Register To ParticipateGet Reel
Current films to see
Posted on August 28, 2008 by btremblay
Filed Under 1 | Leave a Comment
When I’m at a party and people discover I’m a film critic, they inevitably ask me to leave. Or they ask me what current films they should see. The request can put me in a tough spot because I don’t know their taste in films. Some of these folks will accost me at a subsequent soiree and bellow, “I can’t believe you recommended that swill!”
Well, one person’s swill is another person’s champagne. All I can do is give my opinion and add caveats to help people decide.
For example, I think “Tropic Thunder” is the funniest film of the year so far, but that plaudit comes with a stipulation. You have to like over-the-top satire and sick, offensive humor to appreciate it. It’s not a film for the PC crowd.
I’m also a fan of “Frozen River,” but moviegoers who don’t like films based in harsh reality should stay far away. It’s a movie for folks who appreciate fine acting, not for folks who crave entertainment only.
Having lived in Paris, this critic has a weakness for French films. Even when French movies are mediocre, they can be interesting as they typically shine a light on the French psyche. People who think the French are daring - or crazy - will get that belief confirmed by watching “Man on a Wire,” a documentary about the exploits of a Frenchman who crossed the Twin Towers on a cable wire in 1974. People who think the French possess tortured souls will garner ample evidence by watching “The Last Mistress.” The French can make a pretty darn good thriller, too, as exhibited in “Tell No One.”
I wasn’t bowled over by “Mamma Mia!” even though I’m an ABBA fan. Yes, I admit it. Listening to actors who can’t sing is just simply too painful. Did the casting director really need Pierce Brosnan in this movie for it to succeed? Isn’t there another handsmore actor out there who can carry a tune?
For mindless entertainment, there’s “House Bunny,” a concept comedy made watchable by Anna Faris as the title character. For aficionados of imbecilic crud, there’s “Death Race.”
One hopes that everyone has seen “WALL-E,” the best film of the year to date. Some films don’t come with caveats, and this is one of them. If you don’t like this movie, there’s something wrong with you. Not that there’s anything wrong with being wrong. It seems no film is universally loved. I was at a party last week and a woman there didn’t like “The Wizard of Oz,” my all-time favorite film. Fortunately, I was sitting down when she said this. One of her objections: she thought Judy Garland was too old to play Dorothy.
And Babe Ruth was too fat to play baseball.
kids watching r-rated movies
Posted on June 11, 2008 by btremblay
Filed Under 1 | Leave a Comment
While providing a tour to a group of about 20 sixth-graders recently, a student asked me about “Borat.” He clearly had seen this very vulgar, very profane R-rated movie and when I asked the other members of his class if they had seen it also, nearly every hand was raised.
Slightly shocked, I then asked the students if they had seen “South Park: Bigger, Longer & Uncut,” an even more vulgar and profane R-rated film. Again, nearly all the hands shot in the air. And those films weren’t the only R-rated movies they’d watched. They rattled off a few more, and described specific scenes.
I then asked the student how he saw these films. I figured he’d say that he snuck into a movie theater at a megaplex, but the chains have been trying to crack down on these shenanigans. Videostores have restrictive rules, too.
So how did this urchin see these highly inappropriate movies? “Video on demand” came the reply. Ah, the wonders of technology. Push a button on a remote and you get instant sex and violence on film.
Now I don’t want to sound puritanical here, but I don’t think pre-teens should be watching R-rated movies. And I have a feeling most parents feel the same way. So, to quote Marvin Gaye, what’s going on?
Parents can keep their children from watching inappropriate on-demand films by exterting ”parental controls” on their cable systems. These lock out material that should be off limits to young children.
Clearly, the parents of these children either didn’t know about these controls - hard to imagine - or decided not to use them - again hard to imagine. Maybe they monitor the bills but just aren’t fully aware of the content their little angels are viewing.
I’d like someone to explain to me the circumstances behind how so many 11-year-olds can watch so many R-rated movies. Perhaps a parent of a pre-teen can enlighten me. I asked parents of pre-teens in the newsroom about this subject and they told me they use “parental controls,” their children have to ask permission before using video on-demand or if the bill comes in with inappropriate films on it, the offender is in mucho trouble.
This critic didn’t see his first R-rated film until he was 15, and he had to see it in a theater with his father. Granted, there were no megaplexes, no videostores and no video on-demand back then. My father didn’t read up on the films I was requesting, and I certainly took advantage of this cluelessness. Perhaps that’s what’s at work here. That doesn’t make it right. At least I was 15. I couldn’t even imagine my reaction to watching an R-rated film at 11. I would probably love it, but for all the wrong reasons. For a reality check, another student asked my opinion of “Alvin and the Chipmunks,” an appropriate film for pre-teens. It happens to be an abysmal movie, but the child thought it was great. Discretion has never been a pre-teen strength. Apparently a few parents have the same weakness.
no babies at screenings
Posted on May 31, 2008 by btremblay
Filed Under 1 | Leave a Comment
As annoying as people who talk during movies are and as irritating as people who don’t turn off their cell phones are, for maximum vexation, nothing can top people who take their infants to the theater and remain there even after their babies go on a crying jag.
At a recent screening of “Kung Fu Panda,” parents with babies were out in force, too cheap to hire a baby-sitter, too clueless to even think of hiring a baby-sitter or just plain devoid of any etiquette whatsoever. Some didn’t even have other children with them. Like the baby is going to enjoy the movie.
Right on cue, just as the movie started, the babies started screaming. One parent, after subjecting those around her to two minutes of bawling, finally left the theater. She later returned. This time, the baby only whimpered. The woman a few rows up from her, however, did not leave as her baby started to cry and cry and cry some more.
What is wrong with these people? Do they have any manners? Do they care one iota about the people around them?
While I know finding a baby-sitter can be difficult and expensive, parents of infants sometimes have to make some sacrifices, and going to the movies is one of them.
I’d like to see theaters ban babies from general public screenings, but that’s not going to happen. Some theaters actually had screenings set aside for parents with babies so their kids could scream all they want. Some theaters may still offer this service. It’s a good one.
Bottom line: Babies don’t belong in general public screenings. And if parents do bring a baby to a screening, they should remove the infant the instant he or she starts crying. Is that too much to ask? Most theaters run a blurb before a movie starts requesting theater etiquette. To ignore it is flat-out rude. It seems common decency may have gone the way of black and white films.
Oscar postmortem
Posted on March 2, 2008 by btremblay
Filed Under 1 | Leave a Comment
I had very few gripes with the Academy’s choices for Oscar on Sunday. The only big surprise was Tilda Swinton winning Best Supporting Actress. Her performance was impressive. In fact, all of the nominees were deserving with the exception of Ruby Dee whose screen time was much too limited to merit an award. That said, Oscars have been bestowed upon thespians whose screen time didn’t total double digits. Case in point, Beatrice Straight’s victory in “Network” for a performance clocked at under six minutes.
While Swinton did stellar work as the evil lawyer in “Michael Clayton,” the Oscar still should have gone to Amy Ryan, whose portrayal of a wayward mother in “Gone Baby Gone” was truly amazing. Only Marion Cotillard’s Oscar-winning performance in “La Vie en Rose” was superior.
On the men’s side, Daniel Day-Lewis and Javier Bardem were the clear and proper choices for Best Actor and Best Supporting Actor, respectively.
“No Country for Old Men,” even with its head-scratching conclusion, displayed plenty of dramatic bite.
Unfortunately, hardly anyone saw 2007’s Oscar-nominated movies with the exception of “Juno.” That might explain the award show’s feeble ratings. Why care about movies you didn’t see?
The year “The English Patient” won the Best Picture Oscar in 1996, the ratings for the awards show were also dismal, basically for the same reason. Next year, the Academy eschewed art-house pictures and honored a blockbuster, “Titanic.” The show’s ratings were dynamite. I predict this pattern will be repeated this year. The Academy doesn’t like lousy ratings. Neither do its sponsors.
Look for a popular film of dubious distinction to get nominated for Best Picture in 2008 and if the Academy wants to trade in its standards for cash, this film could easily win the Oscar. And the heartlessness will go on.
Oscar contest - win a prize
Posted on February 23, 2008 by btremblay
Filed Under 1 | Leave a Comment
You think you know Oscar? You think you know Oscar better than moi? Well, here’s your chance to prove it. The first blogger who blogs in here with an Oscar prediction better than mine wins a prize. What prize? Can you say “Mercedes Benz”? Great, but that’s not the prize. The prize is a T-shirt from the Michel Gondry film “Be Kind Rewind” starring Jack Black and Mos Def. Decent film, great shirt. And you can’t beat the price. Just make sure you include your address so I can mail you the T-shirt. If no one does beat moi, the prize will be awarded in another contest. Also, any entries made after 9 p.m. Sunday are obviously disqualified. Good luck. You’ll need it.
My blog last week contains my predictions.
Oscar predictions
Posted on February 16, 2008 by btremblay
Filed Under Oscar predictions | Leave a Comment
Folks who want to read my more exhaustive, exhausting and exhausted article on Oscar handicapping, check out my Get Reel column that ran in the MetroWest Daily on Feb. 10.
Here’s the abridged version of my Academy Award predictions:
BEST PICTURE
The nominees are “Atonement,” “Juno,” “Michael Clayton,” “No Country for Old Men” and “There Will Be Blood.”
Should win: “No Country for Old Men”
Will win: “No Country for Old Men” - Either “Blood” or “Atonement” could pull off an upset.
BEST ACTOR
The nominees are George Clooney, “Michael Clayton”; Daniel Day-Lewis, “There Will Be Blood”; Johnny Depp, “Sweeney Todd the Demon Barber of Fleet Street”; Tommy Lee Jones, “In the Valley of Elah”; and Viggo Mortensen, “Eastern Promises.”
Should win: Daniel Day-Lewis
Will win: Daniel Day-Lewis - Depp has a shot, Mortensen a longer shot.
BEST ACTRESS
The nominees are Cate Blanchett, “Elizabeth: The Golden Age”; Julie Christie, “Away From Her”; Marion Cotillard, “La Vie en Rose”; Laura Linney, “The Savages”; and Ellen Page, “Juno.”
Should win: Marion Cotillard
Will win: Julie Christie - Ellen Page has an excellent chance of winning this award.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
The nominees are Casey Affleck, “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford”; Javier Bardem, “No Country for Old Men”; Hal Holbrook, “Into the Wild”; Philip Seymour Hoffman, “Charlie Wilson’s War”; and Tom Wilkinson, “Michael Clayton.”
Should win: Javier Bardem
Will win: Javier Bardem - This is a sure bet.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
The nominees are Cate Blanchett, “I’m Not There”; Ruby Dee, “American Gangster”; Saoirse Ronan, “Atonement”; Amy Ryan, “Gone Baby Gone”; and Tilda Swinton, “Michael Clayton.”
Should win: Amy Ryan
Will win: Cate Blanchett - This award could go to any of the nominees with Dee having the sentimental factor in her favor.
BEST DIRECTOR
The nominees are director: Julian Schnabel, “The Diving Bell and the Butterfly”; Jason Reitman, “Juno”; Tony Gilroy, “Michael Clayton”; Joel Coen and Ethan Coen, “No Country for Old Men”; and Paul Thomas Anderson, “There Will Be Blood.”
Should win: Joel and Ethan Coen
Will win: Joel and Ethan Coen - If the Academy decides to spread the wealth around, Anderson will be the likely beneficiary of the organization’s largesse.
Readers can send me their predictions and in my next blog, if not my next article, I’ll either print these prognostications or discuss the results. For example, the readers made me look like a fool. Granted, not a difficult task.
paris hilton interview
Posted on February 16, 2008 by btremblay
Filed Under paris hilton interview | Leave a Comment
Paris heats up the Hub
Celebrity supreme Paris Hilton had a busy day yesterday (Feb. 6). So what else is new?
The heiress, actress, socialite, model, author, recording artist, fashion designer, businesswoman and Nobel Peace Prize Winner was at the Four Seasons hotel in Boston to promote her new movie “The Hottie and the Nottie.” OK, Hilton didn’t win the Nobel. But if she did, it would be hot.
After a lengthy round of interviews, so lengthy that some journalists didn’t get an opportunity to interview her in person, Hilton was off to Cambridge where she received the Harvard Lampoon humor magazine’s “Woman of the Year” award. Upon garnering the honor, she proclaimed, “Harvard is hot!”
The Lampoon award is a spoof of the annual honors given by Harvard’s Hasty Pudding Theatricals. The troupe planned to present its “Woman of the Year” award to Charlize Theron (Feb. 7). “Man of the Year” Christopher Walken will be honored Feb. 15.
During a phone interview where personal questions were verboten, Hilton described the Harvard honor as “really cool. Everyone has been so welcoming and nice. It was a nice day.”
Harvard also delivered “a really nice speech about me,” said Hilton. “They talked about all the businesses I do… and they wanted to honor me for everything I do.”
Moving right along, Hilton said she became involved in “The Hottie and the Nottie after receiving the script a couple years ago. “I fell in love with it,” she said. “I thought it was hysterical.±… I really love the movie `There’s Something About Mary,’ and it really reminded me of that.”
Hilton loved “Hottie” enough, in fact, to sign on as executive producer. “I helped cast it,” she said.
In the movie, Hilton plays the “hottie,” a sexy event planner named Cristabel who is the object of desire of several men, including Nate (Joel David Moore) who has had a crush on her since the first grade. Nate’s problem is that to date Cristabel he has to find a date for her best friend June (Christine Lakin), who is, to be kind, repulsive-looking. She’s the “nottie.” High jinks ensue.
“I thought it was a really sweet story,” said Hilton.
The film’s star lavished praise on her co-stars. “(Joel David Moore) is a really funny comedian,” she said. “I’m a big fan. I saw him in another movie and when they told me he was reading for this, I’m like, `We have to give it to him. He’s perfect for the part.’
“And I love Christine Lakin. She’s one of my closest friends now and she’s such an incredible actress. I really give her a lot of credit for being able to pull off that makeup.”
Hilton calls Johann Urb, whose character gives June a serious makeover, “such a good actor.” Some scribes have described Urb as a Tom Brady lookalike. Hilton disagrees. “He reminds me of Brad Pitt,” she said. “He’s so beautiful and he’s so nice.
“We had such a great cast,” Hilton continued. “Everyone really got along. We had so much fun together. We went to Vegas after shooting and went skydiving.”
Hilton calls “The Hottie and the Nottie” “a great movie. It’s a fun date movie… and everyone should go see it.”
“Hottie” represents the latest cinematic foray for Hilton, who is no stranger to the camera. She also stars in “Repo! The Genetic Opera,” a musical horror film directed by Darren Lynn Bousman, who previously directed “Saw IV.” In “Repo,” Hilton plays Amber Sweet, Paul Sorvino plays Amber’s father and Sarah Brightman plays Amber’s nemesis. Hilton said the film is scheduled to be released in the spring, and she sings in 12 of the movie’s numbers.
Folks who want to hear more of Hilton’s vocal stylings are in luck as she says she’s working on her second album.
Television is also in Hilton’s future, specifically a role on “The L Word,” the dramatic series on Showtime focusing on a group of lesbians and bisexuals. “The creator asked me to be on it,” she said. “When the writers’ strike is over, I’m going to shoot it with them. I don’t know what the character is going to be. They haven’t told me yet.”
Hilton previously gained considerable exposure on the TV series “The Simple Life.”
“Acting has actually been a passion of mine my whole life,” she said. “I really love to act. I was the lead in school plays. Now I have an acting coach and I’m taking it really seriously.”
Hilton also noted that she has a new line of shoes coming out tomorrow called, incredibly enough, Paris Hilton Footwear. “It’s really hot and affordable and comfortable,” she said. “Every girl loves shoes.”
She added that every shoe has a different name. Examples include Princess, Rocker and Night Owl. Prices start at $60, she said.
Asked what could be the new fashion trend of 2008, Hilton predicted bright-colored tights. “I’ve been doing that a lot lately,” she said.
Hilton, who turns 27 on Feb. 17, said she’s been to Boston before but this trip marks her first lengthy stay. And she’s making the most of it.
On (Feb. 5), Hilton went to the Boston nightclub Rumor. “And I went to my first frat party,” she said of her Harvard soiree. “That was awesome. I had the best time (Tuesday) night.”
“I love it here,” Hilton said of Boston. “The city is so beautiful and everyone has been so nice. I’d like to come back again.”
(Information from the Associated Press was used in this story.)
hottie and the nottie review
Posted on February 16, 2008 by btremblay
Filed Under hottie and the nottie review | Leave a Comment
Some like it `Hottie’
More over Meryl Streep. Here comes Paris Hilton.
In “The Hottie and the Nottie,” the finest film of the year, if not the millennium, the heiress-turned-actress demonstrates beyond a shadow of doubt that she deserves the title of the most gifted thespian of this generation, if not eternity. That sound you hear, ladies and gentlemen, is Oscar buzz and it’s deafening.
In a powerhouse performance packed with passion and profundity, Paris proves positively that she’s more than just a pretty pudim in a porno video. That she stars in a film she also executive produced I’m sure is a coincidence. Who wouldn’t want to hire this dramatic dynamo?
In “Hottie,” Paris reveals her acting range by playing a bimbo glamour queen named Cristabel Abbott. Incredibly, she’s the object of desire of every man on Earth if not the galaxy far, far away. She’s the hottie in the film’s title, in case you weren’t sure.
One of her suitors, Nate Cooper (Joel David Moore), has been smitten with her ever since the first grade. After getting dumped by his obnoxious girlfriend for being a loser - she writes “loser” on his car to drive home the point, so to speak - Nate begins his amorous pursuit of Cristabel.
Nate has a problem, however, apart from being an annoying nerd who looks like the love child of Maynard G. Krebs. He discovers that to date Cristabel he has to find a date for her best friend, June Phigg (Christine Lakin), who makes Ugly Betty look like Marylyn Monroe. June has a large mole, facial hair, hairy legs, lousy hair, rotten teeth and an infected toenail. And she works in a zoo. She’s the nottie in the film’s title, in case you weren’t sure.
To assist him in this hard-luck romantic endeavor, Nate enlists the help of another annoying nerd, Arno Blount, played by The Greg Wilson. That’s right, The Greg Wilson so you wouldn’t confuse him with just any run-of-the-mill Greg Wilson. He displays the kind of comedic chops you’d find in a slaughterhouse. Robin Williams, beware of this talented yuckster.
Eventually, Nate hooks up June with yet another annoying nerd, Cole Slawsen (Adam Kulbersh). That’s not his real name, of course. Nate invented it after looking at cole slaw. Gosh darn it, that’s some funny stuff right there.
Incredibly, the date turns out to be a disaster, especially when June’s infected toenail flies off and lands in Cole’s mouth. Woody Allen couldn’t write comedy this hilarious.
Matters turn way interesting when Johann played by an actor named Johann shows up. His last name is, of course, Urb, who just happens to be the greatest Estonian-born actor in the history of film. In one of his upcoming movies, “Porn Star,” Urb plays a character called Cannon Balls.
Anyway, Johann is a hunky dentist - aren’t they all? - who helps transform June into a babe and, in doing so, develops the hots for her. Nate should be happy about this turn of events since he can now turn his attention to Cristabel but - hold on to your hats - it seems Nate may be falling for June, too.
That’s right, June is busting out all over.
You normally have to go to a Polanski film to see plot twists as gnarly as this one. I was on the edge of my seat throughout. And when my spine wasn’t tingling, my eyes were watering. And the humor had me slapping my knee so hard I busted my patella. This film’s emotional roller-coaster ride will leave you nauseous with delight.
The dialogue by Heidi Ferrer, who makes her feature film debut here, can only be called spectacular if not specious. Check out these pearly words of wisdom uttered so convincingly by Cristabel: “A world without orgasms is like a world without flowers.” Eat your heart out, Shakespeare.
The taut direction by Tom Putnam, meanwhile, reminded this critic of the best work of Stroheim if not Florsheim. And the editing? Wow. So tight. I particularly adored the scene where Johann sings a song but the camera doesn’t show his lips moving. It’s almost like he’s a ventriloquist or something.
But the real highlight of the film has to be the fart jokes. Not just one, not just two, but three fart jokes! And what self-respecting romantic comedy doesn’t have fart jokes? Flowers and flatulence, baby. They’re irresistible. As we all know, nothing says true love better than passing gas. Paris, in particular, shines in these scenes as she discusses the smell of her farts. No, I’m not making this up. It’s just another example of the kind of cinematic genius on display in “The Hottie and the Nottie.”
Tragically, some viewers may not appreciate Paris’ prodigious acting ability, which consists mainly of smiling. But you try doing that while wearing revealing clothes. Some viewers may even dismiss this movie as total crud. Blasphemy! I know one thing, and I’d like to share this thought with all of the Hiltonians out there: Remember, we’ll always have Paris.
rambo revisited
Posted on January 27, 2008 by btremblay
Filed Under rambo revisited | Leave a Comment
If the sight of sexagenarian Sylvester Stallone reprising his role as Rocky Balboa isn’t ludicrous enough for you, he takes his other franchise character out of mothballs this week and plants him in the killing fields of Burma.
The character is John Rambo, last seen on the screen 20 years ago in the third take of a series that began in 1982 with “First Blood.” The imaginative title of the latest film, “Rambo,” opens with our eponymous hero, a much put-upon ex-Green Beret, catching snakes in Thailand.
When a company of do-gooders arrives at Rambo’s workplace, its leader asks the scowling serpent snatcher to ferry them into neighboring Burma so they can help some downtrodden villagers. He initially refuses as pessism now pervades his persona. As alliteration pervades mine.
Then the lone woman in the troupe appeals to his inner righteousness and he agrees. Wimp.
After Rambo drops off the do-gooders, the do-badders show up - these would be vicious, murderous Burmese troops led by a sadistic, psychopathic officer who only needs horns and a pitchfork to complete the picture. Subtlety isn’t this film’s strongpoint.
Most of the villagers get killed and the go-gooders get captured. To save them, mercenaries are hired and Rambo takes them to the dropoff point. The loutish head mercenary doesn’t want Rambo to tag along, but before you can say, “Arrow in the brain,” our favorite mumbling killing machine has entered the fray and a bloodbath ensues.
The question you have to ask yourself is: Do you feel lucky? Well, do you, punk? Sorry, wrong movie. The real question is: Can a small band of mercenaries defeat 100 Burmese soldiers? I’ll never tell.
At the screening I attended, the theater was packed. Most of the attendees were males in their 20s. A few brought along their dates or wives. You think these guys would attend “Beaches”? One father brought along his two children, ages circa 5 and 3. Nice parenting, pal. Nothing like exposing your young charges to multiple decapitations and mutilations along with a brutal rape here and there for good measure. The film is rated R, bozo.
Then there was the couple who brought their newborn to the screening. Morons. Thank goodness the film was ear-piercingly loud for the most part so that even if the baby were screaming we couldn’t hear the cries. Of course, once the bullets and bombs stopped flying, the baby’s yelps rang out. Taking a newborn to a screening is just so considerate to the other people in the theater. Hey, clueless Mom and Dad, get a baby sitter and then get some manners.
Returning to “Rambo,” which Stallone directed and co-wrote, the film is imbecilic in every way, but if you like grisly violence in your movies, this film delivers a visceral smorgasbord. Body parts go flying, guts go spilling, heads go rolling and bullets blast holes in stomachs large enough to stick a submarine sandwich through. It’s so gratuitous and outlandish that it becomes comical after awhile. Sensitive types, of course, will be appalled. Intelligent types won’t find much to appreciate either.
Still, give Stallone credit for knowing his audience and providing them with what they want - nonstop murder and mayhem. The film only suffers when characters start talking.
Yours truly also had less trouble suspending disbelief that a 61-year-old could wreak such havoc without resorting to super-strength Geritol. I couldn’t buy the “Rocky” comeback. Just too preposterous. At least here he has weapons.
While the critic in me can’t recommend “Rambo” for the simple reason that it lacks such niceties as a brain, the “Dirty Harry” in me gives it two blood-splattered machetes up, way up.
Oscar analysis
Posted on January 22, 2008 by btremblay
Filed Under Oscar analysis | Leave a Comment
The Academy Awards folks did themselves proud with most of their nominations today. Unfortunately, they should also be repeatedly beaten over the head with an Oscar statuette for some selections that can only be described as abominations against humanity. And they’re not very good either.
Chief among these wayward nominations is Cate Blanchett as best actress for “Elizabeth: The Golden Age.” For starters, Blanchett has already played this role and played it more impressively and in a far better movie - “Elizabeth” - in 1998. She was nominated for an Oscar then but get robbed when the Academy gave the award to Gwyneth Paltrow for “Shakespeare in Love.” Paltrow was excellent in that film, but Blanchett’s performance was stunning. Aussie loses to an American golden girl. Maybe this nomination is a makeup call. And like most makeup calls, it’s bogus.
The actress most deserving of this nomination was Amy Adams for her fabulous performance in “Enchanted.” That film goes nowhere without a talented actress in the lead role, and she not only acts brilliantly, she sings as well - and does so much better than Helena Bonham Carter in “Sweeney Todd.” She didn’t get nominated either.
Other than Blanchett, I don’t have a problem with the other nominees - Julie Christie for “Away from Her,” Marion Cotillard for “La Vie en Rose,” Laura Linney for “The Savages” and Ellen Page for “Juno.”
Cotillard, who won the Golden Globe in the musical or comedy category, should win the Oscar - her performance as Edith Piaf is by far the best in 2007 - but the favorite will likely be Christie, who won the dramatic Golden Globe. Working against Christie is the fact she’s a previous winner - for “Darling” in 1965. Then again the 42-year time differential could work in her favor. She was great when was 24 and is still great at 66 with the Academy showing it’s not ageist.
Still, I wouldn’t want to bet any money on this category. Linney could win simply because she’s one of the best actresses working today. She’s good even in mediocre movies and she’s fantastic in above-average fare, such as “The Savages.” The audience fave, however, has to be Page and the Academy loves to demonstrate that it’s in touch with mainstream moviegoers. Then again, does it want to honor an actress whose character makes teenage pregnancy look just swell? Which message does it want to send?
Keira Knightley, the star of “Atonement,” and Angelina Jolie, the star of “A Mighty Heart,” got snubbed.
The foreign language film category emerges as another headscratcher. No “Orphanage” from Spain? El bummer! Want to hear the nominees? Sure you do. “Beaufort” from Israel, “The Counterfeiters” from Austria, “Katyn” from Poland, “Mongol” from Kazakhstan and “12″ from Russia. Have you seen any of these movies? Have you heard of any of these movies? I’m a critic who saw more than 300 films last year and I haven’t seen or heard of any of these films either. They may all be excellent movies but if a tree falls in the forest and no one’s there… Anyway, maybe I’ll see these fine films before 2008 ends.
Few problems can be found with the best actor nominees - George Clooney for “Michael Clayton,” Daniel Day-Lewis for “There Will Be Blood,” Johnny Depp for “Sweeney Todd,” Tommy Lee Jones for “In the Valley of Elah” and Viggo Mortensen for “Eastern Promises.”
Day-Lewis, who won the dramatic Golden Globe, has been labeled the favorite, and for good reasion. His is an incredible performance. However, he is a previous winner - for “My Left Foot” in 1989 - and that could hurt his chances. If he falters, look for Johnny Depp, who won the Golden Globe in the musical or comedy catergory - to garner the Oscar. He’s a wildly talented and popular actor and, unlike Day-Lewis, he’s an American. All things being equal, the Academy likes to wave the Red, White and Blue. See Paltrow over Blanchett as Exhibit A. Mortensen is also capable of pulling off an upset. Previous Oscar winners Clooney and Jones are longshots.
Yours truly would have replaced Clooney and Jones with Frank Langella, so wonderful in “Starting Out in the Evening,” and Ryan Gosling, so weird in “Lars and the Real Girl.” Strong consideration should also have been given to Philip Seymour Hoffman, either for “The Savages” or “Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead.” The latter film was one of the best movies of 2007 yet it didn’t receive one major award nomination. Either the majority of Academy voters didn’t see this film or the majority of Academy voters are idiots.
James McAvoy, the star of “Atonment,” Emile Hirsch, the star of “Into the Wild,” and Denzel Washington, the star of “American Gangster,” also were ignored.
Not many complaints with the best picture nominees - “No Country for Old Men,” “Atonement,” “Juno,” “Michael Clayton” and “There Will Be Blood.”
“No Country” has to be the favorite even though “Atonement” won the dramatic Golden Globe. The Globe victor in the musical or comedy category - “Sweeney Todd” - wasn’t even nominated.
Yours truly would have replaced “Clayton” and “Juno” with “Gone Baby Gone” and “Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead.”
The best supporting actor nominations merit mostly good grades - Casey Affleck for “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford,” Javier Bardem for “No Country for Old Men,” Hal Holbrook for “Into the Wild,” Hoffman for “Charlie Wilson’s War” and Tom Wilkinson for “Michael Clayton.”
Holbrook’s selection may have raised a few eyebrows since he’s in the film for about five minutes. Consider his nomination a tribute to a great veteran actor. The Academy also probably figured it had to throw a bone to director Sean Penn, as his film failed to receive any other major award nominations.
The award in this category is a lock anyway. Bardem, the Golden Globe winner, should make room on his mantel for a statuette. The other nominees at least don’t have to worry about writing acceptance speeches.
The best supporting actress nominations almost reflect the Golden Globe choices, with Ruby Dee for “American Gangster” replacing Julia Roberts for “Charlie Wilson’s War.” Dee’s selection stands as a tribute to a great veteran actress. Her screentime is also minimal.
The other nominees are Blanchett for “I’m Not There,” Amy Ryan for “Gone Baby Gone,” Saoirse Ronan for “Atonement” and Tilda Swinton for “Michael Clayton.”
Blanchett won the Golden Globe but this category is famous - or infamous - for its unpredictability. While Ryan should win, this award could go to any of these nominees - and they are all worthy. Ronan could win just to appease the “Atonement” crowd. Ditto for Swinton in the well-respected “Clayton.”
Yours truly doesn’t look forward to making this prediction.
Finally, the best director nominees seem OK - Julian Schnabel for “The Diving Bell and the Butterfly,” Jason Reitman for “Juno,” Tony Gilroy for “Michael Clayton,” Joel and Ethan Coen for “No Country for Old Men” and Paul Thomas Anderson for “There Will Be Blood.”
While Schnabel won the Golden Globe, the Coen brothers would get my vote. Anderson has a shot, too.
Yours truly would have replaced Reitman and Gilroy with Sidney Lumet, the director of “Before the Devil Knows You’re Dead,” and Tim Burton, the director of “Sweeney Todd.” Joe Wright, the director of “Atonement,” and Ben Affleck, the director of “Gone Baby Gone,” deserved consideration, too.
The Oscars will be presented Feb. 24. Whether there’s a show or not, because of the writers’ strike, remains to be seen.
keep looking »
