I'm still letting my experience of viewing Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (KotCS) settle in, but I have one overwhelming feeling, that of disappointment.
Another thing I keep thinking is that the perfect Indy 4 has already been made, way back in 1992: Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis.
For those unaware, Fate of Atlantis is a classic point-and-click adventure game released by LucasArts. Not only was it a fantastic game in its own right, it also had a superb script and storyline, at the centre of which was an unbeatable "MacGuffin": the lost city of Atlantis.
("MacGuffin" is a term coined by Alfred Hitchcock to describe an object that is a catalyst for the plot or motivates characters' actions but is ultimately irrelevant. Marion Crane's stash of money in Psycho, which results in her visiting the Bates Motel, is the perfect example.)
There's been a good deal of discussion about the Crystal Skull, the MacGuffin in the new film, and many of the criticisms of the film have identified it as a flaw. Like Temple of Doom's Sankara Stones, it is weak as a plot device because it's too obscure. The Ark of the Covenant and the Holy Grail worked well because (aside from them both having the obvious religious connection) they are well known objects. Everyone's heard of them, so they don't need too much explaining. KotCS, on the other hand, spends so much time explaining its central MacGuffin that it sometimes forgets to actually move the plot forward.
There have been reports that the Skull was the idea of George Lucas, and that Spielberg and Harrison Ford were not altogether happy with it. Nevertheless, the same was said about the Grail in The Last Crusade, but that worked well enough. Apparently Spielberg added the father/son plotline in that film to compensate for the weakness of the central gimmick.
Back to the point. Atlantis is the utterly perfect MacGuffin for an Indy film: a fascinating archaeological mystery that almost everyone has at least heard of. Some claim that the game was based on an early idea for the next Indy film after Crusade which never came to fruition. It's a real shame, because as the game proved, it provides a wonderful premise for an Indy adventure.
The way I look at it, Indy 4 was a huge success that is worthy of its precessors' good name. It was called The Fate of Atlantis.
[2/5] Cinema Review: The Amazing Spider-Man
The Spidey saga gets a reboot only a decade after it started. Rich finds out whether Marc Webb's new take manages to justify its existence...
[3/5] Cinema Review: Prometheus
Ridley Scott reaches for the stars as he returns to the Alien universe. Does he bite off more than he can chew?
Summer Preview 2008
It's hard to believe, but the summer movie season (by which I mean May to August) is almost upon us once again. Last summer belonged to the threequel; this year there's an interesting mix of new stuff based on well-known source material, a few sequels, the long-awaited return of a film icon, and even some original fare.
For those who are at all interested, here I'll count down my top 10 most anticipated films of the summer. Not the most original list, but then that's kind of appropriate considering we're talking about blockbusters. These are not necessarily the films I think will make the most money, just those that have me licking my lips with anticipation to varying degrees.
Without further ado, in reverse order (the YouTube videos are the films' trailers)...
10. Hancock - 2 July
Will Smith's latest star vehicle after the megahit I Am Legend sees him starring as a drunken superhero. If the title sounds a bit dull and non-descript, try the original title out for size: Tonight, He Comes. Wonder why they didn't stick with that one.
9. The Incredible Hulk - 13 June
I'm looking forward to this film with some trepidation but I'm also cautiously optimistic. I was a fan of Ang Lee's much derided Hulk, so this sequel's change in direction towards a more action-centric style doesn't entirely fill me with joy. However, the capable Ed Norton is taking Eric Bana's place as Bruce Banner, and he also has taken considerable creative control. The latest word, however, is that the director (Louis Leterrier) and Marvel have been at loggerheads over the final cut, and Marvel - who preferred a leaner, more action-packed version, of course - have apparently won out. At least a longer cut may be on DVD.
8. Iron Man - 2 May
Marvel's other tentpole this year is the one that kicks off the summer, and their latest hope for a new Spider-Man-like super-franchise. Everything seems to bode well - the casting especially, with Robert Downey Jr., Jeff Bridges, Gwyneth Paltrow and others all handpicked by the director, John Favreau. I have to say, though, that the trailers have left me a little cold. I will be happy if my scepticism is proven unfounded.
7. Gone Baby Gone - 6 June
An unusual choice, you may think, considering that this - Ben Affleck's directorial debut - was released months ago in the States. Here it was delayed due to the plot's similarities with the Madeleine McCann case. It garnered excellent reviews from critics, who praised Affleck's direction and the acting of his brother Casey in the lead role (and Amy Ryan was Oscar nominated for best Supporting Actress). Not typical summer fare, then, but it's nice to have a break from all the explosions.
6. Doomsday - 9 May
Another film that our Stateside brethren have already had the opportunity to see, Doomsday is Neil "The Descent" Marshall's latest and most ambitious effort. The film seems to be a bonkers cross between Escape From New York (classic John Carpenter) and Mad Max. Despite some so-so reviews, I think it looks like great fun and the concept, although unoriginal, certainly appeals to me. And I wasn't too impressed with The Descent.
5. Hellboy II: The Golden Army - 22 August
Guillermo del Toro's Hellboy has plenty of fans, but its unspectacular box office takings wouldn't seem to demand a sequel. Del Toro's commitment has paid off, however, and here he looks like his imagination is really let loose. The original was an offbeat delight (which I only saw the charms of second time round, I admit), and I'm hoping this can build on its successes.
4. The Happening - 13 June
I'm an M. Night Shyamalan apologist, despite not loving Lady in the Water (but it's not as bad as some made out) or The Village (because of the ending). I am, however, a big fan of Signs and especially Unbreakable. The Happening sounds like it could be a true return to form, with an epic apocalyptic plotline. Shyamalan may sometimes love himself too much but young directors like him who write their own original scripts are increasingly rare.
3. Wall-E - 18 July
Speaking of originality, Pixar are bringing us what looks like the most original film in years this summer, in the form of Wall-E, the tale of a loveable scrap-collecting robot who works alone on an abandoned Earth. The imagery looks absolutely stunning, and the film is apparently almost entirely devoid of dialogue, relying on Ben Burtt's sound design instead. Pixar still haven't failed, and I will be truly shocked if Wall-E does not continue their streak. It could even be one of their very best films yet.
2. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull - 22 May
Cumbersome title aside, the signs are good for the return of Indy, 19 years after his last adventure. The trailer shows that Spielberg and co are not departing much from the Indy we know and love, and they're making the right noises concerning the desire to use as little CGI as possible. I personally thought that The Last Crusade was a perfect way to end Indy's cinematic life, but if Skull succeeds, I think we'll all be happy to welcome him back.
1. The Dark Knight - 25 July
In truth, summer 2008 is for me all about one film - Christopher Nolan's follow-up to his brilliant franchise rebirth Batman Begins. Heath Ledger's death is tragic and will unavoidably change our experience of watching the film. Nevertheless, if Knight lives up to its enormous potential it will be a tremendous tribute to the talented actor (who will still star in one more film, Terry Gilliam's The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus). Rumours are spreading that the film is set to have a running time of as much as 3 hours, which for me is fantastic news - and credit to Warner Bros if they have the cajones to allow it. I don't want to jinx the film, but I really cannot see how it could fail. The Dark Knight has "classic" written all over it.
So there's your lot folks. No doubt not all of these films will turn out great - if they do it will be one hell of a summer - but I'm hopeful that amongst this bunch there will be some films well worth remembering.
For those who are at all interested, here I'll count down my top 10 most anticipated films of the summer. Not the most original list, but then that's kind of appropriate considering we're talking about blockbusters. These are not necessarily the films I think will make the most money, just those that have me licking my lips with anticipation to varying degrees.
Without further ado, in reverse order (the YouTube videos are the films' trailers)...
10. Hancock - 2 July
Will Smith's latest star vehicle after the megahit I Am Legend sees him starring as a drunken superhero. If the title sounds a bit dull and non-descript, try the original title out for size: Tonight, He Comes. Wonder why they didn't stick with that one.
9. The Incredible Hulk - 13 June
I'm looking forward to this film with some trepidation but I'm also cautiously optimistic. I was a fan of Ang Lee's much derided Hulk, so this sequel's change in direction towards a more action-centric style doesn't entirely fill me with joy. However, the capable Ed Norton is taking Eric Bana's place as Bruce Banner, and he also has taken considerable creative control. The latest word, however, is that the director (Louis Leterrier) and Marvel have been at loggerheads over the final cut, and Marvel - who preferred a leaner, more action-packed version, of course - have apparently won out. At least a longer cut may be on DVD.
8. Iron Man - 2 May
Marvel's other tentpole this year is the one that kicks off the summer, and their latest hope for a new Spider-Man-like super-franchise. Everything seems to bode well - the casting especially, with Robert Downey Jr., Jeff Bridges, Gwyneth Paltrow and others all handpicked by the director, John Favreau. I have to say, though, that the trailers have left me a little cold. I will be happy if my scepticism is proven unfounded.
7. Gone Baby Gone - 6 June
An unusual choice, you may think, considering that this - Ben Affleck's directorial debut - was released months ago in the States. Here it was delayed due to the plot's similarities with the Madeleine McCann case. It garnered excellent reviews from critics, who praised Affleck's direction and the acting of his brother Casey in the lead role (and Amy Ryan was Oscar nominated for best Supporting Actress). Not typical summer fare, then, but it's nice to have a break from all the explosions.
6. Doomsday - 9 May
Another film that our Stateside brethren have already had the opportunity to see, Doomsday is Neil "The Descent" Marshall's latest and most ambitious effort. The film seems to be a bonkers cross between Escape From New York (classic John Carpenter) and Mad Max. Despite some so-so reviews, I think it looks like great fun and the concept, although unoriginal, certainly appeals to me. And I wasn't too impressed with The Descent.
5. Hellboy II: The Golden Army - 22 August
Guillermo del Toro's Hellboy has plenty of fans, but its unspectacular box office takings wouldn't seem to demand a sequel. Del Toro's commitment has paid off, however, and here he looks like his imagination is really let loose. The original was an offbeat delight (which I only saw the charms of second time round, I admit), and I'm hoping this can build on its successes.
4. The Happening - 13 June
I'm an M. Night Shyamalan apologist, despite not loving Lady in the Water (but it's not as bad as some made out) or The Village (because of the ending). I am, however, a big fan of Signs and especially Unbreakable. The Happening sounds like it could be a true return to form, with an epic apocalyptic plotline. Shyamalan may sometimes love himself too much but young directors like him who write their own original scripts are increasingly rare.
3. Wall-E - 18 July
Speaking of originality, Pixar are bringing us what looks like the most original film in years this summer, in the form of Wall-E, the tale of a loveable scrap-collecting robot who works alone on an abandoned Earth. The imagery looks absolutely stunning, and the film is apparently almost entirely devoid of dialogue, relying on Ben Burtt's sound design instead. Pixar still haven't failed, and I will be truly shocked if Wall-E does not continue their streak. It could even be one of their very best films yet.
2. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull - 22 May
Cumbersome title aside, the signs are good for the return of Indy, 19 years after his last adventure. The trailer shows that Spielberg and co are not departing much from the Indy we know and love, and they're making the right noises concerning the desire to use as little CGI as possible. I personally thought that The Last Crusade was a perfect way to end Indy's cinematic life, but if Skull succeeds, I think we'll all be happy to welcome him back.
1. The Dark Knight - 25 July
In truth, summer 2008 is for me all about one film - Christopher Nolan's follow-up to his brilliant franchise rebirth Batman Begins. Heath Ledger's death is tragic and will unavoidably change our experience of watching the film. Nevertheless, if Knight lives up to its enormous potential it will be a tremendous tribute to the talented actor (who will still star in one more film, Terry Gilliam's The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus). Rumours are spreading that the film is set to have a running time of as much as 3 hours, which for me is fantastic news - and credit to Warner Bros if they have the cajones to allow it. I don't want to jinx the film, but I really cannot see how it could fail. The Dark Knight has "classic" written all over it.
So there's your lot folks. No doubt not all of these films will turn out great - if they do it will be one hell of a summer - but I'm hopeful that amongst this bunch there will be some films well worth remembering.
Editorial: Uwe Boll is a Genius
Uwe Boll is the greatest living director on Earth.
At least, that's what he seems to think. For those who haven't seen his films or even heard of him (the lucky ones), he's a German director of absolutely dreadful, but surprisingly glossy B-movies mostly based on videogames, including House of the Dead and Alone in the Dark. Fairly recently an online petition was started to demand that he stops making films entirely, and Boll has even responded, saying that if there are a million signatures he will actually comply. Currently there are over 206,000. (Find it here if you want to add your name.)
Recently Boll has made a filmed statement relating to this, which has to be one of the funniest things I've ever seen. Enjoy.
If he's serious in the above video, that just proves he is a complete moron. If he's joking, the man may be right - he might be a genius.
This leaves me in a bit of a moral quandary. Yes, he makes awful, dire films (calling them films is an insult to the medium, really) but they are entertainingly terrible. House of the Dead, for example, is absolutely hilarious. In some perverse, masochistic way, world cinema may be a lesser place without him.
There is also a pro-Boll petition, here, which currently has the rather pitiful total of 4,464 signatures. I haven't signed either of the petitions due to my dilemma.
Whatever Boll ends up doing - and I really can't see him giving up, a million signatures or not - his latest "masterpiece", Postal, is due out in the US in May, and early word actually suggests it may not be utter balls. In the UK, we've got the DVD release of In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale to look forward to, starring our own Jason Statham and a whole load of other recognisable names who should know better. I can't wait.
At least, that's what he seems to think. For those who haven't seen his films or even heard of him (the lucky ones), he's a German director of absolutely dreadful, but surprisingly glossy B-movies mostly based on videogames, including House of the Dead and Alone in the Dark. Fairly recently an online petition was started to demand that he stops making films entirely, and Boll has even responded, saying that if there are a million signatures he will actually comply. Currently there are over 206,000. (Find it here if you want to add your name.)
Recently Boll has made a filmed statement relating to this, which has to be one of the funniest things I've ever seen. Enjoy.
If he's serious in the above video, that just proves he is a complete moron. If he's joking, the man may be right - he might be a genius.
This leaves me in a bit of a moral quandary. Yes, he makes awful, dire films (calling them films is an insult to the medium, really) but they are entertainingly terrible. House of the Dead, for example, is absolutely hilarious. In some perverse, masochistic way, world cinema may be a lesser place without him.
There is also a pro-Boll petition, here, which currently has the rather pitiful total of 4,464 signatures. I haven't signed either of the petitions due to my dilemma.
Whatever Boll ends up doing - and I really can't see him giving up, a million signatures or not - his latest "masterpiece", Postal, is due out in the US in May, and early word actually suggests it may not be utter balls. In the UK, we've got the DVD release of In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale to look forward to, starring our own Jason Statham and a whole load of other recognisable names who should know better. I can't wait.
Undeserving Oscar Winners #2
With the latest Academy Awards ceremony on the horizon, here we look back at previous years. The Oscars have a history of, er, questionable decisions when it comes to their Best Picture winners, and this series of blog entries will look at some of the more glaring ones and argue which film should have taken home the statuette. Of course, there's no pleasing everyone, and this is mainly based on personal taste, but also takes into account how well certain films have endured compared to others.
Why it won:
Ron Howard, despite his completely anonymous direction, has proven himself an Oscar favourite over the years. The film practically had "Look at me, Oscars!" stamped all over it.
Why it didn't deserve to win:
Who remembers it? I guess the people involved deserve some credit for making at least a watchable film based on a socially inept mathematician, but watchable is about the best that can be said.
Other nominees:
Gosford Park
In the Bedroom
Moulin Rouge!
Year
2002
2002
Best Picture Winner
A Beautiful Mind
A Beautiful Mind
Why it won:
Ron Howard, despite his completely anonymous direction, has proven himself an Oscar favourite over the years. The film practically had "Look at me, Oscars!" stamped all over it.
Why it didn't deserve to win:
Who remembers it? I guess the people involved deserve some credit for making at least a watchable film based on a socially inept mathematician, but watchable is about the best that can be said.
What should have won
The Lord of the Rings:
The Fellowship of the Ring
It put a forgotten and derided genre back on the map in emphatic style, and began what is now routinely ranked as one of the best film trilogies of all time. Peter Jackson and his collaborators adapted what many called an unfilmable book with supreme skill and sensitivity, and made a brilliant epic action adventure with heart. In the words of one critic (echoing the sentiments of many), it raised the bar for film entertainment.The Lord of the Rings:
The Fellowship of the Ring
Why it didn't win:
Mainly, it seems, because the Academy knew there were two more instalments, and saved most of the gongs (11 of them!) for the concluding chapter, The Return of the King, which in hindsight looks like the weakest. But still great.
Why it deserved to win:
Mainly, it seems, because the Academy knew there were two more instalments, and saved most of the gongs (11 of them!) for the concluding chapter, The Return of the King, which in hindsight looks like the weakest. But still great.
Why it deserved to win:
Other nominees:
Gosford Park
In the Bedroom
Moulin Rouge!
Undeserving Oscar Winners #1
With the latest Academy Awards ceremony on the horizon, here we look back at previous years. The Oscars have a history of, er, questionable decisions when it comes to their Best Picture winners, and this series of blog entries will look at some of the more glaring ones and argue which film should have taken home the statuette. Of course, there's no pleasing everyone, and this is mainly based on personal taste, but also takes into account how well certain films have endured compared to others.
Year
1999
1999
Best Picture Winner
Shakespeare in Love
Shakespeare in Love
Why it won:
It had all of the Miramax marketing muscle behind it. Back in the late 90s, it seemed that the Weinstein brothers could just buy Oscar success; the trend thankfully hasn't continued.
Why it didn't deserve to win:
Shakespeare In Love isn't a bad film. It's a likeable, pretty well written but very lightweight romcom set in Elizabethan England. It's successful on its own terms, but Oscar winning material? I don't think so. Especially considering the competition it had.
Other nominees:
The Thin Red Line
Elizabeth
Life Is Beautiful
It had all of the Miramax marketing muscle behind it. Back in the late 90s, it seemed that the Weinstein brothers could just buy Oscar success; the trend thankfully hasn't continued.
Why it didn't deserve to win:
Shakespeare In Love isn't a bad film. It's a likeable, pretty well written but very lightweight romcom set in Elizabethan England. It's successful on its own terms, but Oscar winning material? I don't think so. Especially considering the competition it had.
What should have won
Saving Private Ryan
What other war film has had more influence, ever? The impact of the opening D-Day landing scene alone is immense and rightly renowned, exhibiting a filmmaker at the very top of his form. The rest of the film is hardly a letdown, though. In terms of depicting war on screen, it remains unequalled. The less conventional The Thin Red Line, also nominated in the same year, was perhaps more daring and also a superb film, but the visceral force of Ryan is extraordinary. Filmmaking genius.Saving Private Ryan
Why it didn't win:
Possibly because it's a bit dark and gritty for Oscar voters, but that explanation is countered by the fact that Schindler's List won in 1994. Maybe the very fact that Spielberg won it only a few years earlier put voters off, especially considering they're both World War 2 films. Spielberg deservedly look home Best Director for Ryan, but not Best Film.
Why it deserved to win:
Possibly because it's a bit dark and gritty for Oscar voters, but that explanation is countered by the fact that Schindler's List won in 1994. Maybe the very fact that Spielberg won it only a few years earlier put voters off, especially considering they're both World War 2 films. Spielberg deservedly look home Best Director for Ryan, but not Best Film.
Why it deserved to win:
Other nominees:
The Thin Red Line
Elizabeth
Life Is Beautiful
Oscar, schmoscar
The 2008 Oscar nominations are in, and as per usual, there are a few surprises and disappointing oversights. The following are the nominations for all the categories bar the short film ones.
The film names in Bold are my predictions (not necessarily my personal favourites, though).
Film Of The Year
Atonement
Juno
Michael Clayton
No Country for Old Men
There Will Be Blood
No real surprises here, although many were predicting that Atonement would be snubbed, despite its huge haul of BAFTA nominations. Its acclaim isn't really deserved if you ask me. Meanwhile, people continue to be blind to the awfulness of Michael Clayton - my worst film of the year is nominated for Best Picture! No Country is probably the frontrunner, but I'm desperate to see There Will Be Blood, which isn't out yet in the UK.
Best Director
Julian Schnabel -The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
Jason Reitman -Juno
Tony Gilroy -Michael Clayton
Joel and Ethan Coen - No Country for Old Men
Paul Thomas Anderson - There Will Be Blood
For a director of a foreign language film, Schnabel did well to receive a nomination. Otherwise, the only real shocker is again the nomination of Gilroy for Michael Clayton. Some will be sad to see Sean Penn (Into the Wild) and Andrew Dominik (The Assassination of Jesse James) miss out, for me those films were a slight letdown.
Best Actor
George Clooney - Michael Clayton
Daniel Day-Lewis - There Will Be Blood
Johnny Depp - Sweeney Todd
Tommy Lee Jones - In the Valley of Elah
Viggo Mortensen - Eastern Promises
Depp is excellent in Todd, as is Mortensen in the subpar Eastern Promises. Again, I need to see There Will Be Blood.
Best Supporting Actor
Casey Affleck - The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
Javier Bardem - No Country for Old Men
Philip Seymour Hoffman - Charlie Wilson's War
Hal Holbrook - Into the Wild
Tom Wilkinson - Michael Clayton
A very strong category overall. Affleck, Bardem, Hoffman are all worthy; my preference, and prediction, is Bardem.
Best Actress
Cate Blanchett - Elizabeth: The Golden Age
Julie Christie - Away from Her
Marion Cotillard - La Vie en Rose
Laura Linney - The Savages
Ellen Page - Juno
Many derided the Elizabeth sequel, so the Blanchett nom here is slightly surprising. Keira Knightley will presumably be upset for no Atonement recognition, but I don't rate her.
Best Supporting Actress
Cate Blanchett - I'm Not There
Ruby Dee - American Gangster
Saoirse Ronan - Atonement
Amy Ryan - Gone Baby Gone
Tilda Swinton - Michael Clayton
Blanchett is much more likely to win here than Best Actress.
Adapted Screenplay
Atonement, Screenplay by Christopher Hampton
Away from Her, Written by Sarah Polley
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, Screenplay by Ronald Harwood
No Country for Old Men, Written for the screen by Joel Coen & Ethan Coen
There Will Be Blood, Written for the screen by Paul Thomas Anderson
Polley is maybe surprising, as the likes of Aaron Sorkin for Charlie Wilson's War missed out.
Original Screenplay
Juno, Written by Diablo Cody
Lars and the Real Girl, Written by Nancy Oliver
Michael Clayton, Written by Tony Gilroy
Ratatouille, Screenplay by Brad Bird; Story by Jan Pinkava, Jim Capobianco, Brad Bird
The Savages, Written by Tamara Jenkin
Nice to see Ratatouille show up in a category outside Best Animation, even though I don't quite understand all of its adoration.
Best Animated Feature
Persepolis
Ratatouille
Surf's Up
Surf's Up is a pleasant surprise - it wasn't brilliant, but certainly superior to Shrek the Third or The Simpsons Movie.
Achievement in Art Direction
American Gangster
Atonement
The Golden Compass
Sweeney Todd
There Will Be Blood
All very nice looking films. Sweeney Todd stands out.
Achievement In Cinematography
The Assassination of Jesse James
Atonement
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
No Country for Old Men
There Will Be Blood
Roger Deakins looks to be competing against himself here - he lensed both Jesse James and No Country. Either would be worthy. As would any of them, truth be told.
Achievement In Costume Design
Across the Universe
Atonement
Elizabeth: The Golden Age
La Vie en Rose
Sweeney Todd
As expected. Maybe Hairspray could've snuck in.
Best Documentary Feature
No End in Sight
Operation Homecoming: Writing the Wartime Experience
Sicko
Taxi to the Dark Side
War/Dance
All I can say is that the ingoring of In The Shadow Of The Moon is criminal.
Achievement In Film Editing
The Bourne Ultimatum
The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
Into the Wild
No Country for Old Men
There Will Be Blood
At last, the deserving Bourne gets a look-in. Surprised not to see more of the blockbusters in this category, but not necessarily disappointed.
Best Foreign Language Film
Beaufort (Israel)
The Counterfeiters (Austria)
Katyn (Poland)
Mongol (Kazakhstan)
12 (Russia)
Well done to them.
Achievement In Make-Up
La Vie en Rose
Norbit
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End
Holy crap, Norbit is an Oscar-nominated film.
Original Score
Atonement
The Kite Runner
Michael Clayton
Ratatouille
3:10 to Yuma
I didn't even notice much of a score in Michael Clayton. Atonement will probably get it, with an outside chance for Ratatouille.
Original Song
Falling Slowly - Once
Happy Working Song - Enchanted
Raise It Up - August Rush
So Close - Enchanted
That's How You Know - Enchanted
Just like last year (when Dreamgirls did it), one film gets three Original Song nominations. If last year is anything to go by, it won't win. My money's on Once.
Achievement In Sound Editing
The Bourne Ultimatum
No Country for Old Men
Ratatouille
There Will Be Blood
Transformers
Well, they did have sound, I'll admit that. Clueless otherwise.
The Bourne Ultimatum
No Country for Old Men
Ratatouille
3:10 to Yuma
Transformers
See above.
Achievement In Visual Effects
The Golden Compass
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End
Transformers
Compass may have missed out here, but the effects were definitely good. Transformers is the clear winner for me.
Overall, pretty predictable. The overlooking of Zodiac is tragic but entirely expected - its March release basically sealed its fate. Conversely, Michael Clayton in no way deserves the acclaim it has received. No Country For Old Men and There Will Be Blood lead with 8 nominations apiece. The next thing to confirm is whether the ceremony will actually take place, given the continuing writers' strike. Anyway, it's always an entertaining period in the film calendar. Bring on February 24th.
Bottom of the Barrel
We have countless awards ceremonies which applaud the best of our beloved industry, but aside from the notorious Golden Raspberry Awards and the odd scathing review which target specific performances, nothing really wounds an actor's career enough for them to jack the craft in forever. Some of you will undoubtedly dream up some outcast who claims they have retired from the business but has been driven out by studios and critics in actuality, but I'm referring to the shoddy 'thespians' who have somehow still got screen credits in the pipeline and, in some cases, exhaustive filmographies when their talents definitely don't warrant the glitz and fame. The following is a brief selection of imminent has-beens who should be attempting another line of work and, in some cases, should have never made the transition from what they do best – cross-overs of any sort but particularly from music to film and vice-versa just never seem to work. Well… Streisand is an exception to the rule (even though I'm not a huge fan), but Cher and Beyonce? And as for 50 Cent and Eminem, someone must be having a private joke somewhere. Anyway, on with my pick of the most unpleasant cringe-worthy thespians… (one definitely has the capabilities to improve though which is the most frustrating thing!)
Vinnie Jones
Actors are frequently typecast but surely nobody plays exactly the same role as often as the ex-football nutjob. Somehow though the Welshman's extensive career (30+ films in 10 years) seemingly gallops on with no respite. Even the Yanks understand his hardman image these days; his violent soccerball career was legendary and he has even been banned from Virgin flights after causing a fight on the way to Tokyo, but we do not need to be constantly reminded of this sadistic personality with his dreadful on-screen characterisations. Examples of his monotone I'm-going-to-break-your-face attitude can be seen in X-Men: The Last Stand, his collaborations with Guy Ritchie, and The Condemned. His football guise is epitomised however with EuroTrip where he fuses his on the pitch persona into a hooligan character delightfully named Mad Maynard – what a must-see concoction of talent and charisma that appearance is. At least he is trying to play a character in the teen fodder flick though. Mean Machine on the other hand is basically a continuation of a rather mediocre professional career. The prison setting, a result of an assault conviction, simply makes him feel more at home. Go for a role with some substance, Vincent.
Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson
Well the jury is still awaiting Southland Tales evidence but the whispers are not exactly glowing for Richard Kelly's forthcoming film. Johnson's comedic ability was confirmed in his WWE wrestling career and sporadic appearances on Saturday Night Live but as we have seen numerous times before, instances of jesting and coolness in front of the camera do not always translate to a full feature. The Rock is someone on this list though who I actually want to succeed – he has natural talent but his track record so far isn't pretty reading. His double turn as The Scorpion King in The Mummy franchise was generally pitiable but kudos should go to him for actually attempting a role in that particular unoriginal mould. Unluckily however The Rundown and Walking Tall hardly set the world alight and as for Doom, well, as one reviewer stated at the time, "If you go to the box-office and ask for "Doom", that is exactly what you'll get!" Gridiron Gang is a step in the right direction however with a compelling portrayal and Southland Tales may be a constructive choice in hindsight. Hopefully for The Rock his next projects push the envelope in terms of both improving his aptitude and weight as a bankable star. Nevertheless, if he continues on his current trajectory he will rapidly transform into a Hulk 'has-been' Hogan figure if he isn't cautious. I remember eagerly anticipating The Scorpion King a few years ago and when I returned from the cinema one of my friends, who was incidentally just as excited as I was, asked, "Whoa, I didn't know The People's Champion could act?!" I replied with, "He can't." Optimistically though at the present time I hope he soon can.
Keira Knightley
This is a rather short entry as I'm certainly not an expert on the Londoner's career. I do know enough though and it's plain for everyone to see – she cannot act. She is as stiff and inexpressive as I have ever seen an actress and how she has the cheek to continue auditioning for roles is beyond me – Miss Knightley must have one hell of an agent. I haven't seen Atonement but Rich states in his review that director Joe Wright managed to squeeze a performance out of her but if indeed true, this is surely her only decent turn. Domino fans may beg to differ but nobody can escape the tawdriness of her Elizabeth Swann heroine in the Pirates trilogy. Phoniness oozes from her delivery and she always acts like a reality television show winner, only in the film because of strokes of luck. Hopefully her lucky run will soon dry out.
Aside: Also, and this is nothing to do with her acting, her skinny figure is nearly as bad as Winehouse's drug habit as an influence on young girls. Please get it sorted dear, it's not big or clever and it just brings your stock down even more if you gallivant around the world parading as a quasi-anorexic.
Paul Walker
The Fast and the Furious and its sequel, Into the Blue and She's All That. These are not exactly masterworks but then again Paul Walker isn't exactly a masterful thespian. Whereas the Van Dammes, Seagals, and Chans of this world receive offers for films based on their martial arts ability instead of their acting knack, Walker has no redeeming features. He is a prettyboy in an age when the audience doesn't need another with Pitt, Clooney, and Cruise still knocking around, let alone the countless newcomers. Orlando Bloom is the sort of person Walker wants to be. He may be named after a vacationer's paradise and he is an appalling actor but he has two huge franchises behind him – Walker has nothing to rescue him. Running Scared and Flags of Our Fathers are respectable but surely yet another Fast and Furious sequel (currently in pre-production) will cancel them out. Wake up Mr Walker and go and apply for a presenter's job at MTV or something.
I'm sure everyone has an opinion on who is truly god-awful on the silver screen – a friend of mine even detests the supremely likeable Owen Wilson! Is Orlando Bloom surpassed by the trees' acting in LOTR? Is Carmen Electra as wooden as the effect she is on-screen to create? By all means please reply to this post and air your views. Maybe we can boycott their films and drive these wastes of Hollywood skin out of the business. Lawyers, that was a joke, I don't want anyone to be unemployed – just do a job you're good at!
Thanks for reading, take care and be well,
Vinnie Jones
Actors are frequently typecast but surely nobody plays exactly the same role as often as the ex-football nutjob. Somehow though the Welshman's extensive career (30+ films in 10 years) seemingly gallops on with no respite. Even the Yanks understand his hardman image these days; his violent soccerball career was legendary and he has even been banned from Virgin flights after causing a fight on the way to Tokyo, but we do not need to be constantly reminded of this sadistic personality with his dreadful on-screen characterisations. Examples of his monotone I'm-going-to-break-your-face attitude can be seen in X-Men: The Last Stand, his collaborations with Guy Ritchie, and The Condemned. His football guise is epitomised however with EuroTrip where he fuses his on the pitch persona into a hooligan character delightfully named Mad Maynard – what a must-see concoction of talent and charisma that appearance is. At least he is trying to play a character in the teen fodder flick though. Mean Machine on the other hand is basically a continuation of a rather mediocre professional career. The prison setting, a result of an assault conviction, simply makes him feel more at home. Go for a role with some substance, Vincent.
Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson
Well the jury is still awaiting Southland Tales evidence but the whispers are not exactly glowing for Richard Kelly's forthcoming film. Johnson's comedic ability was confirmed in his WWE wrestling career and sporadic appearances on Saturday Night Live but as we have seen numerous times before, instances of jesting and coolness in front of the camera do not always translate to a full feature. The Rock is someone on this list though who I actually want to succeed – he has natural talent but his track record so far isn't pretty reading. His double turn as The Scorpion King in The Mummy franchise was generally pitiable but kudos should go to him for actually attempting a role in that particular unoriginal mould. Unluckily however The Rundown and Walking Tall hardly set the world alight and as for Doom, well, as one reviewer stated at the time, "If you go to the box-office and ask for "Doom", that is exactly what you'll get!" Gridiron Gang is a step in the right direction however with a compelling portrayal and Southland Tales may be a constructive choice in hindsight. Hopefully for The Rock his next projects push the envelope in terms of both improving his aptitude and weight as a bankable star. Nevertheless, if he continues on his current trajectory he will rapidly transform into a Hulk 'has-been' Hogan figure if he isn't cautious. I remember eagerly anticipating The Scorpion King a few years ago and when I returned from the cinema one of my friends, who was incidentally just as excited as I was, asked, "Whoa, I didn't know The People's Champion could act?!" I replied with, "He can't." Optimistically though at the present time I hope he soon can.
Keira Knightley
This is a rather short entry as I'm certainly not an expert on the Londoner's career. I do know enough though and it's plain for everyone to see – she cannot act. She is as stiff and inexpressive as I have ever seen an actress and how she has the cheek to continue auditioning for roles is beyond me – Miss Knightley must have one hell of an agent. I haven't seen Atonement but Rich states in his review that director Joe Wright managed to squeeze a performance out of her but if indeed true, this is surely her only decent turn. Domino fans may beg to differ but nobody can escape the tawdriness of her Elizabeth Swann heroine in the Pirates trilogy. Phoniness oozes from her delivery and she always acts like a reality television show winner, only in the film because of strokes of luck. Hopefully her lucky run will soon dry out.
Aside: Also, and this is nothing to do with her acting, her skinny figure is nearly as bad as Winehouse's drug habit as an influence on young girls. Please get it sorted dear, it's not big or clever and it just brings your stock down even more if you gallivant around the world parading as a quasi-anorexic.
Paul Walker
The Fast and the Furious and its sequel, Into the Blue and She's All That. These are not exactly masterworks but then again Paul Walker isn't exactly a masterful thespian. Whereas the Van Dammes, Seagals, and Chans of this world receive offers for films based on their martial arts ability instead of their acting knack, Walker has no redeeming features. He is a prettyboy in an age when the audience doesn't need another with Pitt, Clooney, and Cruise still knocking around, let alone the countless newcomers. Orlando Bloom is the sort of person Walker wants to be. He may be named after a vacationer's paradise and he is an appalling actor but he has two huge franchises behind him – Walker has nothing to rescue him. Running Scared and Flags of Our Fathers are respectable but surely yet another Fast and Furious sequel (currently in pre-production) will cancel them out. Wake up Mr Walker and go and apply for a presenter's job at MTV or something.
I'm sure everyone has an opinion on who is truly god-awful on the silver screen – a friend of mine even detests the supremely likeable Owen Wilson! Is Orlando Bloom surpassed by the trees' acting in LOTR? Is Carmen Electra as wooden as the effect she is on-screen to create? By all means please reply to this post and air your views. Maybe we can boycott their films and drive these wastes of Hollywood skin out of the business. Lawyers, that was a joke, I don't want anyone to be unemployed – just do a job you're good at!
Thanks for reading, take care and be well,
Joel
Striking Gold
A strike has hit Hollywood at the moment, and is taking up plenty of column inches. The Writers' Guild of America (WGA) has shut up shop as they want a bigger share of DVD profits, or something. What this has meant is that many US chat shows have already been cancelled indefinitely, a lot of major TV dramas are in trouble (such as 24) as new episodes are not allowed to be written, and no more scripts are allowed to be submitted to the film studios.
Inevitably this led to a mass of scripts being rushed to completion in time for the deadline before the strike started. The problem is, scripts tend to be modified continuously during production, but with the writers on strike now, no modifications are allowed to the scripts. If they're not right, tough. Due to this, a few big films have already been postponed, most notably the Da Vinci Code sequel Angels & Demons (perhaps not a bad thing). Although the strike shouldn't affect moviegoers for the time being, if it continues for a considerable length of time there will be a noticeable reduction in the number of films reaching cinemas. 2008's blockbusters are mostly locked and in the can already, but 2009's are a different story. We could be in for a barren patch.
For obvious reasons, many have forecasted a time of doom and gloom for the industry if the worst fears are played out. Last time a strike was threatened in 2001 (but one didn't actually happen back then), it resulted in a batch of less than stellar product, such as Tomb Raider and the clearly rushed Jurassic Park III. We could be in for another wave of rushed blockbusters, including Bond 22 - the script for which writer Paul Haggis has said that he's not entirely satisfied with - and the much-maligned Justice League of America movie, featuring Batman, Superman and a bunch of other DC heroes, but intended to be completely separate from the Batman Begins and Superman Returns franchises, which is rumoured to be having difficulties.
Well, I'm here to offer a glass-half-full perspective. The effects of this strike do not have to be all bad. (For example, if JLA was called off, that may not be the worst development.) It would prevent debacles like Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End from occurring - as mentioned in an earlier blog post, that went into production completely devoid of a script, and the writers were forced to make it up as they went along, which had a profoundly detrimental impact on the eventual film. Now, with no writers allowed to work, no film can be greenlit without a pre-existing script that is at least filmable, if not of particularly great quality.
The unavoidable eventuality if the strike continues is that the number of films released will decrease, but this will most affect the big-budget output, for which scripts tend to be an afterthought. Scripts for lower-budget or independent fare are often refined and shopped around the studios for months or years, and then require relatively few alterations. The Coen brothers are famous for this; once they finish a script, they barely change a word, and even generally prevent the actors from diverting from it at all.
With fewer blockbusters to promote (this summer in particular was overflowing with huge releases, week after week), it could give smaller films a bigger chance at grabbing the spotlight. What's more, the studios will surely be keen for such films to make significant profits so may lavish a higher marketing budget than usual on them. I would argue that a significant reason that blockbusters make the big bucks is simply due to advertising and public awareness rather than content. Give smaller films more attention and their grosses will undoubtedly increase, especially if backed up with critical acclaim.
Hollywood may have more to worry about in a few months' time, however. Then the actors are due to go on strike. I do not intend to suggest that a strike is an ideal situation for anyone, but it could add an extra incentive to enhance the quality of the studios' films as there is more riding on each one. There may be an interesting time ahead.
The New Hollywood = The Genuine Golden Age?
Filmverdict’s creator and resident film geek, Mr Ricardo ‘The Webmaster’ McGlashan, has stated on many occasions how the 1970s seemingly churned out depressing and miserable yarns in an almost conveyor-like manner. Fortunately, he admits the classics of the era still define particular genres even today (Star Wars, anyone?) and as most of you will agree, hours of fun can still be had from watching the vintage works of the era’s movie brats. Indeed, if you fail to acknowledge the everlasting impact on film that Scorsese, Lucas, Spielberg, Coppola etc. have had, you cannot appreciate the art of cinema. Furthermore, one can almost guarantee that in almost any filmgoer’s “Top 100” list the 1970s will be well represented. No matter how much you try and avoid the eternal influence of the decade, one film will always stick out and plop itself into your personally adored films, whether it be The Godfather or Jaws, The Last Picture Show or Apocalypse Now, the New Hollywood has played the part of a permanent marker on A4 – the bold presence of the counterculture-bred, film school-educated, youth-orientated squiggles will never be erased.
Now, it’s still debatable as to what exactly contributes to this magical period of moviemaking. Even though Spielberg and Lucas cancelled out the earlier efforts of their buddies with bigger pictures towards the end of the decade, and consequently marked the beginning of the downhill spiral and frequency of personally energized projects on the smaller scale, they were still made within the actual decade. Inside the confines of our numerous daily filmic discussions, Rich has hinted at how he thinks a shift in tone and structure occurred between the bookends of the era, but for the sake of this blog post and to obey one the greatest authors on the history of the epoch, Peter Biskind, the “1970s” will encompass the films sandwiched between Dennis Hopper’s Easy Rider and Martin Scorsese’s Raging Bull. Granted, Bonnie and Clyde and The Graduate planted the seeds of the artistic renaissance and One from the Heart and Heaven’s Gate brought the whole movement to a conclusion, but they venture too far from the boundaries of the decade to be included. Easy Rider and Raging Bull simply perfectly encapsulate the post-classical feel the directors and studios came to desire.
The term “The Golden Age” is the regular tag given to that exquisite period of cinema from the late 1920s to late 1950s. I use the term “exquisite” very dexterously. Sure, that particular thirty year period gave us classic films such as Casablanca, Gone with the Wind, Citizen Kane and so forth, but the studio system had three times as much opportunity to manufacture hits compared to the New Hollywood age – they even shot themselves in the foot slightly by not welcoming diversity and mostly adhering to the formulaic structures of Westerns, slapstick comedies, musicals, biopics, and occasionally animated features. In fact, the 70s probably served up just as many “classics” in a third of the time. The movie brats even had the cheek to pay respect to their childhood heroes (the directors and stars firmly entrenched in the studio politics of the Golden Age) during their pictures and still mostly surpassed them in terms of quality. Some of you may think I’m not giving the classical period of American film much credit. I realise the technical constraints filmmakers were under back in those days and the factoryesque attitude the moneymen expected these commodities to be contrived with and consequently some sympathies must be expressed. However, unlike certain university lecturers of mine and kiss-ass film critics I’m not willing to bestow kudos upon the usual “classic” films for the integrity of my passion of film criticism or because they are simply old and so therefore “must be good”. Funnily enough though and for the record, I actually like a whole host of films from the aforementioned time, such as Mr Smith Goes to Washington and The Philadelphia Story to name just a few so I by no means detest that era whatsoever, I’m just cautious of hastily using superlatives.
Now, it’s still debatable as to what exactly contributes to this magical period of moviemaking. Even though Spielberg and Lucas cancelled out the earlier efforts of their buddies with bigger pictures towards the end of the decade, and consequently marked the beginning of the downhill spiral and frequency of personally energized projects on the smaller scale, they were still made within the actual decade. Inside the confines of our numerous daily filmic discussions, Rich has hinted at how he thinks a shift in tone and structure occurred between the bookends of the era, but for the sake of this blog post and to obey one the greatest authors on the history of the epoch, Peter Biskind, the “1970s” will encompass the films sandwiched between Dennis Hopper’s Easy Rider and Martin Scorsese’s Raging Bull. Granted, Bonnie and Clyde and The Graduate planted the seeds of the artistic renaissance and One from the Heart and Heaven’s Gate brought the whole movement to a conclusion, but they venture too far from the boundaries of the decade to be included. Easy Rider and Raging Bull simply perfectly encapsulate the post-classical feel the directors and studios came to desire.
The term “The Golden Age” is the regular tag given to that exquisite period of cinema from the late 1920s to late 1950s. I use the term “exquisite” very dexterously. Sure, that particular thirty year period gave us classic films such as Casablanca, Gone with the Wind, Citizen Kane and so forth, but the studio system had three times as much opportunity to manufacture hits compared to the New Hollywood age – they even shot themselves in the foot slightly by not welcoming diversity and mostly adhering to the formulaic structures of Westerns, slapstick comedies, musicals, biopics, and occasionally animated features. In fact, the 70s probably served up just as many “classics” in a third of the time. The movie brats even had the cheek to pay respect to their childhood heroes (the directors and stars firmly entrenched in the studio politics of the Golden Age) during their pictures and still mostly surpassed them in terms of quality. Some of you may think I’m not giving the classical period of American film much credit. I realise the technical constraints filmmakers were under back in those days and the factoryesque attitude the moneymen expected these commodities to be contrived with and consequently some sympathies must be expressed. However, unlike certain university lecturers of mine and kiss-ass film critics I’m not willing to bestow kudos upon the usual “classic” films for the integrity of my passion of film criticism or because they are simply old and so therefore “must be good”. Funnily enough though and for the record, I actually like a whole host of films from the aforementioned time, such as Mr Smith Goes to Washington and The Philadelphia Story to name just a few so I by no means detest that era whatsoever, I’m just cautious of hastily using superlatives.
Anyway, enough of that rambling tangent and back on to the matter in hand. The New Hollywood is simply the best period of motion pictures because it encompassed a vast array of genres (gritty realism to psychedelic sci-fi), showcased superb talents (Nicholson and Streep to Spielberg and Scorsese), and compiled a hybrid of irresistible influences to forever effect what constitutes a "motion picture" even today – the talented directors paid homage to international film history (European and Oriental in particular) and developed upon existing techniques and genres in an unprecedented manner. The period contained indies and big blockbuster budgeted hits, the casual flick and the event film, and surpassed the restrictions on sexuality and violence (which is never a bad thing). Films would simply be monotonous, with only the odd blockbuster popping up occasionally, if it had not been for the invaluable movement occurring. A fusion of diverse flair and type make up today's films, a debt owed to the New Hollywood. The Platinum Age has a nice ring to it.
Thanks for reading, take care and be well.
Joel
The Sundance Kid for President?
Robert Redford is likely to attract stacks of attention this autumn with Lions for Lambs. All the President's Men, a film based on the infamous Watergate scandal, epitomises a 'political thriller' but the Californian never had the same amount of Hollywood clout back in 1976 as he does now in his position as an Oscar darling and member of filmdom's almost royal elite. Back in the New Hollywood era he had to share centre stage with the excellent Dustin Hoffman for the adaptation of the real-life event, obey instructions from director Alan J. Pakula, and the landmark was pre-Sundance and consequently before the "Cinematic Legend" label was ever fully utilised. With Lions for Lambs however, it appears as if the actor/director/producer extraordinaire is braced to surpass All the President's Men in terms of political stance and justification.As if to fire himself up for battle, reports suggest that Redford has tacked columns blasting the Bush administration to a bulletin board in the rented house he turned into a postproduction complex. "A profile in cowardice," reads one headline. "This time, don't say we weren't warned," says another. And on a yellow sticky note, in his own scrawled block letters, are the words "Frustration, Responsibility and Sadness", according to the New York Times. To me, these would appear to be continual team-talks, a reminder, or shorthand for the themes of his impending film. After all, a lot is riding on Redford's directorial foray into the political sphere. The modest budget of some $35 million is the least of his worries. As his namesake Mr De Niro states in this year's Stardust, "reputations take years to build and seconds to destroy." The film, which is set to open on November 9th, is the first starring Tom Cruise since his run of bad press and his ouster from the Paramount lot last summer. It's the first from United Artists since Cruise and his partner, Paula Wagner, took over the storied label last year. Briefly, is it just me or isn't it amazing how Cruise, with his turn here and with the upcoming Valkyrie (telling the story of a Hitler assassination attempt) is leaving his sofa-jumping days behind to concentrate on über-serious matters? Anyway, Lions for Lambs is Redford's first directorial effort since the disappointing and at times plain boring Legend of Bagger Vance seven years ago. If two generational matinee idols with reputations on the line wasn't enough for the pressure vacuum, the Dalai Lama of actresses, Meryl Streep, also puts herself in the firing line. Lions for Lambs will have to live up to the incredible collective billing of its stars and hopefully demonstrate that it warrants the inevitable Oscar gossip surrounding it. A Redford directorial feature hasn't been hyped as much since his debut in the field 27 years ago with Ordinary People, the film which incidentally sabotaged Martin Scorsese's almost certain Best Director gong for Raging Bull.
To top it off the Sundance Kid is concerned that his film is being unfairly lumped in with several war movies coming to the silver screen this winter, though its combat scenes are secondary to the story. "I wanted to say to the studio, 'Don't make this about the war,'" he said in a long interview with the New York Times on a sizzling terrace. "It's not about the war. The war's catalytic, but it's not about that. It's bigger." Does this sound like a man worried about how audiences and critics will welcome his delicate oeuvre? Trying to mess people around with classic excuses/warnings such as "more intrinsic meanings are hidden in there" or "you're not supposed to read the film in that way" crop up all the time when powerful figures get cold feet.
The screenplay, by Matthew Michael Carnahan (who also wrote The Kingdom) loosely ties together three taut confrontations: A rising Republican senator (Cruise) tries to sell a new Afghan war strategy to a cynical Washington reporter (Streep); a university professor (Redford) tries to inspire a talented but political science student (Andrew Garfield); and two Army rangers (Derek Luke and Michael Peña) try to survive a firefight on a snowy Afghan ridge.
Yet again the New York Times comes up with the juice from Redford:
"What attracted me to the film was: What are the subsurface factors that lead us to this same place, over and over again? Do you know that there are patterns of behaviour that have cost us dearly over time, and now are costing us more than at any time I remember? That are costing us every bit of respect we had on the world stage? When I look at the arc of my time, when I look at McCarthyism, when I was about 11 years old, and then Watergate, and Iran-contra, and now this - if you look at all those events, there's a thread running through them. The same sensibility: 'Winning is everything.' Power. And the consequences get greater and greater."
These days, Redford speaks and most people (in the filmgoing world) listen. We can have as many gimmicky special effects films as we want but sometimes good ol' fashioned sit down, shut-up, powerhouse acting on a relevant subject matter is just as, if not more, entertaining. Lions for Lambs is apparently harsh in its judgments of politicians, journalists, media conglomerates, young people - in short, everyone, except those who volunteer to fight for their country. In a few days time we will get to see if Redford and his A-List pals have anything of any merit to say in his feature film message/commentary on the situation in Afghanistan.
Thanks for reading, take care and be well.
Joel
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
