Take A Shot For Every Argo Reference

Well, the Academy Awards have rolled around again. Oh wait, no, they're pulling a Shazam! on us and calling it the Oscars. I have no idea why.

But anyway, much like last year, I'm going to post my brief thoughts on each of the Best Picture Nominees, and pick who I want to win in the major categories, and guess who will actually win.

This year's picks are a lot better than last year's, in terms of what appeals to me, and what I've actually seen (that is to say, not many, but some are only just getting released now). With two exceptions, if I haven't seen it, I'm going to, though whether or not it'll be by the end of this year I don't know.

So, let's see the Best Picture Nominees.

1. Amour- this literally only came out a few days ago down here (as of this posting), and it skipped my local cinema, so I have no choice but to wait for DVD. And it's not even a high priority. I mean, I do want to see it, but nothing about it screams “See me immediately!” Probably won't win.
2. Argo- this one is on the other end, in that this movie DOES command me to see it. I have the DVD pre-ordered, and it is due in a few days time. I will be reviewing it for the blog, but even though this is jumping the gun, can I say I want this to win? I don't care if I haven't seen it, this movie looks great. As much as I actually respect Ben Affleck's acting ability, if he had to be an actor or a director, and only one of those (exclusions made for the acting portion if he's also directing the movie), I vote he directs. Gone Baby Gone is excellent, and The Town is also damn good. One of the strongest contenders to win.
3. Beasts Of The Southern Wild- I know next to nothing about this one. Probably won't see it. Don't see it winning, either.
4. Django Unchained- finally, one I HAVE seen. This will also be the next review for the 2013 movies on the blog (we WERE supposed to get it December last year, pushed back for reasons unknown). In short, another great Tarantino effort. It'd be great if it wins, but I somehow doubt that.
5. Les Miserables- wasn't a high priority, will catch on DVD. Again, don't see this one taking the award.
6. Life Of Pi- see above.
7. Lincoln- like Django Unchained, an upcoming review. The most likely winner, and my pick for who will emerge triumphant (though I still want Argo to win. Nothing against Lincoln, it is a very good movie, and I give it my recommendation, for what little that's worth).
8. Silver Linings Playbook- probably my next review after Django Unchained (can you tell I'm a little behind in my movie reviewing?), but this could actually have a shot at beating Lincoln and Argo.
9. Zero Dark Thirty- … OK, I don't want to turn this into a huge rant or anything, or make some controversial statements, but the long and short of it is: I do not want this movie to win. I do not want this movie to exist. You know what, Flight should be here, Flight's a great movie (also an upcoming review). If any movie other than this wins, I will be happy (but I'll be even happier if Argo wins. I'll settle for Django Unchained or Silver Linings Playbook)

And for some reason, only nine movies, even though I could have sworn they were going with ten from now on. So... why not add Flight?

But anyway, besides one or two entries, a fairly solid list. Granted, Lincoln pretty much has this in the bag, since it's a biopic on a famous white man from back in the day but hey, at least it's not a World War 2 movie, right?

So, on to the next major awards, though without going into as much detail as I have above.

Best Director- Ben Affleck (OK, he's not nominated, but I want him to win. Also, WHY?! Why is he not nominated?!) I guess if I have to use the official list, I want Spielberg to win. Who probably will win, too.

Best Actor- Denzel Washington (want to win. Seriously, his acting in that movie is fantastic), Daniel Day-Lewis (probable win)

Best Actress- Jennifer Lawrence (both, actually. I think her role in Silver Linings Playbook was outstanding, and I think she has this locked in, especially since Meryl Streep isn't nominated this year)

Best Supporting Actor- ...argh, so many to choose! If I have to pick one, I want Robert De Niro to win, since Silver Linings Playbook is the best thing he's done in ages. Tommy Lee Jones will probably win, though I definitely do not object, he was great in Lincoln.

Best Supporting Actress- Sally Field for both, she holds her own in Lincoln.

Best Animated Feature- I didn't do this one last year, but this year's picks holds a few surprises. I've only seen two of them (Frankenweenie and ParaNorman, both I've reviewed already), but the other three (The Pirates! Band Of Misfits, Brave and Wreck-It-Ralph) I've been very keen to see for some time. Wreck-It-Ralph will probably win, and I want it to most of all, but anyone of these winning is something that pleases me.

I could be here all day, but I think I covered the biggest bases. I know that The Avengers and Skyfall have nominations for some of the technical awards, and more power to them.

On the subject of Skyfall, I haven't heard any of the other songs for the Best Original Song category, but Adele's Skyfall theme MUST win. Seriously, the love I have for that song, I'll never be able to do it justice.

As of writing, the Oscars are a day away. At the time they're on, I'll probably be sleeping, due to my nocturnal nature. So, I'll have to wait until I wake up to find out if my picks were right, and if Argo does win. Have I mentioned I want Argo to win?

Why Can't You Be Friends?

Well, Valentine's Day has rolled around again. You may recall last year that I posted a blog saying that love should be all year round, and not limited to one day.

Well, this year, I'm afraid I'm going to talk about something a little more negative. I admit, this is something I could talk about almost any time of the year, but given what I'm going into, something tells me Valentine's is when this crap will occur the most.

Recently, I learned of a Tumblr with posts from a site called OK Cupid,. A Tumblr devoted to self-professed “nice guys” bitching about being stuck in “the friendzone” with women they're attracted to, and feeling like they're entitled to something (a relationship or even just sex on its own) simply because they're “nice guys”. I'd share the link, but I believe it's had the plug pulled, though this article has an example of one said pic: http://www.thefrisky.com/2012-12-21/nice-guys-of-ok-cupid-the-scariest-tumblr-of-dudes-you-never-want-to-date/

People much smarter than myself have already weighed in on the issue, but I still would like to share my thoughts on it, and why these guys need to have a foot planted firmly up their arse, to greatly paraphrase Red Foreman. As such, I'll be breaking these down in dot point form, ranging from smaller nitpicks to outright criticism.

* First off, while I have no idea who coined the term, don't drag the word “zone” into it! Zone is a cool word, that shouldn't be related to something negative! The Twilight Zone, the Phantom Zone, the Zones in the Sonic games, the Kenny Loggins song Danger Zone, all examples of coolness using the word zone! I think it's the Z, the Z makes it sound cool. Kinda like X. Point is, use another word! Not realm, realm's also a cool word.

* Second, women aren't entitled to give you anything at all. This isn't the days of old (and it was wrong back then too) so playing the “White Knight” and expecting a reward isn't what happens these days. But with society being over-entitled these days, maybe that's the root of the problem.

* Next, when did being friends with women become a bad thing? Friends are awesome! I like making new friends. I'd say “Make friends!” is my motto, but I have one above that one, and that's really the motto of the incredibly awesome Sarah Wilson, aka Pushing Up Roses (check out her gaming videos here: http://pushinguproses.com/ . And a lot of my friends are female, too. I've always gotten along better with women as opposed to men, and I think it's because a lot of men I see in public seem to communicate with grunts and as little dialogue as possible. Unless it relates to sport, drinking and/or women. Maybe that's just because I live in Australia, or maybe the type of people I want to interact with are elsewhere at the time.

* But the biggest point I have to make: if you're a “nice guy”, but you bitch about a friend just because she won't date you, you revoke any rights to call yourself a nice guy.

You know all those arseholes you complain about, the ones she may date over you? Well, moaning about that makes YOU an arsehole too. Except she won't date you once she finds out what you said. So really, you're digging your own grave there.

Also, are these guys really arseholes, or are you just painting them that way because “they're in your way of being in a relationship”? I mean, do you spend time with them, or have you already dismissed them simply because they chose to date your friend? Granted, it IS possible that their character is poor, but intervening when he does something questionable is what a friend is supposed to do, not someone swooping in to take his place as spouse.

Look, I've been here before. I mean, most of us have, right? Pining for someone who is in a relationship, wanting something more, while still being friends. The difference is, most of us don't go out of our way to make our friend's partner look bad, or spread nasty rumors about our friend behind their back out of bitterness. We accept things for what they are, and move on.

There are worse things in life for nice people than not being with the right person. Like being treated like a doormat, for example. I know a whole lot about that...

And that's all I have to say on the matter. So, to these “nice guys” out there: prove it. Be good and nice for the sake of being good and nice.

(On an unrelated note, I know I missed a lot of holidays last year, especially noticeable with a Mother's Day post but not a Father's Day. Can't say it'll be different this year, but I'll work something out)

The Gang's All Here

Right, I have no real creative way to start this... so, Gangster Squad!

It's 1949, and Mickey Cohen (Sean Penn) is the kingpin of the Californian criminal underworld.

Sgt. John O'Mara (Josh Brolin) is picked by Chief to wage war against the boxer-turned-gangster and bring his empire to its knees. So he assembles a team of sharpshooting, hard-fighting cops and goes on the attack.

The most obvious film comparison people have made is L.A Confidential, and to be honest, I don't see it. I mean, yeah, that one's a period piece about crime and corruption, but that one was a little more... layered, for lack of a better word. I haven't seen that one in ages, so maybe there's more to the comparison than what I'm seeing, but for me, the most obvious comparison is The Untouchables, one of my absolute favourite movies. Both have a by-the-book cop assemble a team to take on a kingpin, one of those members isn't much for the violent side of things, there's an older, more experienced cop (who share similar fates, trying not to spoil that. Matter of fact, same thing happens to the team members whose expertise isn't with gunplay), both kingpins go to jail for the same thing in real life (Gangster Squad's changes the ending, for more action-packed fare I dare say).

But how does Gangster Squad hold up on its own? Well, it's a pretty good action flick. It comes in two flavours, shootouts and fisticuffs. Personally, as good as the shootouts are (particularly towards the end), I prefer the fisticuffs, it's more intense, more personal. And the end confrontation is no exception (slight spoiler), in what amounts to a no-holds barred slobberknocker. The entire fight is well shot, and it's what you'd expect between a driven man and a former boxer.

Acting-wise, Josh Brolin reminds me so much of a young Tommy Lee Jones (and for the record, I haven't seen Men In Black 3 yet) and really, that's a good call for a cop film. He's determined, unrelenting and shows great leadership.

Sean Penn, I can't remember the last time I saw him in a film. His character is kind of unbalanced and skittish, but that only helps reinforce how dangerous he can be, the kind of quality you need in a gangster, and he does a superb job.

Ryan Gosling... well, it's almost like he took his character from Crazy Stupid Love and traveled back in time with it. His character loves the ladies (and himself a little) and a good time. But when he's called into action, he gets right into the thick of it.

Emma Stone is the other big player in this movie, playing Mickey's girlfriend, who has more depth than it may seem at first. I'd say she has great chemistry with Ryan Gosling, but since she too was in Crazy Stupid Love, and involved with him there too, it's kind of obvious.

If there are flaws in this movie, it's a couple of minor things.

First, some of the comedic moments feel really out of place, almost taking away from the seriousness of the situation.

Secondly, the blood splattering. Now, obviously, when bodies get riddled with bullets, it's not going to be clean. But the way the blood splatters, you'd think you were watching a particularly gory horror movie. I think I saw less blood in the head-exploding scene from Scanners.

So, all in all, an enjoyable action romp. 3.5/5

Sorry for the less meaty blog post, I'm considering revisiting a couple of these films on DVD later in the year.

Behind Every Great Man...

Sometimes, there are movies you are very keen to see, but then they disappear off the radar for a while, only to pop right back up and announce they're coming out soon. Hitchcock was one such example for me, ever since I found out Anthony Hopkins was involved (OK, I'd have probably seen it regardless, but that's still a big incentive), and for a while, I thought the project had died off.

But no, it was actually being made all this time, and the release date just surprised me. So, naturally, I made it a priority to see.

What's it about, exactly? Well, it details the making of Psycho, his most well known film, but it's also a look at the relationship between Alfred and his wife, Alma (Helen Mirren).

Really, that's all you need to know. It's not a “from birth to death” style biopic, although I wouldn't object to that. This will end up being a short blog, because whether or not this film works boils down to one question: do we have the right cast for the job? The answer is yes, yes we do.

There really isn't much Anthony Hopkins can't do these days, he's a magnificent actor. He embodies the pomposity and snarkiness Hitchcock was said to have had, and he has the look down-pat.

If there's anyone who comes close to outdoing Anthony, or even outright outdoing Anthony, it's Helen Mirren, stepping in with firm support and a quick wit. The amount of work she did on Psycho can't be denied either, and she is the one who suggested the famous musical cue during the shower scene. The two compliment each other well, being able to one-up each other with dry wit. Even when Alfred confronts Alma with accusations of adultery, he never disrespects or diminishes her dutiful work, and that is a huge plus with me. She is portrayed as every bit an equal as Hitch, and maybe even more so.

That doesn't mean the supporting cast aren't great either. In fact, I'm ashamed to say I didn't recognize a couple of them, and they're actresses I like a lot! Jessica Biel and Toni Collette disappear into their roles as Vera Miles and Peggy Robertson respectively, and Ralph Macchio's in this, too! Seriously, I only just found that out now! Yes, the Karate Kid himself!

Scarlett Johansson was as classy as I've come to expect as Hitchcock's leading lady Janet Leigh, and she continues to be one of my favourite actresses currently in the industry.

And Kurtwood Smith, despite his very small role, well, it's always great to see him.

I was also fascinated by parts in the film in which Hitchcock appears to be talking to Ed Gein, usually in a dream sequence, or the like. Goes to show how devoted to his work Hitchcock was, how obsessed he was, and, on some level, maybe how eccentric and borderline crazy he might have been. I mean, we all go a little crazy sometimes...

So, yeah, short blog, probably not very informative, but that's often the thing with a biopic. The casting is often the most important thing, or else the project falls apart. Luckily, we have a stellar cast on hand. 4/5

If only this could be a TV series, and we could see the process behind all his films. Can this happen? Please? I'd love to find out what happened behind the scenes on The Birds.

I Talked With A Zombie

So, it's been a while since I've posted. I'd say I was hoping that February would be less hectic in terms of movie watching, but with Australia getting the rest of the Best Picture nominees, and some of them looking really good, those hopes are dashed. And I'm seeing another couple films tomorrow, so I'd better get cracking on the movies I have seen.

So, 2013's film season kicks off with ParaNorman (and yes, I know America had this film for a little while before us, but I can't help it if they keep hogging all the good movies, so it'll still count for my end of year fifty.)

Norman (Kodi Smit-McPhee) is an outcast amongst his peers and even within his own family, because he talks to the dead and no one will believe him. But that's all about to change when the dead walk the Earth as a witch's curse over the town takes hold.

I've heard some high praise for this movie, and having seen it, I can see why some of it is justified. Some of it. Overall, I think it's a very good movie, with some aspects being more impressive than others, but a few things bothered me, mostly with character conception.

Like with Norman's friend, Neil (Tucker Albrizzi). He's an overweight, easily excitable kid with no friends and says stupid things, usually trying to be comedic when the time doesn't call for it. Gee, wherever did they pluck that idea from? *Rolls eyes*

The character just bugs me. I'm not sure if it's the design of the character, the dialogue, the voice acting, or all of the above, but this is a stock character. He's not all that funny, and as moral support for Norman, he kind of fails. Norman doesn't really need him, and the story only throws him in there so that his big brother, Mitch (Casey Affleck, fave performance of the film, by the way) has a reason to provide transport for the characters.

Another character I have an issue with: Norman's father, Perry (Jeff Garlin). Now, I get that he may be worried about his son, and thinking he's a little crazy, since Norman is the only one who can see ghosts (barring his uncle, Mr. Prenderghast, voiced by John Goodman, who dies early on. Not a spoiler, either), but his dialogue and voice reading make him come off as an abusive parent. I mean, seriously, if this were a darker film, he WOULD be abusing Norman! He's never positive about his son at all (until the end, naturally), he acts like he's a burden, he shouts a lot, and quite frankly, it makes the movie uncomfortable. Doesn't help that he dresses like a typical blue collar worker, leading to all sorts of unfortunate implications.

In spite of those aspects, however, I do recommend the film, because the good does outweigh the bad. The stop-motion animation, for example, is some of the most impressive ever committed to the big screen, particularly when it comes to the set designs and skylines. Those skies are just beautiful, and the effects for the witch only enhance its glory.

But what impresses me most is the bait-and-switch villainy. I've talked about this before in my review on Rock Of Ages, but this is a different kind (and there will be spoilers here).

Throughout the film, we've been lead to believe that the witch is the antagonist, and that she is the personification of evil for this particular town. It is then revealed that the undead currently roaming the town are the same people who sentenced a little girl to death, over 300 years ago. So, naturally you want to hate them for their heinous act. But upon speaking with Judge Hopkins (Bernard Hill), Norman learns they regret their actions, acting merely out of fear.

So, it looks like we're back to the witch being pure evil right? Well, since she was the little girl sentenced to an early death, she naturally feels vengeful and malicious. Completely understandable. But Norman gets through to her, and makes her feel like she's not alone because of her gifts, and she becomes the sweet little girl she once was before departing.

What I like about it is, despite the fact that we've been lead to believe this film has a villain with a truly despicable nature, but in both cases, we uncover sympathy within our antagonists, thus giving the movie a complexity that a lot of other movies can't say they have.

So, not the strongest start to a film season (though, when you begin a year with something like Black Swan, that's not easily topped), but still well worth your time, and I will definitely be grabbing this on DVD at some point later in the year. 3.5/5