When it comes to movies, disturbing ones have never been my thing. In a genre of their own, most of these "shock" movies try to be more disturbing than the last, forgetting about simple cinematic needs, like plot and dialogue. What intrigued me about Dogtooth, was that it was apparently a very good movie, that so happened to be disturbing, so i decided to give it a watch.
Having no background information on the movie, I quickly realized that Dogtooth was a foreign film, with english subtitles. While I don't mind reading subtitles, this may be off putting for some viewers. Not as off putting as the movie itself.
The movie starts off with a very awkward sex scene. Not a dramatized, strategically shot hollywood sex scene, but a vey realistic (may actually be real) sex scene. The movie then proceeds to get weirder and weirder. Near the beginning, I was wondering if I would be able to make it through this movie.
We find out that the movie is centered around a very different family. The parents keep their 3 children (2 girls, 1 boy) completely isolated from the outside world. They are kept in a combine with no outsiders allowed, and no signs of the outside world. While this may sound like a pretty overdone premise, no film interpreted this isolation the way that Dogtooth has done. Dogtooth looked at the sacrifice that the parents go through in order to keep their children away from the outside world, and how the children do not behave in any socially normal ways.
Dogtooth is gripping. There are scenes that will make you cringe, laugh, or even be shaken by the families behaviour, but these scenes will keep you thinking. I you can overcome the disturbing subject matter, then there is quite a good movie lying underneath
4/5
Sunday 14 April 2013
Friday 12 April 2013
Midnight in Paris
Throughout my life, my parents had warned me about Woody Allen movies. When they were young, they went and saw "The Purple Rose of Cairo", and walked out because it was so awful. This disdain for Woody Allen movies had been passed down to me at a young age, even though I had never watch one of his movies. During the 2011 Academy Awards, I tried to watch all of the best picture nominations, and Midnight in Paris was one of them. It was time to watch my first Woody Allen movie.
From the opening credits, i could tell this movie was going to be special. The film starts with 4 minutes of beautiful shots of Paris, set to a wonderful Parisian soundtrack that plays for most of the movie. Allen is known to bring out the best in cities, such as New York and Spain, and you can tell his admiration for Paris by the shots he chose for his openning credits. Another thing I noticed very early in the movie was that Woody Allen attracts great actors. Midnight in Paris had Owen Wilson, Rachel McAdams, Marion Cotillard, Cathy Bates, and Adrian Brody. This movie was shaping up well.
As the movie progressed, I kept falling deeply, deeply in love with Paris. The scene that sticks in my mind the most was a very philosophical conversation while exploring the grounds of Versailles. This conversation centered around the concept of golden age thinking, which is as stated in the movie as "the erroneous notion that a different time period is better than the one ones living in". This thought leads in perfectly when the movie takes a very interesting plot twist.
While on a bit of a drunk expedition around Paris, Gil (Wilson), gets lost and takes a a break. When the clock stikes midnight, he is approached by a very old car, and the people inside ask him to come drink with them. He soon realizes that these people are idols of his, from the 1920's. Throughout his adventures, he meets the Fitzgeralds, Ernest Hemingway, and Gertrude Stein among others.
After returning to his dream period of history, Gil is faced with a decision: live his life in the past and escape reality, or return to his life and live it the best he can.
Midnight in Paris is a wonderful movie. Enjoyable from beginning to end, witty, funny, and even thoughtful. A movie that you can watch numerous times and still laugh, and that people will enjoy no matter what kinds of movies they like. I now understand why Woody Allen is so famous.
5/5
From the opening credits, i could tell this movie was going to be special. The film starts with 4 minutes of beautiful shots of Paris, set to a wonderful Parisian soundtrack that plays for most of the movie. Allen is known to bring out the best in cities, such as New York and Spain, and you can tell his admiration for Paris by the shots he chose for his openning credits. Another thing I noticed very early in the movie was that Woody Allen attracts great actors. Midnight in Paris had Owen Wilson, Rachel McAdams, Marion Cotillard, Cathy Bates, and Adrian Brody. This movie was shaping up well.
As the movie progressed, I kept falling deeply, deeply in love with Paris. The scene that sticks in my mind the most was a very philosophical conversation while exploring the grounds of Versailles. This conversation centered around the concept of golden age thinking, which is as stated in the movie as "the erroneous notion that a different time period is better than the one ones living in". This thought leads in perfectly when the movie takes a very interesting plot twist.
While on a bit of a drunk expedition around Paris, Gil (Wilson), gets lost and takes a a break. When the clock stikes midnight, he is approached by a very old car, and the people inside ask him to come drink with them. He soon realizes that these people are idols of his, from the 1920's. Throughout his adventures, he meets the Fitzgeralds, Ernest Hemingway, and Gertrude Stein among others.
After returning to his dream period of history, Gil is faced with a decision: live his life in the past and escape reality, or return to his life and live it the best he can.
Midnight in Paris is a wonderful movie. Enjoyable from beginning to end, witty, funny, and even thoughtful. A movie that you can watch numerous times and still laugh, and that people will enjoy no matter what kinds of movies they like. I now understand why Woody Allen is so famous.
5/5
Monday 8 April 2013
Lost in Translation
The daughter of Francis Ford Coppola, director Sofia Coppola had some very big shoes to fill. During the early stages of her directing career, Sofia Coppola didn't get much respect for her directing skills, mostly due to her father funding her projects. This changed in 2003 when she came out with Lost in Translation.
Lost in Translation centers around an over the hill actor, Bob Harris (Bill Murray), and a newlywed, Charlotte (Scarlett Johansson), who are both visiting Japan. Bob is getting paid 2 million dollars to endorse a whisky, and Charlotte is following her husband who is there to do a photo shoot with a band. Bob and Charlotte are both lost in their respective lives, searching for something that will point them in the right direction. They meet each other in the hotel bar, and develop a very interesting emotional relationship.
Both Murray and Johansson play such full bodied characters that it is tough for me to see them playing other roles. Murray adds a bit of well timed, subtle comedy while Johansson plays the perfect blend of ditsy, yet endearing. They have such amazing chemistry together, that you forget that they had over 30 years in age difference. Throughout their short stay in Japan, Bob and Charlotte learn so much about themselves while being together, and they will benefit from their brief encounter for the rest of their lives.
This film is meant to be personal. My interpretation of this movie will be different than anyone else's, and I think that is what I enjoy most about it. Lost in Translation is my movie, and nobody can take that away from me. One of the last scenes is Bob saying goodbye to Charlotte in a busy market, and Bob whispers something inaudible to Charlotte that deeply effects them. This scene is what makes this movie. You can make up whatever you feel appropriate to end this movie. It is your personal film.
From the cinematography, to the dialogue, to the acting, Lost in Translation is perfect, however, my version of Lost in Translation will be different than yours. My favourite movie, and I hope you can enjoy it as much as I do.
5/5
Lost in Translation centers around an over the hill actor, Bob Harris (Bill Murray), and a newlywed, Charlotte (Scarlett Johansson), who are both visiting Japan. Bob is getting paid 2 million dollars to endorse a whisky, and Charlotte is following her husband who is there to do a photo shoot with a band. Bob and Charlotte are both lost in their respective lives, searching for something that will point them in the right direction. They meet each other in the hotel bar, and develop a very interesting emotional relationship.
Both Murray and Johansson play such full bodied characters that it is tough for me to see them playing other roles. Murray adds a bit of well timed, subtle comedy while Johansson plays the perfect blend of ditsy, yet endearing. They have such amazing chemistry together, that you forget that they had over 30 years in age difference. Throughout their short stay in Japan, Bob and Charlotte learn so much about themselves while being together, and they will benefit from their brief encounter for the rest of their lives.
This film is meant to be personal. My interpretation of this movie will be different than anyone else's, and I think that is what I enjoy most about it. Lost in Translation is my movie, and nobody can take that away from me. One of the last scenes is Bob saying goodbye to Charlotte in a busy market, and Bob whispers something inaudible to Charlotte that deeply effects them. This scene is what makes this movie. You can make up whatever you feel appropriate to end this movie. It is your personal film.
From the cinematography, to the dialogue, to the acting, Lost in Translation is perfect, however, my version of Lost in Translation will be different than yours. My favourite movie, and I hope you can enjoy it as much as I do.
5/5
Wednesday 3 April 2013
The Watch
Despite having a promising cast and a great premise, The Watch turned out be a flop. Even with having a pre conceived notion about the movie, after finishing my viewing, I couldn't help but wonder what everyone disliked about it.
Sure The Watch wasn't as funny as it could have been, and sure it was thematically erratic, but the purpose of the movie was to entertain and I for one, was entertain.
The Watch had the stars Ben Stiller, Vince Vaughn, Johah Hill, and newcomer Richard Ayoade, who all seemed to have good chemistry. The problem about having a lot of stars in this movie is that there was not enough dialogue for each character to really develop. Jonah Hill, probably the best actor of the bunch, was barely even noticeable throughout the movie.
If I were to find a comparable movie, I would have to say it is a less polished version of KickAss. Both films try to balance comedy with intense action, I just feel like The Watch missed the balance just a little bit.
The Watch was not a perfect movie, but I laughed at quite a few parts, and actually enjoyed the story as well. Entertaining movie.
3.5/5
Sure The Watch wasn't as funny as it could have been, and sure it was thematically erratic, but the purpose of the movie was to entertain and I for one, was entertain.
The Watch had the stars Ben Stiller, Vince Vaughn, Johah Hill, and newcomer Richard Ayoade, who all seemed to have good chemistry. The problem about having a lot of stars in this movie is that there was not enough dialogue for each character to really develop. Jonah Hill, probably the best actor of the bunch, was barely even noticeable throughout the movie.
If I were to find a comparable movie, I would have to say it is a less polished version of KickAss. Both films try to balance comedy with intense action, I just feel like The Watch missed the balance just a little bit.
The Watch was not a perfect movie, but I laughed at quite a few parts, and actually enjoyed the story as well. Entertaining movie.
3.5/5
Thursday 28 March 2013
Superbad
When I think of the times that I went to the movies with friends in high school, the movie that I remember the most was Superbad. This movie appealed to me because it was rated 18A, so I needed my mom to buy the tickets for me and my friends to get in. After watching Superbad for the first time in theaters, I walked away content, but not blown away. I thought it had some funny moments, but faltered as the movie progressed, turning a bit too sentimental.
Superbad was a real career starter for the young stars. Jonah Hill, Michael Cera, and Christopher Mintz-Plasse have all gone onto successful acting careers, including a Best Supporting Actor nomination for Hill. The screenplay was written by Seth Rogen, and was directed by Greg Mottola. The story centers around a group of soon-to-be graduating high school students who get invited to their first grad party. After Seth (Hill) casually talks about getting into clubs with his fake ID, he, Evan( Cera), and Fogell (Mintz-Plasse), are asked to buy the alcohol for the party.
When Fogell tries to use his fake ID at the liquor store (with the name Mclovin), he gets knocked out by a robber and questioned by the police. Seth and Evan believe that he was being arrested by the police, and head out on an adventure of their own to get the booze for the party.
Despite being a movie about struggling teenagers, I appreciate this movie a lot more now than I did when I was the age of the characters. I couldn't believe how much I was laughing for the entire movie, and the sentimental moments were heartfelt and believable.
I encourage people to take a second look at this movie, as I believe the humour has matured extremely well, and it will keep you laughing all the way through. One of my all-time favourite comedies.
5/5
Wednesday 20 March 2013
Oz, the Great and Powerful
After capturing top spot at the box office for two weeks in a row, and grossing 144 million dollars in the U.S alone, Oz, the Great and Powerful can be considered and early year blockbuster. Boasting a line-up of stars that includes James Franco, Mila Kunis, Rachel Weiss, Michelle Williams, and also being a prequel to one of the most famous films of all time, The Wizard of Oz, this movie didn't have much to do to become a smash hit. This is lucky for the investors, because this movie didn't do very much very well.
From the opening scene, you could already tell that James Franco was horribly miscast for the role of Oz the magician. He looked as is he was high the whole time (which he probably was), and was so out of place either in Kansas, or in Oz. This was a distracting factor the whole time. Also, the dialogue was so poor, that i'm sure most children could tell how cheesy most of it was. At times, Oz felt as if it was for very young children, but other times it was quite frightening. There were serious moments in the dialogue that you could not contain your laughter, because they were either so poorly acted, or so over the top. Mila Kunis' makeup as the Wicked Witch of the West, was distracting as was the voice overs for her menacing laugh.
Sounds pretty bad doesn't it? Well, actually it was quite entertaining. The 3D started off a little bit distracting, but really was worth it when the movie got to Oz. The colours were brilliant and vibrant, and the whole world was unbelievably beautiful. When it came to the acting, only Rachel Weiss had a strong performance. She was not as overly expressive as the Franco and Kunis (besides a few scenes) and not as out of place and uninterested as Williams. The story did put together a lot of interesting aspects of The Wizard of Oz, but there were also many flaws in the plot line.
Despite laughing at things that weren't supposed to be funny, and cringing at other parts that were supposed make you laugh, I walked out of the movie content and entertained. There are lots of things wrong with Oz, but it isn't boring, and it isn't a waste of time.
3/5
From the opening scene, you could already tell that James Franco was horribly miscast for the role of Oz the magician. He looked as is he was high the whole time (which he probably was), and was so out of place either in Kansas, or in Oz. This was a distracting factor the whole time. Also, the dialogue was so poor, that i'm sure most children could tell how cheesy most of it was. At times, Oz felt as if it was for very young children, but other times it was quite frightening. There were serious moments in the dialogue that you could not contain your laughter, because they were either so poorly acted, or so over the top. Mila Kunis' makeup as the Wicked Witch of the West, was distracting as was the voice overs for her menacing laugh.
Sounds pretty bad doesn't it? Well, actually it was quite entertaining. The 3D started off a little bit distracting, but really was worth it when the movie got to Oz. The colours were brilliant and vibrant, and the whole world was unbelievably beautiful. When it came to the acting, only Rachel Weiss had a strong performance. She was not as overly expressive as the Franco and Kunis (besides a few scenes) and not as out of place and uninterested as Williams. The story did put together a lot of interesting aspects of The Wizard of Oz, but there were also many flaws in the plot line.
Despite laughing at things that weren't supposed to be funny, and cringing at other parts that were supposed make you laugh, I walked out of the movie content and entertained. There are lots of things wrong with Oz, but it isn't boring, and it isn't a waste of time.
3/5
Saturday 16 March 2013
Jeff, Who Lives at Home
For months, I had skipped over Jeff, Who Lives at Home, expecting a nice little movie, but nothing more. Only when my brother praised the movie constantly, did I decide to watch it, and I was not disappointed.
Jeff, is the story of an early 30's man, Jeff, played by Jason Segal, who believes that life will provide him with signs to tell him what he needs to do. While looking for these signs, he lives in his mother's basement, do nothing productive, and falling behind in life. One morning he gets a phone call from someone looking for a Kevin, and Jeff takes this as a sign.
After following his instincts for while, and only managing to get himself beat up and robbed, he stumbles by a local Hooters, where he meets with his brother Pat, played by Ed Helms. Pat thinks of himself as quite a successful man, having a steady job and a wife, and has no problem flaunting it. Pat starts of as a condescending older brother, trying to get Jeff to do something with his life, while continually making fun of his belief that the world will show him the signs.
As the movie proceeds, more and more signs and coincidences pile up, and Pat starts to believe that maybe his brother isn't as crazy as he had once thought. While deciphering all of the signs, Jeff realises that they all seem to be helping everyone else in his life, and that maybe his life doesn't have any deeper purpose, until all of the signs finally click, and he realises what he has to do.
I have to admit that I am a sucker for these kinds of movies. Jeff, Who Lives at Home has plenty of laughs, moving dialogue, and a great climax that ties the whole movie together. Some people will find some parts of it a little bit cheesy, and I would understand, but these moments are overshadowed by the ambition and emotion that this movie possesses.
4.5/5
Jeff, is the story of an early 30's man, Jeff, played by Jason Segal, who believes that life will provide him with signs to tell him what he needs to do. While looking for these signs, he lives in his mother's basement, do nothing productive, and falling behind in life. One morning he gets a phone call from someone looking for a Kevin, and Jeff takes this as a sign.
After following his instincts for while, and only managing to get himself beat up and robbed, he stumbles by a local Hooters, where he meets with his brother Pat, played by Ed Helms. Pat thinks of himself as quite a successful man, having a steady job and a wife, and has no problem flaunting it. Pat starts of as a condescending older brother, trying to get Jeff to do something with his life, while continually making fun of his belief that the world will show him the signs.
As the movie proceeds, more and more signs and coincidences pile up, and Pat starts to believe that maybe his brother isn't as crazy as he had once thought. While deciphering all of the signs, Jeff realises that they all seem to be helping everyone else in his life, and that maybe his life doesn't have any deeper purpose, until all of the signs finally click, and he realises what he has to do.
I have to admit that I am a sucker for these kinds of movies. Jeff, Who Lives at Home has plenty of laughs, moving dialogue, and a great climax that ties the whole movie together. Some people will find some parts of it a little bit cheesy, and I would understand, but these moments are overshadowed by the ambition and emotion that this movie possesses.
4.5/5
Tuesday 12 March 2013
The Master
Any time the name Paul Thomas Anderson and new movie are used in the same sentence, there is reason to be excited. When the names Joaquin Phoenix, Philip Seymour-Hoffman, and Amy Adams are linked to this new movie, the anticipation goes through the roof. On top of all of this, the first cryptic trailer was released a few months prior to the movie's release, which gave us a brief look at what promised to be another Paul Thomas Anderson masterpiece.
Unfortunately, The Master did not receive a full theatrical release. Only a select few theaters were playing the movie, and none of them were near-by. This wasn't quite the news that I was looking for, but I could wait until it was released on DVD. Six months after the theatrical release, The Master was finally ready for the small screen.
Even with months of anticipation and high expectations, I was not let down. Every shot was beautiful, the story was unique, the acting was unprecedented, and the story was ambiguous. As with most Paul Thomas Anderson films, this movie challenges the viewer in ways that will leave many of them confused, or even off-put. The story is centered around a World War II veteran, Freddie Quell, with many quirks, and a severe drinking problem. After unintentionally poisoning a coworker with his homemade alcohol (made with various chemicals), he takes off to avoid persecution and in his drunken stupor, lands himself on a boat where he meets Lancaster Dodd, the leader of The Cause.
Apparently based on the birth of Scientology (which could have been a movie on its own), The Master instead focuses on the characters, leaving everything else as a backdrop. The three main characters are extremely layered and complex, and their interactions make this movie so full.
This is a multiple viewing kind of movie. I know that I have missed many things in my first run through, and I am excited to watch it again. Don't go into this movie expecting everything to be laid out in front of you, or you will be extremely disappointed when the credits hit. The Master will linger in you thoughts for some time after, and the beauty is undeniable.
4.5/5
Unfortunately, The Master did not receive a full theatrical release. Only a select few theaters were playing the movie, and none of them were near-by. This wasn't quite the news that I was looking for, but I could wait until it was released on DVD. Six months after the theatrical release, The Master was finally ready for the small screen.
Even with months of anticipation and high expectations, I was not let down. Every shot was beautiful, the story was unique, the acting was unprecedented, and the story was ambiguous. As with most Paul Thomas Anderson films, this movie challenges the viewer in ways that will leave many of them confused, or even off-put. The story is centered around a World War II veteran, Freddie Quell, with many quirks, and a severe drinking problem. After unintentionally poisoning a coworker with his homemade alcohol (made with various chemicals), he takes off to avoid persecution and in his drunken stupor, lands himself on a boat where he meets Lancaster Dodd, the leader of The Cause.
Apparently based on the birth of Scientology (which could have been a movie on its own), The Master instead focuses on the characters, leaving everything else as a backdrop. The three main characters are extremely layered and complex, and their interactions make this movie so full.
This is a multiple viewing kind of movie. I know that I have missed many things in my first run through, and I am excited to watch it again. Don't go into this movie expecting everything to be laid out in front of you, or you will be extremely disappointed when the credits hit. The Master will linger in you thoughts for some time after, and the beauty is undeniable.
4.5/5
Sunday 24 February 2013
Academy Award Predictions
The biggest night in Hollywood is almost here! Tomorrow night, the best members of the film industry will be acknowledged at the 85th Academy Awards. Unfortunately, I did not have time to watch every nominated movie or performance, but I still feel like I have enough insight to make educated predictions on how tomorrow night will unfold. Let's look at the Best Supporting actor categories.
In both the female and male Best Supporting actor categories, I feel like there are clear front runners. However, this is the Academy Awards and there are always surprises. In the male category, the front runner seems to be Robert DeNiro, with his portrayal of a father with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder in Silver Lining's Playbook. DeNiro has been in a slump for many years now, choosing bad movies, bad roles, and just not acting well. Silver Lining's Playbook was a complete turnaround for him, with emotion and sincerity that has been missing in his film of late. As for the females, Anne Hathaway looks to be the one to beat for this years Oscar. Hathaway also got her nomination for an emotional performance in the end of the year blockbuster, Les Miserables. Hathaway is following up another high caliber performance, from the Dark Knight Rises, where she was was thought by many to be a poor choice to play Catwoman, until they saw the movie.
Next we have best director, which is a very controversial list this year. While there are still some great names on this year's list, it is missing two top contenders: Ben Affleck and Kathryn Bigelow. These two were at the helm for the two favorites for best picture this year, so it shocked almost everyone when their names were left off of the list. However, even if they were nominated, I feel like the favorite would be Ang Lee for his take of the novel, Life of Pi, which was thought to be almost impossible to bring to the big screen. Critically acclaimed and undeniably beautiful, Life of Pi was a commercial and personal success for Lee, by taking on the toughest screenplay, and turning it into a great movie.
Best Actor in a leading role is a much closer category than the supporting counter-part, for both sexes. Starting with the women again, there doesn't seem to be any clear favorites this year, but if I were to pick the top two, I would say Jessica Chastain in Zero Dark Thirty, and Emmanuelle Riva in Amour. Chastain performance appeals to the academy due to the grit and ferocity that her character shows, but also the subtle passion and emotion that she show's throughout. Zero Dark Thirty is a favorite for best picture, which will make a difference when choosing this years winner. While Chastain seems to be the logical choice to win, Riva will be the emotional favorite, as she is 86 years old. The only aspect that I feel will hinder her chances to win, is that Amour is a foreign film, so not many people will have seen her performance.
Best Actor for the males could be a historic one. Daniel Day-Lewis has the chance to be the first ever actor to win this category three times, and could easily be called the best actor of all time. Trying to make this historic event wait, Joaquin Phoenix from The Master has a great chance to win. The Master was released early in the year, and while not being a complete critical success, Phoenix's performance was the early favorite to win this year. I predict that the Academy will save Day-Lewis' record breaking Oscar for a more breathtaking performance, and will award it to Phoenix for his performance in The Master.
The last, and most prestigeous award this year, will be for Best Picture, where there are 9 nominees hoping to take this award home. In what I feel like is a fairly talented year, there are three movies that stand out: Zero Dark Thirty, Argo, and Silver Lining's Playbook. Argo was a favorite fairly recently, but there has been some controversy about the factual legitimacy leading up to the awards, so I don't think that Argo will win. Silver Lining's Playbook is the dark horse this year, with continued consumer support and critical feedback. With a fairly good chance to win, it would have to upset the indefinite favorite, Zero Dark Thirty, which is just made too well, too compelling, and too well received, to not win this year.
There are my predictions! The awards are starting in a few minutes and cannot wait! Sit back and enjoy.
In both the female and male Best Supporting actor categories, I feel like there are clear front runners. However, this is the Academy Awards and there are always surprises. In the male category, the front runner seems to be Robert DeNiro, with his portrayal of a father with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder in Silver Lining's Playbook. DeNiro has been in a slump for many years now, choosing bad movies, bad roles, and just not acting well. Silver Lining's Playbook was a complete turnaround for him, with emotion and sincerity that has been missing in his film of late. As for the females, Anne Hathaway looks to be the one to beat for this years Oscar. Hathaway also got her nomination for an emotional performance in the end of the year blockbuster, Les Miserables. Hathaway is following up another high caliber performance, from the Dark Knight Rises, where she was was thought by many to be a poor choice to play Catwoman, until they saw the movie.
Next we have best director, which is a very controversial list this year. While there are still some great names on this year's list, it is missing two top contenders: Ben Affleck and Kathryn Bigelow. These two were at the helm for the two favorites for best picture this year, so it shocked almost everyone when their names were left off of the list. However, even if they were nominated, I feel like the favorite would be Ang Lee for his take of the novel, Life of Pi, which was thought to be almost impossible to bring to the big screen. Critically acclaimed and undeniably beautiful, Life of Pi was a commercial and personal success for Lee, by taking on the toughest screenplay, and turning it into a great movie.
Best Actor in a leading role is a much closer category than the supporting counter-part, for both sexes. Starting with the women again, there doesn't seem to be any clear favorites this year, but if I were to pick the top two, I would say Jessica Chastain in Zero Dark Thirty, and Emmanuelle Riva in Amour. Chastain performance appeals to the academy due to the grit and ferocity that her character shows, but also the subtle passion and emotion that she show's throughout. Zero Dark Thirty is a favorite for best picture, which will make a difference when choosing this years winner. While Chastain seems to be the logical choice to win, Riva will be the emotional favorite, as she is 86 years old. The only aspect that I feel will hinder her chances to win, is that Amour is a foreign film, so not many people will have seen her performance.
Best Actor for the males could be a historic one. Daniel Day-Lewis has the chance to be the first ever actor to win this category three times, and could easily be called the best actor of all time. Trying to make this historic event wait, Joaquin Phoenix from The Master has a great chance to win. The Master was released early in the year, and while not being a complete critical success, Phoenix's performance was the early favorite to win this year. I predict that the Academy will save Day-Lewis' record breaking Oscar for a more breathtaking performance, and will award it to Phoenix for his performance in The Master.
The last, and most prestigeous award this year, will be for Best Picture, where there are 9 nominees hoping to take this award home. In what I feel like is a fairly talented year, there are three movies that stand out: Zero Dark Thirty, Argo, and Silver Lining's Playbook. Argo was a favorite fairly recently, but there has been some controversy about the factual legitimacy leading up to the awards, so I don't think that Argo will win. Silver Lining's Playbook is the dark horse this year, with continued consumer support and critical feedback. With a fairly good chance to win, it would have to upset the indefinite favorite, Zero Dark Thirty, which is just made too well, too compelling, and too well received, to not win this year.
There are my predictions! The awards are starting in a few minutes and cannot wait! Sit back and enjoy.
Sunday 10 February 2013
Academy Awards Preview
The 85th Academy Awards will soon be upon us! On February 24th, the biggest stars in Hollywood will be acknowledged for their excellence. As always, most of the focus will be on the best picture nominees which include: Amour, Django Unchained, Argo, Les Miserables, Life of Pi, Silver Lining's Playbook, Zero Dark Thirty, Lincoln, and Beasts of the Southern Wild.
The two leaders for Best Picture this year seem to be Argo, and Zero Dark Thirty. In the early stages of awards from film festivals, it looked as if Zero Dark Thirty would run away with the win. Despite this early start, once the movie hit the big screens, audiences weren't as blown away with it as critics were. Leading up the Academy Awards, Argo has been the winner of some major film awards, including Best Picture at the Golden Globes.
Despite these two film being the front-runners, I have a feeling that we may see an upset this year. Silver Lining's Playbook received early critical acclaim, and has continued to do well at the box office. Along with the fact that it has very funny moments and is an overall feel-good movie, I believe that it has a chance to upset the two, more serious and less grossing films at the top.
Also on the list, we have some other interesting, high grossing movies, that could have a chance at top stop depending on what the Academy is looking for this year. Django Unchained, did very well at the box office, grossing 154m in the U.S. so far. This movie would be the favorite if the Academy was made up of men under the age of 25. Les Miserables was released along side Django, and also did well at the box office grossing 144m. With some hesitation from critics and audiences alike, look for this to get a pass for best picture, but could take home some acting awards. The Pultzer prize winning novel, Life of Pi, was thought to be impossible to adapt to the big screen. For this reason alone, Life of Pi has a chance at winning best picture. Rounding out the blockbuster hopefuls, is Steven Spielberg's Lincoln. With Spielberg at the helm of this one, it was almost a shoe-in for a best picture nomination. Grossing over 170m in the U.S alone, Lincoln has a strong case to be at the top of the list.
Rounding out the 9 nominees are Beast of the Southern Wind, and Amour. These two will be the the definite underdogs, having no big names attached to them, and no public support. To me, the only awards that these will be winning will be those in the acting categories.
Until the night of the awards, I will take an in-depth look at each of the nominees and finally, make my final predictions before the big night. Next post I will look at one of the favorites, Argo.
The two leaders for Best Picture this year seem to be Argo, and Zero Dark Thirty. In the early stages of awards from film festivals, it looked as if Zero Dark Thirty would run away with the win. Despite this early start, once the movie hit the big screens, audiences weren't as blown away with it as critics were. Leading up the Academy Awards, Argo has been the winner of some major film awards, including Best Picture at the Golden Globes.
Despite these two film being the front-runners, I have a feeling that we may see an upset this year. Silver Lining's Playbook received early critical acclaim, and has continued to do well at the box office. Along with the fact that it has very funny moments and is an overall feel-good movie, I believe that it has a chance to upset the two, more serious and less grossing films at the top.
Also on the list, we have some other interesting, high grossing movies, that could have a chance at top stop depending on what the Academy is looking for this year. Django Unchained, did very well at the box office, grossing 154m in the U.S. so far. This movie would be the favorite if the Academy was made up of men under the age of 25. Les Miserables was released along side Django, and also did well at the box office grossing 144m. With some hesitation from critics and audiences alike, look for this to get a pass for best picture, but could take home some acting awards. The Pultzer prize winning novel, Life of Pi, was thought to be impossible to adapt to the big screen. For this reason alone, Life of Pi has a chance at winning best picture. Rounding out the blockbuster hopefuls, is Steven Spielberg's Lincoln. With Spielberg at the helm of this one, it was almost a shoe-in for a best picture nomination. Grossing over 170m in the U.S alone, Lincoln has a strong case to be at the top of the list.
Rounding out the 9 nominees are Beast of the Southern Wind, and Amour. These two will be the the definite underdogs, having no big names attached to them, and no public support. To me, the only awards that these will be winning will be those in the acting categories.
Until the night of the awards, I will take an in-depth look at each of the nominees and finally, make my final predictions before the big night. Next post I will look at one of the favorites, Argo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)