You are currently browsing the tag archive for the 'Best Director' tag.
I don’t know how much more there is to say about Juno. Through Oscar season we had the hype, the acclaim, the backlash, the backlash to the backlash… All I can say is that I loved the movie and that it was one of the few films I saw that I immediately wanted to see again.
Most of the controversy seems to revolve around the script. Is the dialogue too cutesy, are the characters too quirky? I don’t think so. The first five minutes smacked of trying too hard, but throughout I thought it adeptly walked the line to keep it from becoming too precious. Too much time has been spent complaining that Juno doesn’t speak realistically. Um, it’s a movie. No one in a movie talks realistically! Real people don’t have the coherence, dramatic touch, or comedic timing of movie characters. But, honestly, Juno doesn’t talk all that weirdly. Yes she doesn’t talk like a normal teenager, but she does talk like a self-absorbed, know-it-all, cocky, hip teen who thinks she’s awesome… which is exactly what Juno is! A viewing companion mentioned that he couldn’t believe that Juno would think Mark wouldn’t know Mott the Hoople. I think a sixteen-year-old who thinks she knows everything about music would definitely make that mistake. Teens think they’re bees knees and everyone else is lame. It’s a time honored tradition. I think sometimes Juno so frequently plays up how put-together she is that we forget she really isn’t.
The lingo-filled dialogue might have propelled Diablo Cody to a well-deserved Original Screenplay Oscar win, but it’s really the characters that make Juno special. I love how Juno’s layers are pulled back, revealing the self-sure dynamo’s insecurities. Ellen Page deftly lets the emotion peek out, never ever stooping to the melodramatic. Jason Bateman’s Mark and Jennifer Garner’s Vanessa start out looking like one type of couple and shift into something completely different. JK Simmons and Allison Janney as Juno’s father and step-mother are the caring and wise (and witty) parents that movie parents are rarely allowed to be. Read the rest of this entry »
I do not hide the fact that I heart Michael Bay. Adam, though incredibly rational when it comes to just about everything else, is terribly misguided in his dislike of Mr. Bay. Naturally, I suggested we take this to the blog.
Adam,
Michael Bay is great. The sooner I can convince you of that, the sooner we can move on to more important things. Since for some reason you won’t take my word, it is my duty as an American to change your mind. There are many reasons why Michael Bay is so great, I’ll paint some broad strokes to describe them. If for some reason you aren’t sold, I’d be happy to clarify.
Michael Bay connect with the people. Here’s a list of the takes of his movies. His movies have universally raked in money. Bad Boys (his first) is the under $100 million domestically, but that one was obviously profitable, plus it took it another $75 million overseas. The Island tanked hard (yes, I was there in theaters), but it grabbed over $125 million in foreign lands. Which is what imdb estimates was the budget for the movie, so it is hard to call it a flop, per se, though clearly it wasn’t a moneymaker like the rest of his movies. Still, 6 for 7 ain’t bad. In fact, he ranks 11th all time among directors in combined domestic total gross, (his movies have grossed over a billion dollars!) with most of the directors ahead of him directing more movies and helming heavy-hitting franchises.
Movie: Born Yesterday
Released: 1950
Stars: Judy Holliday, Broderick Crawford, William Holden
Reason for Watching: Friend’s recommendation
I Can Name This Movie In Three Notes: Broderick Crawford is a rat of a junkyard tycoon who, along with his uber-ditzy live-in girlfriend (Judy Holliday), sets up in Washington, D.C. to grease the palms of a corrupt congressman. Crawford wants Holliday to be presentable, and so hires the intellectual William Holden to give her some learning. But be careful what you wish for!
You Should See This Movie Because: Befitting this blog, the movie was nominated for five Oscars: Costume Design, Director, Picture, Screenplay, plus Judy Holliday won for Best Actress. Holliday’s performance really is out of this world, and though her voice can only be described as Megan Mullally-like, I fell madly in love with it by the end of the film.
The gin rummy scene is easily in my top 50 movie scenes of all time. Any description of it couldn’t do justice, but it blew me away. One of the few times I can remember thinking “Wow, this is an incredible scene” while the scene is still going on. Of course, now I’ve ruined it for all of you. And yes, I did like it more than the gin rummy scene from Goldfinger.
The characters were surprisingly deep for what is essentially a morality play. Broderick Crawford may be the embodiment of the rich a$$hole, ordering people around willy-nilly, using his money to subvert the law, and ending every single sentence with an exclamation mark. But though he pushes Judy Holliday around (both literally and figuratively), his sensitive side can’t help but push through. The treatment of domestic violence and female empowerment were unexpectedly modern.
Ultimately, the movie features a crisp, funny, and at times poignant script rounded out by stellar acting all around.
And the shots of DC in 1950 were pretty cool. Oh, and there’s a Rabbit Maranville reference.
You Shouldn’t See This Movie Because: The tacked-on feel of scenes where Holden and Holliday are gallivanting around DC mean the adaptation from successful Broadway play to movie could have been executed a little better.
Holden’s Jimmy Stewart-like naivete/belief in America is charming, at first. But some statements, such as the one about how rare it was to find a Congressman who could be bought might provide a little too much unintentional comedy.
The ridiculous way couples in older movies kiss: The man grabs the woman firms by the shoulders, then they do a modified bearhug while smushing their lips together. OK, maybe that just bothers me.
The Grouches have plowed their way through all of the films nominated for the big eight awards. Now we make the case for which film or performance we WANT to win. Doesn’t mean we think it will win or even have a shot at winning. But if we had a vote on the nominees, here’s who we would pick, and why:
BEST DIRECTOR NOMINEES: Paul Thomas Anderson (There Will Be Blood), Joel and Ethan Coen (No Country for Old Men), Tony Gilroy (Michael Clayton), Jason Reitman, (Juno), Julian Schnabel (The Diving Bell and the Butterfly)
There Will Be Blood tells the story of…well…what, exactly? It isn’t really the story of an oil well/reserve, or the town in which it resides. Though both certainly figure prominently. The easy argument is that it is the story of Daniel Plainview and his relationship to the wells and town. Maybe, but the tacked-on feeling of the ending aside, I’m not quite sure that relationship is ever adequately described. TWBB is a sprawling effort of a movie, and if not for the magnetic performances of Paul Dano and Daniel Day-Lewis, its meaning would have been much more pronounced.
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly is one of those films whose technical mastery I can admire but failed to really grab me.
Julian Schnabel has created and interesting, unique, and innovative film exploring the experience of a man locked into his own mind, able to communicate with only an eyelid. For roughly the first half of the film, we see only what Jean-Dominique Bauby, the unfortunate cripple, sees. This means a limited, often unfocused and confusing view from one eye. It’s a very neat concept and we can really feel Bauby’s initial bewilderment. These are paired with some beautifully-shot fantasy sequences. Janusz Kaminski scored a well-deserved Best Cinematography Oscar nomination for his work. The view from the one eye was probably my favorite part of the movie and I think it lost some punch when eventually the view pulls away and we see Bauby as an outside observer. Read the rest of this entry »
Oscar bait much? Let’s see. French movie? Check. Debilitating illness? Check. A guy who blinks out an entire book, for crying out loud? Check. A totally engrossing movie? Check. Wait, what?
Well, first and foremost, let’s skip right to the important part. Mathieu Almaric. Villain in Quantum of Solace. The most important movie since…well…Casino Royale. There are few things that matter more than the next Bond movie. So while the Bond producers made an unforgivable decision on the screenwriter, I’m happy to report they continue to do well with choosing actors. I’m very much looking forward to Almaric playing a baddie.
I like characters. I like characters more when they actually do something. I like nuance. I like nuance more when it isn’t just for the sake of nuance. I actually think John just about nailed it with his original thoughts - a review I believe he’d now like to recant. Adam must have gotten to him or something.
I’m just struggling to understand why a drama with little to no discernible drama, thrills, or suspense has garnered so much acclaim. Sure, it is an exaggeration to say the plot was entirely linear, there were maybe three kinks in there. Of course, if one of those Kinks isn’t Ray Davies, what’s the point? Ah, British Invasion humor! Read the rest of this entry »
With all the awards and nominations rolling in, the Grouches decided to look at the 8 big categories, predict who we think will win the Oscar, and jibber jabber a bit about the nominees. Next up is Best Director.
These predictions were made before the Golden Globes.
Brian: Paul Thomas Anderson
Adam: Tim Burton
John: Joen and Ethan Coen
Jared: Paul Thomas Anderson
So it took me a long while to figure out first, if I liked the movie, second, how much I liked it, and third, why I liked it. End conclusion: I liked it a lot, but I’m still not even sure why, so please excuse the stream of consciousness nature of this post.
As you can tell from some of my other reviews, I kind of like comparing movies to other movies. Except There Will Be Blood is the most original movie I’ve seen in a long while, and the closest comparison I can make is Citizen Kane, which is unfair to both Paul Thomas Anderson and Orson Welles.
Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead is bleak as hell. The plot is depressing and the characters unlikable. While I neither demand positive plots or likable characters, in this case I was left wondering, what’s the point?
I really enjoyed Philip Seymour Hoffman as the conniving, colder older brother Andy. I’m halfway through PSH’s terrific work this year and both of his performances I’ve seen (this and The Savages) are Oscar-worthy. Andy is ruthless but also desperate and delusional and Hoffman nails it. The other performances are good here too: Marisa Tomei, Ethan Hawke, and especially Albert Finney. Looking at it from an Oscar perspective, all of them appear to be long shots but I would welcome a nomination for any of them. While I merely liked the film, it was interesting and unique enough that I hope it gets at least one nomination somewhere.
Best movie of the year. Period. Granted, this statement is made without seeing every movie (or even every movie up for Best Picture) but I feel pretty confident. It would take quite a feat of film making to make me recant. In fact, in our little behind-the-scenes ranking, I gave Juno a perfect 10 – and I stand by that grade. As a testament to this movie’s prowess, I went into the theater with very high expectations (which you should never do) and not only were they met, they were exceeded. So, you might as well prepare yourself because if you plan on reading any further, the rest of this post will exclusively deal with how awesome this movie is.
After throwing John a bone with Talk to Me, I can now criticize his opinions to my heart’s content (that’s how it works, right?). I really liked this movie. In fact, if you have been reading religiously to all the posts (so, really I’m talking to the three other guys who right for this), you’ll notice that it was in my original top 5 movies of the year. I thought it was a great character study with some very memorable performances. And, this is where John and my opinions diverge.
Read the rest of this entry »
So with yesterday’s killing of Pakistani opposition leader Benazir Bhutto, I was inspired to jot down my thoughts on A Mighty Heart, a film about another episode in the all-too-recent history of terrorism in Pakistan. It would be an understatement to say that I was shocked by how much I liked this movie. After opening to generally positive views, but amidst the clutter of the summer blockbusters, I probably would never have even considered seeing A Mighty Heart had it not been for the Golden Grouches endeavor. But I’ll blame the advertising campaign from Paramount, which as I recall, pushed the film more as an Angelina Jolie drama about lost love than a taut docudrama about the fight against terrorism.
Read the rest of this entry »
When we look back at this year’s Oscar season, Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead may well be the representative movie. The characters are largely compelling, but placed in a decidedly not upbeat story that falls just a bit short. The film has received buzz for a nomination is just about every major category save Best Actress, and could receive anywhere from 0-4 nominations. It also features two actors receiving Oscar buzz for other performances (PSH and Amy Ryan).
Ultimately, I don’t see the Academy bestowing any Oscars on the movie - the right move, in my opinion. To me, one mark of a great movie is transcending its genre to become relevant to people not fans of that genre. I don’t feel that’s the case for Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead. I think it is a botched heist movie with loftier pretensions. Don’t let the ending fool you. Read the rest of this entry »
Chuck Klosterman once wrote something along the lines of: “It is much harder to explain why you liked something than to explain why you didn’t like something.” And I’m finding that to ring true as I’m going through the Oscar movies and not only trying to pick out my favorites, but explain why they are the best of the bunch. Juno will end up being one of my favorite movies of the year, if not my most favorite. And I’ll try (and probably fail) to express why that is. But perhaps the simplest thing I can say is that of all the 2007 movies I’ve seen so far, Juno is the only one I’ve felt comfortable and confident recommending, no matter the person asking for the recommendation. Read the rest of this entry »
Ah, finally. I’ve been waiting oh so long to take Brian to task. He writes in his No Country post how “endings aren’t that big a deal to [him].” He then goes on to some tortured math, equating the final Sopranos scene and the closing shots of The Departed to 10% of a movie. Dear oh dear. I think even the argument that each X percent of a movie should be weighted equally is flawed, though I’m not fervently opposed to it.
A somewhat appropriate analogy might be a gymnastics routine. Like the floor exercise, a movie can be filled with Celine Dion songs and flips and never ever leaving the mat (oh, and if you are Brian, 15 year old girls), but if you don’t stick the landing, the judges are going to dock you like crazy. Oh, um, I might be a bit of an Olympics junkie. Read the rest of this entry »
I largely agree with John, so I’ll try to stick to the points where we disagree a little. But, ultimately, “If you’ve seen Gone Baby Gone, you probably wouldn’t be considering it for an Oscar” is accurate. I’d extend that to Supporting Actress. Nothing against Amy Ryan, but I kind of feel she’s getting credit for being a Broadway actress here. To me, while I did definitely appreciate the character, it struck me that I’d seen pretty much the same thing on Law and Order. You know, if I watched Law and Order. I will say that Ben Affleck getting a directing nomination would make me extremely happy, if only for the sheer ridiculousness of the concept. That said, I think there’s near-unanimous agreement that he’s a much more capable director than generally thought possible.
I absolutely agree with John about the characters in the movie. For the most part they were subtle and textured, features which are absolutely essential to a movie of this sort, I think. Michelle Monaghan is there to look pretty, I suppose. Which is nice and all, but her virtual lack of a purpose was rather striking, contrasted with how well-thought out most of the other characters seemed to be.
I do disagree with John about Casey Affleck’s moral dilemma. I won’t rehash it here not to avoid spoiler talk, but just because any short description of it isn’t worth the time or space. Personally, I thought it fit in rather nicely with the whole “subtlety” concept of the movie. John, had they made it a choice between a warm, loving family and a place where she’d be living in a crack den with the risk of getting hit on a regular basis, would that have improved anything for you? Because it wouldn’t for me. As it is, the kid is going to be screwed up, no matter what. But I think it is pretty clear that growing up with Morgan Freeman would mean she’s living in a nurturing environment, where living with her mom would mean she’s pretty much raising herself. And I think that’s a very interesting moral dilemma. You say there’s only one right answer, and maybe there is. But, especially from one econ guy to another, is it really the most efficient solution? I don’t think you are maximizing utility, you likely aren’t making the world a better place, and there is very strong evidence that you are making the girl worse off. To me, that’s something to think about.
Oh, and yeah, the final scene is absolutely fantastic. Along with the obvious one in Eastern Promises, one of my favorite so far.
I’d be surprised if I end up believing this movie should be nominated for anything, but I’d definitely recommend it to certain people.
I wrote a much longer post, in which I detailed what I liked and didn’t like about the movie. After I was finished, I realized that all I was doing was re-hashing what my “esteemed” colleagues have already stated. So, instead of critiquing the movie, I’ve decided to scrap my earlier draft (just assume it was ridiculously well written and insightful) and critique my blog-mates’ posts (which I’m sure they’ll all love and end up falling all over themselves inviting me to do other blogs with them).
Had I been completely ignorant of Oscar hype going into this movie, I’m not sure i would have pegged anything about it as Oscar material. Nothing about the movie struck me as particularly ambitious. The subplots (e.g. all the family issues) onto which I would have imagined Oscar latching weren’t particularly developed or stark. As much as I loved The Girl Next Door, Emile Hirsch didn’t seem all that special in the movie. The directing and cinematography seemed subpar to me, especially considering the material. And while I liked the supporting crew, I personally didn’t see anything memorable. That’s not to say I didn’t like the movie. I just found it, like American Gangster or Eastern Promises (generally speaking, at least), a movie enjoyable enough, but I’ll likely mostly forget it in a few months, and not really miss much.
The Eddie Vedder songs were pleasant enough, though I couldn’t remember them by the end of the night. And I don’t think the Abita Purple Haze had anything to do with that. In a vacuum, I’m not opposed to one getting a nomination, I can’t say for sure yet whether I think it would be in my top five.
Brian summed up my thoughts on American Gangster perfectly when he wrote that it “lacked sizzle.” I don’t think I can find a specific fault in the film. All the components were at least good if not great, but the sum of the parts did not add up to something that leapt off the screen and grabbed me.
Denzel Washington’s Frank Lucas was certainly more compelling than Russell Crowe’s Det. Richie Roberts. His brilliant and ruthless consolidation of power and smart business moves to both rise to the top and remain hidden from the authorities make for an exciting story. Lucas has the makings of a classic evil genius character: very intelligent, always one step ahead, and brutal, like an entrepreneurial and less cannibalistic Hannibal Lector. He doesn’t quite make it to that level, but it is fun to watch along the way.
Read the rest of this entry »
Michael Clayton is another in a long line of films this year that I liked but didn’t love. It’s billed as a legal/ mystery thriller but in reality it’s more of a character drama. If anything the film is too character-driven because the plot is distressingly straight forward. But as a film that depends heavily on its characters it’s getting buzz for acting nominations for Tom Wilkinson, Tilda Swinton, and George Clooney and all three would be fine choices. Read the rest of this entry »
I’m going to throw this out there to start things off: endings aren’t that big a deal to me. I see a movie’s ending as just one small part in the larger sum in weighing whether or not I liked it. I think Signs is a great movie; it’s thrilling, funny, and has shades of Hitchcock’s The Birds, which I also love. But I understand when people say the ending sucked…and while I half-heartedly agree with them, I really don’t care that much.
From conversations with some of you, it appears we’re pretty much on the same page. I found American Gangster entertaining and well-made, but overall unsatisfying. Perhaps it was because of the businessman-like demeanor of Denzel’s Frank Lucas, or because of the lack of interaction between him and Russell Crowe’s Richie Roberts, but the film lacked the sizzle and electrifying suspense of last year’s violent gang film, The Departed.
Which isn’t to say that Gangster was looking to emulate the 2007 Best Picture winner, you can leave that to last month’s flop We Own the Night. Clearly, Ridley Scott looked to Scorcese’s earlier masterpiece Goodfellas and its own logical predecessor The Godfather for inspiration. And while the comparison is probably unfair, Gangster fails to emerge from the shadow of either of them.
(My comments will continue, after the jump. As with all posts on this blog, spoiler alerts within.)
Recent Comments