you have to appreciate his acute sense for musical choices. He is always spot on.

I know I've already talked a lot about the acting, but I'm not done. I really wanted to touch on just how great Samuel L Jackson was in the role of Steven. He plays a very similar role to a lot of his previous work, but unlike most movies, in this one he is an antagonist. I can only really equate it to his character in Unbreakable. He's such a great actor, and it was awesome to see him nail an abnormal role for him.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To sum it up, Django Unchained is an excellent addition to Quentin Tarantino's already impressive resume. I'm hesitant to say that it is my favorite of his films, but I think it is one of the best written, and maybe the most well rounded film that he has ever made. Anyone who is a fan of his should definitely see this movie, and even I'd you aren't a huge fan of movies like Reservoir Dogs or Pulp Fiction, I would still suggest giving this one a shot, because it is too good to miss.

Writing: 10/10

Directing: 9.5/10

Acting: 9.5/10

Pacing: 9/10

Rewatchability: 9/10

Score: 9.4/10

Sound of My Voice Review

I know I'm late to the party on this one, but I just got around to seeing this movie a few nights ago! This movie is about a couple, Peter and Lorna, who embark on an investigative journalism project where they infiltrate a small cult. Their goal is to prove that Maggie, the leader of the cult, is a fraud.

At a mere 85 minutes, Sound of My Voice manages to suck you into the lives of these two faux-cultists and show you the mental strain that comes with, not only investigative reporting, but also being in a cult. The movie was really well written and has some phenomenal dialogue. So many scenes come to mind, but I really don't want to spoil this movie for anyone. Let's just say that Maggie has some great monologues.

The direction in this film was absolutely key, since it mostly takes place in a white room with nothing special to look at. All of the scenes were really well framed and close-ups were used in just the right way to make them pop (Tom Hooper could learn a thing or two from this film.) I was really impressed with how well this movie was shot. It was surprisingly beautiful, especially for an indie film like this.

The best part of this movie, though, was the performance by Brit Marling as Maggie. This was the first time I had ever seen her in a movie (and even heard of her, for that matter) and I was caught off guard by her. After watching this movie, I almost wanted to join her cult; she was that convincing. She blew me away, and I can't wait to see her in more films!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I can't say enough about how much I loved this film. It was the perfect length (which to me, is a huge thing nowadays), as well as an excellent script, great director, and one of the best performances of the year. I would highly suggest not watching any trailers or doing any research before seeing this movie. Just go see it and enjoy it for what it is. I can't recommend this movie more highly.

Writing: 8/10

Directing: 8/10

Acting: 8.5/10

Pacing: 8/10

Rewatchability: 9/10

Score: 8.3/10