Darin and I had our croissants and coffee at the local patisserie for breakfast* as we read the newspaper. Darin came across this item:
Affable everyman Seth Rogen has built an impressive and lucrative career playing doughy slackers in movies like “The 40-Year-Old Virgin” and “Knocked Up,” but is he now tampering with his winning formula, important ingredients of which apparently are beer, weed and econo-size bags of Cheetos?
Because Rogen’s next role is that of a superhero (the Green Hornet), and for the part he has lost a bunch of weight, the very thing that made him such an unlikely leading man.
“Oh right,” Darin said. “He’s going to lose some weight and suddenly morph into George Clooney, only Jewish.”
Okay, I thought that was hilarious.
* We are so French and sophisticated, mais non?
Got an unusual comment from Christina the other day:
You were a joy to read… before twitter. Now, not so much. Seriously, have you not better things to say?
Well, the Twitter is basically a way to have something to say, frankly. I suppose everyone who’d be interested in my tweets have probably added me to their own Twitter lists, so I could probably stop posting them here. (I’m DianePatterson on Twitter, btw, in case you’re looking for me.)
But to answer your question: at the moment I haven’t found a particular raison d’être for this blog. Many of the things I’d like to talk about really aren’t fair for me to talk about much (for instance: my kids—yeah, I know, I win some kind of Mom-points for finally figuring that out) and others are just…well…
(more…)
There are going to be spoilers. Just be warned.
We saw Hancock Tuesday night, during one of the “pre-opening” shows (what is it with stretching out these opening weekends?), and I am still astounded at what a misfire that movie was. Because for the first half of the movie, it was interesting, it was funny, it was a fun movie experience.
And then it falls apart. I mean, there should have been tape and staples and bolts on screen showing how hard it was to keep this thing together. And Darin and I can both point to the moment when the WTF? was written all over the script. It’s the moment I’ve seen hinted at in so many reviews, the big “twist.” I don’t know what they were thinking. “We need some kind of big Ooooh moment”? “We need to explain everything that’s happened”? “We hired Charlize Theron and we don’t know what the hell to do with her”?
Did you know Charlize Theron was in this movie? ‘Cause she isn’t in any of the trailers.
In case you don’t know the plot of this movie: Will Smith is Hancock, a superhero with an attitude and a drinking problem. He causes as many problems as he solves (and maybe even more). He rips up freeways to stop bad guys, he drinks quarts of liquor, and he’s grumpy to everyone, even little kids. And then one day he saves PR guy Ray (Jason Bateman, who once again proves he is the bar-none best straight man in the business, treating the looniness that’s going on absolutely seriously) from being hit by a train. Of course, the train is a complete wreck and once again Hancock has caused way more trouble than he’s saved. All of the lookers-on scream at Hancock, call him worthless, ask him what his problem is. But Ray thanks him and defends him to the crowd and then invites him over to his house for dinner, where they discuss how Ray is going to change Hancock’s image and make people love him. Ray’s wife (Charlize Theron) takes an instant dislike to the rude, hungover superhero, but Hancock finds himself attracted to her. Which is problematic, see, as Ray is the only guy who likes him.
All good, right?
Enter Ye Olde Plot Twist.
I have a copy of Tonight He Comes, the screenplay that was developed into Hancock, to see if the twist was in there, and maybe it was explained better. I have heard such amazing things about this screenplay that I had to check it out. For one thing, it is dark. Everything about it is dark. The characters are all seriously unlikable. I can see why it would garner interest, and I can see why it had to be “developed,” because no way would this make it on screen.
It doesn’t have the Plot Twist. Maybe it was the work of the second credited writer, Vince Gilligan. Or maybe it was someone else.
(And here it comes, turn away now if you don’t want to know what the twist is.)
(more…)
So, the Oscar nominations were made this morning, and unlike in previous years, I’ve seen lots of the movies and so can make intelligent commentary on them. Rather than “pick the winners,” though, I’m just going to tell you what I think.
Best Picture
Nominees: “Atonement,”"Juno,”"Michael Clayton,”"No Country for Old Men,”"There Will Be Blood”
I’ve seen all of these except for “Atonement,” which I’ve heard was very good but knocked no one’s socks off. “Michael Clayton” is a good movie but it’s nowhere near as amazing as some of its competitors. “Juno” was very good but it’s small— it gets this year’s “Nomination for Amazing Success.”
I had very strong negative reactions to both “No Country for Old Men” and “There Will Be Blood,” but for very different reasons. As I’ve told everyone I’ve talked to, “No Country for Old Men” is a movie firing on all cylinders: the direction, the acting, the cinematography, everything is just great. However, the overall theme seems to be: “Life’s a bitch, then you die, and there’s nothing you can fucking do about it.” Oh, yay.
“There Will Be Blood” is a very (very) long movie about a complicated, evil man exploiting California’s oil riches (and everything else he can get his hands on), and in the end you’re like, “Yup, he’s a bad guy all right.” The title is a nice pun (that none of the reviews I’ve seen have commented on), and the production design is unbelievable.
Of the two, “No Country for Old Men” is definitely the more accessible, and I would give it the award.
Actor
Nominees: 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”; Viggo Mortensen, “Eastern Promises.”
I’ve seen four of the five. George was good, but not great. Didn’t see “In the Valley of Elah.”
In “Eastern Promises,” Viggo (an American), Vincent Cassel (a Frenchman), and Armin Mueller-Stahl (a German) play three Russians, and never once during the entire movie did I think, “Wow, those are damn good accents.” No, I thought: Hey, who knew Viggo Mortensen was so Russian?
Johnny Depp is very good in “Sweeney Todd” (and he sings!), but it’s kind of silly to compare that performance to something like Daniel Day-Lewis in “There Will Be Blood.” I don’t know if I’ve ever seen another movie with Day-Lewis in it, because I’ve never seen that man before. I’ve heard Day-Lewis is the scary kind of Method actor, and apparently it pays off. I guess it’s pretty easy to tell who I think will get it in this category.
Actress
Nominees: Cate Blanchett, “Elizabeth: The Golden Age”; Julie Christie, “Away From Her”; Marion Cotillard, “La Vie en Rose”; Laura Linney, “The Savages”; Ellen Page, “Juno.”
Okay, so much for my boast about seeing the movies: I’ve seen exactly one performance here, and that was Ellen Page as “Juno.” She was hysterical. I don’t think she has a prayer.
Supporting Actor
Nominees: 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”; Tom Wilkinson, “Michael Clayton.”
Bardem: excellent at the unstoppable killer in “No Country.” So good, in fact, that he made me question the sanity of my friend who thinks he’s the hottest thing since sliced bread. Philip Seymour Hoffman: once again on the FBI’s Most Wanted for theft of every scene he’s in. Tom Wilkinson: an actor completely without fear, and definitely the best thing about “Michael Clayton.” I can never guess the Supporting Actor/Actress categories ahead of time, but I think Wilkinson was the best of the three.
Supporting Actress
Nominees: Cate Blanchett, “I’m Not There”; Ruby Dee, “American Gangster”; Saoirse Ronan, “Atonement”; Amy Ryan, “Gone Baby Gone”; Tilda Swinton, “Michael Clayton.”
I didn’t seen “Atonement” or “Gone Baby Gone,” so I don’t know. Cate Blanchett was good (but not that good) in the severely over-praised “I’m Not There.” Ruby Dee was not much in “American Gangster,” a movie primarily about haircuts in the 70s. Tilda Swinton was very good in “Michael Clayton,” so of the three I’d have to give it to her.
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”; Paul Thomas Anderson, “There Will Be Blood.”
There will be a shoot-out in the parking lot between the Coen Brothers (who really reined in their worst behavior in “No Country”) and Paul Thomas Anderson (who definitely stamped his movie with MINE all over it). Unless somebody gets a sweep, I think it’s probably PTA.
Adapted Screenplay
Christopher Hampton, “Atonement”; Sarah Polley, “Away from Her”; Ronald Harwood, “The Diving Bell and the Butterfly”; Joel Coen & Ethan Coen, “No Country for Old Men”; Paul Thomas Anderson, “There Will Be Blood.”
The only proper way to judge Adapted Screenplay is to read the original material. I would bet few, if any, of the Oscar voters do that, and they simply vote for whichever one they liked the best. I would probably pick “No Country.”
Original Screenplay
Nominees: Diablo Cody, “Juno”; Nancy Oliver, “Lars and the Real Girl”; Tony Gilroy, “Michael Clayton”; Brad Bird, Jan Pinkava and Jim Capobianco, “Ratatouille”; Tamara Jenkins, “The Savages.”
Damnation. No idea. Like most people, I disparaged “Juno” sight unseen, and after I saw it I went, “Whoa! First script!” One of the best things about “Juno” is (past the dialogue, which was hilarious and crisp) that none of the characters behave in the way you expect them too. Teenaged girl gets pregnant? How do her parents react? Wrong. It was constantly surprising, which was refreshing. (Darin’s two cents: he thinks “Juno” will win this one.)
And while “Michael Clayton” has its problems — for one thing, they had to call it “Michael Clayton” because they couldn’t think of a more relevant title — there are several things about the script that were just fabulous. Like the scene at the hit-and-run driver’s house, which we see twice: the first time it hits us one way, the second time it hits us completely differently.
“Ratatouille”: a really good script, suffering from the usual Pixar problem of the tag-along female (an actual Hollywood term, folks!).
It was obvious when we saw the movies that “No Country For Old Men” and “There Will Be Blood” would be the big kahunas of this year’s Oscars. “There Will Be Blood” irritated me in so many ways that I’m partial to “No Country.” And I walked out of “No Country” swearing a blue streak about it.
The big question is, of course: Will there even BE an Oscar ceremony this year?
How do I describe this movie? Well…Shoot ‘Em Up is an ultraviolent comic thriller. Is this your kind of movie? Take this quick quiz:
You’re an incredibly agile, fast-thinking, quick shooting assassin. You’ve found the headquarters of the bad guys who’ve sent approximately 258 guys after you, all of whom you’ve killed and they haven’t put a mark on you. And there, right in your sights, are the head honcho and his main assistant, easily within reach of any of the 73 guns you have stashed on your person. Do you:
- Kill the two main bad guys and take your chances at escaping?
- Gather evidence to prove how awful these two are and hope to God that you can get your evidence in front of, say, a Congressional inquiry, or
- Set up elaborate traps all over the headquarters involving automatic weapons operated by pull cords made of twine?
If you answered 3, then Shoot ‘Em Up is the movie for you. It’s a Hong Kong action movie starring white guys in an unnamed North American city, with bags and bags of guns.
I have a visceral reaction to a lot of the sadism in action movies and I wince a lot during the extended scenes of violence. I also can’t stand children in danger. Despite those two things, I thought this movie was hilarious. It is so over the top you can’t take any of it seriously. For example: the old cliché about the good guy hitting every target he aims for and the bad guys not being able to hit the side of a bus with an automatic is taken to new heights in this movie. The main character’s leather jacket never suffers so much as a scratch while he’s leaping through windows and showing us exactly how to ensure you’re thrown clear of a car accident. (Hint: it involves shooting a lot of guns.)
Clive Owen, the thinking man’s Jason Statham1, lays waste to endless waves of bad guys. He delivers babies while shooting up the place. He lovingly tucks the baby he ends up guarding in a bullet-proof vest while shooting about 75 guys who are after them. In one completely hysterical scene, he manages to dispatch about 15 masked Uzi-wielding gunmen while he’s buck naked and… well, you just kinda have to see it to believe it. As my father-in-law said as we left the theater, the editor on this flick must have had a ball when he had to go to work every day.
I’m not sure you absolutely need to catch this one in the theater, but I think it’s fun and worth at least putting in your Netflix queue. This movie gives you exactly what it promises you in the title. I almost wish it hadn’t worked in so much damn backstory: we don’t care why Clive is the Energizer Bunny of Death. He chomps a lot of carrots (in close-up even) and tosses off a lot of really groan-worthy one-liners. When you have chase scenes like the one at the end of Act Two — trust me, you’ll know the one I mean — you don’t need any freakin’ backstory.
——–
1 Alas, I can’t take credit for this quip. It’s Darin’s.