2012 OSCAR NOMINATIONS
It’s getting harder and harder to
criticize the Academy Award nominations as the number of worthy films shrinks
yearly. As I struggle to find 10 good films to fill my end-of-the-year list,
how can I expect anything but the usual suspects from the Oscar voters?
While I’m not much of a fan of “Beasts of
the Southern Wild” or “Life of Pi,” what was really out there to replace them
in the best picture category? My only suggestion would be “Moonrise Kingdom,”
Wes Anderson’s sarcastic look at young love, which scored an original
screenplay nod. In my Top 10, you’ll find such pictures as “Bernie” and “Robot
& Frank,” but did either ever stand a snowball’s chance at a best picture
nod?
To me, I’m giving the voters a pass this
year if only for their selection of “Amour,” a brilliant, devastatingly sad
look at aging from challenging director Michael Haneke. It’s a French art film maybe
more depressing than any best picture nominee in history; the idea that it’s
competing with “Django Unchained” and “Zero Dark Thirty” seems crazy even for
Hollywood.
Among performers, I was most disappointed
that Richard Gere’s perfectly calibrated work in “Arbitrage” failed to garner a
best actor nomination. Also, Frank Langella’s memorable aging house burglar in
“Robot & Frank” deserved consideration. (In all the endless Oscar
prediction stories, I never even saw his name mentioned.)
Much has been written about Ben Affleck
being left out of the best director nominees and I would second that: “Argo”
was the best directed film of the year, even though I selected “Silver Linings
Playbook” as the best film.
I’m betting, though not much, that
“Argo” will be named best picture and Steven Spielberg will take home his third
best director Oscar for “Lincoln.” The winners in the acting categories seem to
be set in stone: Daniel Day-Lewis, obviously; Jennifer Lawrence and Robert De
Niro for “Silver Linings Playbook;” and Anne Hathaway for her stirring, but
brief “Les Misérables” performance. If this plays out, it will be the third
Oscar win for both De Niro and Day-Lewis.
Here’s my (very tentative) Top 10.
(Remember, I don’t mix foreign and English-language films; otherwise, “Amour”
would certainly be near the top)
1. Silver Linings Playbook (David O. Russell)
2. Argo (Ben Affleck)
3. Moonrise Kingdom (Wes Anderson)
4. Lincoln (Steven Spielberg)
5. Bernie (Richard Linklater)
6. Arbitrage (Nicholas Jarecki)
7. Robot & Frank (Jake Schreier)
8. Zero Dark Thirty (Kathryn Bigelow)
9. Ted (Seth MacFarlane)
10. Skyfall (Sam Mendes)
TED
(2012)
The idea of a teddy bear that turns into a
vulgar, dope-smoking slacker sounded like a one-joke, SNL skit. Instead, the
film is a sharp satire about a generation that resists growing up, clinging to
youthful indulgences and frat boy behavior to avoid adult responsibility. And, on
top of that, “Ted” is one of the funniest movies of 2012.
Dripping with caustic satire, a narrator
(the smooth baritone of Patrick Stewart) tells the pre-title story of John
Bennett and his special Christmas present, an oversized teddy bear. When he
wishes for the toy to have the ability to talk, it does, scaring the crap out
of his parents and, in time, becoming a media sensation (there’s a clever “Forrest
Gump”-like clip of the bear on the “Tonight Show with Johnny Carson.”)
When we meet John (Mark Wahlberg) and Ted
(the plush toy voiced by director Seth MacFarlane) again, it’s 25 years later
and they’re still together; except now they’re getting high and drunk and
trading cheap jokes even as John is sharing his bed with the very tolerant Lori
(Mila Kunis). Clearly, it is time for John, stuck in a dead-end job at a car
rental firm, to decide between a life with Lori or nightly debauchery alongside
his furry, Joe Pesci Jr. buddy.
That it is so easy to accept Ted as a
reality is a tribute to writer-director MacFarlane, the creator of the animated
TV hit “Family Guy” and this year’s Oscar show host, making his feature film
directing debut. The script, by MacFarlane, Alec Sulkin and Wellesley Wild, is
not without its misfires and over-the-line inappropriateness (it strangely
combines very adult material with 5th-grade level humor) but Ted and
John form such a likeable combo that it’s easy to forgive the cringe-worthy
moments.
Central to the film’s living-in-our-youth
theme is the campy 1980 sci-fi cult film “Flash Gordon” and its beefy star Sam
Jones, both much admired by Ted and John. When the now middle-aged Jones shows
up at a party given by Ted (no one parties like this teddy), binge drinking
reaches new heights, culminating in a fight between the teddy bear and a
soon-to-be boiled duck.
Be prepared to be offended—“Ted” is
about as political correct as Howard Stern—and to laugh out loud at more gags
than most writers come up with in a career. How can you not love a movie in
which singer Norah Jones recalls a sexual encounter she had with Ted,
commenting on his lack of an important, shall we say, tool of manhood. “Yeah,”
croaks Ted, “you know, I’ve written so many angry letters to Hasbro about
that.”
If there was any doubt about how far out of touch I am with popular movie opinion, my thoughts on Ang Lee’s Oscar nominated picture should serve as clarification.
Reviews, from the smartest critics in the
country, have used such phrases as “miraculous achievement,” “spellbinding,”
“profound” and “magical” to describe this metaphysical tale of an Indian
teenager shipwrecked in the Pacific Ocean with an unfriendly Bengal tiger. Pi,
who was aboard a freighter with his family and a zoo full of animals headed for
Canada, manages to survive on a lifeboat for months (it seems) while he avoids
becoming dinner for his animal companion.
Suraj Sharma, making his film debut, is
very convincing as Pi, overcoming fear and hopelessness to live to tell his
unbelievable story to a curious writer (in the film’s poorly staged and written
framing device).
For me it was all as believable as an
episode of “Sponge Bob Square Pants.” Needless to say, movie trickery has been
going on since moving pictures were invented, but those that are more computer
simulation than cinema (not unlike “Avatar” and all the comic book hero movies)
leave me empty. I couldn’t get emotionally involved in Pi because I never
believed he was really in the ocean, encountering a tiger or flying fish or an
ape or was surviving harsh weather on a tiny boat. It was like watching the
pages turn on a picture book for children—glorious images but the preachy story
soon grows tiring.
Not helping in the believability department
is the clumsy contemporary scenes with the adult Pi and this bland writer. Even
worse is the convoluted, almost apologetic ending that undermines the “magical”
aspects of the film.
Nothing appeals to me less than a film or
story that tries with all its might to uplift the audience. Just tell me a good
story and everyone’s spirits will be raised.
In spite of all the honors for Lee, this
isn’t even close to his best work, which includes “The Wedding Banquet,” “Sense
and Sensibility,” “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” and his Oscar-winning
“Brokeback Mountain.” In fact, I sometimes question the importance of the
director on these tech-heavy projects; whoever was in charge of the CGI work
was the real creative force.
FLIGHT
(2012)
For a society that seems aghast every time
a hero is found wanting—just in the past few weeks we’ve been treated to
confessions from Lance Armstrong and Manti Te’o, a Notre Dame football
star—this portrait of a less-than-perfect airline pilot is the ultimate sign-of-the-times
movie. Not unlike “Arbitrage,” this fast-paced and superbly acted film offers a
behind-the-curtain look at the PR and legal machinery that cranks into action
to protect the well placed and connected.
Denzel Washington gives his best
performance in a decade (“Training Day” was 2001) as Whip Whitaker, a supremely
confident commercial pilot whose personal life is a nonstop orgy of drugs,
booze and sex. The film opens with Whip, after a night of debauchery,
maneuvering a plane to a miraculously safe landing (six are killed) after
mechanical failure sends the aircraft into a freefall.
He’s a humble, reluctant hero to the
public at the same time that the FCC starts uncovering his questionable
lifestyle. The union brings in a lawyer who is an expert in handle such
problems (the always first-rate Don Cheadle), who counters the problem with
smoke screens and legal trickery to cover for Whip.
Washington, who has wasted his talent in
recent years in second-rate action thrillers (even when he’s creating a complex
character, as in “The Taking of Pelham 123,” it is lost in the melodrama),
brings out the mood-shifting, constant denial and sudden violence of this
unrepentant alcoholic. Even when his future is on the line, Whip can’t stop
drinking. This complex, introspective performance earned Washington his sixth
Oscar nomination. The Academy voters also recognized the smart and
unpredictable script by John Gatins.
Cheadle, who came to prominence opposite
Washington in the 1995 detective yarn “Devil in a Blue Dress,” delivers another
spot-on performance as the lawyer defending an indefensible man. Also quite
good is Bruce Greenwood as Whip’s friend and union rep, who stays in his corner
under the worst circumstances.
John Goodman, who also had key 2012 roles
in “Argo” and “Trouble with the Curve,” plays Whip’s supplier (of
anything—legal or not), bringing a crazed, hyper-reality to the rather serious
picture.
The film also marks a return to form for
veteran director Robert Zemeckis, who, since “Cast Away” in 2000, has committed
to those computer/live actor hybrid constructs that, at best, are just weird.
For my money, this is Zemeckis’ best film since “Who Framed Roger Rabbit”
(1988) and the best acted since “Forrest Gump” (1994).
BEING FLYNN (2012)
I had high hopes for this film, even
thought it was originally released in the movie graveyard of March, if only for
the intriguing possibilities of Robert De Niro portraying an eccentric,
unpublished novelist.
Paul Dano, the quirky young actor who has
co-starred with a litany of great actors in recent years, including Alan Arkin,
Daniel Day-Lewis and Brian Cox, plays De Niro’s estranged son who lacks the
charisma and abrasive self-confidence that his father exudes in spades. But
both are clearly men lacking in a focus for their lives.
Unfortunately, for the movie experience,
these characters never grow into real people, instead saying and doing the same
things over and over in search of something to create flesh and blood men.
The script is based on poet-playwright
Nick Flynn’s memoirs (delightfully titled “Another Bullshit Night in Suck
City”), thus much of the dramatic weakness of the film can be traced to the
fact that real life is rarely as entertaining as fiction (more on that later).
Director Paul Weitz, who worked with De Niro on “Little Fockers,” I think saw this
as a great vehicle for the 69-year-old legend. Turned out it was in another
2012 film, “Silver Linings Playbook,” that De Niro was given the chance to show
what a great actor he remains.
It almost seems as if the writer is so
intent on making himself look bad that he turns Dano’s Nick into a tired,
unappealing character. It’s a given that De Niro’s Jonathan Flynn, an
irresponsible racist whose belief that
he’s a brilliant writer is more irritating than endearing, is the character we
are meant to blame for the son’s problems. But Flynn (with help from Dano) has
made his cinematic reflection so indecisive and weak that it’s hard to
sympathize. Much more interesting, I have no doubt, is Flynn’s just released
“The Reenactments,” which chronicles his experiences during the making of the
film.
There are a few nice moments between De
Niro and Dano, but not enough to make the film worth renting or to overcome the
predictable, cliché-riddled final act.
THE IMPOSSIBLE (2012)
The problem with true stories, at least the
ones that are made into motion pictures, is that they tend to be less
believable than almost any piece of fiction. To successfully transfer the unexplainable
coincidences and irrational inconsistencies of the real world to the screen
takes a very skilled writer and director. This incredible chronicle of a couple
and their three children caught in the chaotic hell of the 2004 Indian Ocean
tsunami while on vacation in Thailand has its moments but never convinced me
that this family’s fate was in jeopardy.
Naomi Watts and Ewan McGregor play married
couple Marie and Henry Bennett, who are lounging at the
resort’s poolside when the wall of water hits, eventually killing 230,000
across South Asia. Marie and oldest son Lucas (Tom Holland) nearly drown and
she is badly hurt, but they survive together. The father and the two youngest
boys seemed to have survived unscathed, but are separated from the other half
of the family.
Spanish director Juan Antonio Bayona (much
acclaimed for his 2007 feature debut “The Orphanage”) and his production crew
have done an astonishing job of recreating the horrors of the aftermath, making
the devastation look very real. At points, the film has a documentary-like
intensity. But the story has all the easily resolved dramatics of a TV movie,
elevated only by the fine performances.
Watts, one of the finest and most
underappreciated Hollywood actresses, gives an intensely physical and
heartbreakingly emotion performance as Marie, who bonds with her son as they
fight to stay alive. It deservedly earned her an Oscar nomination, the culmination
of a string of excellent work over the past decade, including “King Kong,” “The
Painted Veil,” “Eastern Promises” and “Fair Game.”
Holland, known in England for his stage role
in the musical “Billy Elliott,” gives an equally impressive performance as
Lucas, who must grown up quickly, taking care of his mother and helping others
in need. For his and Watts’ performances, the film is worth seeking out, even
as it fails the true-story litmus test.
TROUBLE WITH THE CURVE (2012)
On paper, this Clint Eastwood vehicle
looked like a guaranteed home run (sorry, couldn’t resist). But the script
offers nothing but an unremarkable fastball right down the middle.
This is baseball-movie comfort food, in
which every character might as well wear a label saying “bad guy” or “good guy”
and the plot turns are all advertised with explanation points in the early
innings. Twenty minutes into the film, the entire plot becomes predictable and then
plays out without a hitch.
Eastwood plays Gus, a scout for the
Atlanta Braves, whose failing eyesight seems to spell the end of the road for
this legendary, but thoroughly disagreeable figure. Like an old gunslinger or
infamous bank robber, he heads out on that one last big adventure, in this
case, scouting a high school slugger whose stats have made him a sure fire top
draft choice.
Amy Adams plays Gus’ frustrated daughter
he keeps at arm’s length (the film is bursting with sophomoric psychology), who
risks a chance for a partnership at her law firm to be his eyes during this
important scouting trip. Turns out, Mickey—named after baseball legend Mickey
Mantle--knows baseball as well as Gus.
The baseball aspects of the film are sadly
dated. The debate over statistical-based approach vs. traditional scouting
method of judging amateur players started at least 15 years ago and was the
focus of “Moneyball,” written in 2003.
But the problems with this film, the
directing debut of Eastwood’s longtime assistant Robert Lorenz, have little to
do with the baseball aspects. It’s the too obvious relationship problems and
resolutions (Justin Timberlake plays a scout with eyes for Mickey) and a
reliance on easy coincidence and simplistic character development. Randy Brown,
with no other credits to his name, is the screenwriter.
Over the last 15 years, we’ve come to
expect greatness from any film Eastwood attached himself to—as actor or
director, preferably both—but nothing lasts forever; “Trouble with the Curve”
is little more than a routine grounder to second base.
No comments:
Post a Comment