Juno (2007)

What's all this then? A RE-view? Sign me up!

To tell the truth, I didn't think I'd ever watch this movie again, at least not for years, not in the least because I wasn't sure I had anything left to say about it. Sars gave me to the hook up re: the problem with Mark and Vanessa in the midst of talking about another movie, and Dana Stevens smartly took apart how we can love and hate the movie at once (hint: it has to do with surviving the 20 minute mark). Enough ink was spilled, but, then again, I think we can all agree that we'd watch just about anything on the plane, right? That's how I came to watch Shakespeare in Love again and The Legend of Bagger Vance . . . twice. It was just as boring the second time.

I was struck by just how underwritten Juno is the second time around. I like Cody and I like Page, and I think that together they have created a character that will rightfully go down in movie history. Let there be no doubt: I like Juno. I do wonder how long Page is going to play things with that monotone before we suspect she's a one trick pony, and I also wonder why Juno gets away with absolutely everything. The script is so proud of its protagonist that it seems fundamentally unwilling to find fault with her. Brenda gets the brunt of her bratty behaviour, although it's unclear why, given that she treats/refers to Juno as her own and has been part of her life for longer than her actually mother with whom Juno has no relationship. Basically, I think Allison Janney, J.K. Simmons, and Philip Seymour Hoffman should get together and form a club devoted to how kick ass they all are.

And why does Brenda have dogs at the end? I get that its supposed to be representative of a change in Juno, but unless that change involves no longer having an allergy, it's a nonsense symbol. Was the allergy never that severe to begin with? Is Juno on allergy meds now? I know it seems like a silly sticking point, but JVO makes a big deal about Brenda being obsessed with dogs, and, in their big fight, it's brought up.

Okay, Sars talked about it, but I feel like we've got to address the Mark and Vanessa problem. It's unclear how or why they got together in the first place or why they stay together. Where/when did Mark even meet Vanessa? Touring in Japan? After he sold out and started writing jingles? After Juno, the adoptive parents are the most important characters in the film, yet very little is invested into making them into real characters much less real people. There's no reason to make it so clear that Mark doesn't want a child. If it weren't so obvious from the word go, it would make for a better climax.

I skipped over Olivia Thirlby in my initial review, which was silly of me. As Leah, Juno's female best friend, Thirlby is the unsung hero of this entire production. Sure, she and Rainn Wilson are in serious competition for having to utter the film's most absurd line*, but she's supportive of Juno from start to finish (offering to make the call to Women Now for her, being there during the delivery) for no reason other than their friendship. She even plops herself down in the movie's most absurd set piece.** Thirlby is a brave, funny soul, and I wish I could see a movie with her and Janney together as mother and daughter.

I realize all this bashing sounds bad, but it comes from a good place. I can see all these things and still mostly like the movie, but I recognize that if Cody had only filled everything out just a little more, I could drop all the kinda/maybe/sortas and just out and out like it. Too bad. B

*I will not repeat these lines. Maybe they will go away and die from lack of repetition.

**It moves quickly beyond ironic to eye-rollingly ridiculous for Juno to sit in a display case while complaining that people are staring at her. Why is that display case even open? It's the kind of thing that sounds clever but should have been nixed before the film started rolling. Eating in the cafeteria is stressful enough.

Pop Culture Round-Up: April 14-18

I was writing a RE-view earlier today, but it will have to wait until I am less distracted. And because you are in need of a distraction:

I started reading Cloons' New Yorker profile when I first heard about it last week, but I have yet to successfully finish it. It is what one might call, "crazy-ass long."

On the fluffier side (yes, fluffier than a celebrity profile), enjoy a little Good Cop/Bad Cop slideshow.

Also from last week, Bob Dylan won an honourary Pulitzer, which is bitchin'.

Jeff Simon's got a love/hate thing going on with film critics.

The Vulture's got career advice for Robert DeNiro (let's hope someone sends him the link).

Sars' kindly revives one of my favourite childhood movies. Blue light special indeed.

And, finally, news that was apparently posted last August, even though Le Journal de Montréal only published it within the last week or so. Whatevs - Colm Feore's going to be First Husband, and I am all about it.

The Savages (2007)

Short: Two adult children, a professor, Jon (Philip Seymour Hoffman), and a failed writer, Wendy (Laura Linney), are forced to care for their absentee father (Philip Bosco) when he develops dementia.

I remember when this movie came out people were kind of excited about a new movie from writer-director Tamara Jenkins. Turns out that I've seen her only other feature length picture: Slums of Beverly Hills. It's been a while since I've seen it, but I remember that I watched it more than once, liked it, and particularly liked Natasha Lyonne* and Maris Tomei** in it. But that was a decade ago, so I can't be certain of how good it was.

This movie, sadly, is not so good. I had high hopes, due to the cast alone, but it didn't work out. To be honest, it's all there in the title. Savage? Yeah, that's their last name. It's the kind of thing that seems clever on the surface, but the more you think about it, the less clever it becomes. You get to the "Okay, so?" moment when you contemplate it.

Linney and Hoffman are fantastic actors, and I'm pretty sure Hoffman in particular could create a fulled formed character out of thin air, but they just don't have enough to work with. Thanks to Linney, we can see Wendy trying to connect with her father, looking for some closure for whatever's gone on between them in the past, and finding that her father isn't present enough to give it to her. Wendy's really the protagonist, in that we see Wendy without Jon, but it's kind of a shame because I want to know more of Jon's story.

We never really get to know enough of any one's story, which I suppose is a point unto itself from Jenkins' script, but it hurts the finished product. There's a suggestion in the middle that their father was physically abused by his father, and another one right at the end that Jon was physically abused by their father, but we never get a sense of who their father was. As wonderful as Bosco is in what's, frankly, a thankless role, there really isn't enough of a character for us to care like we should about his deteriorating mental condition. He's less a person than a series of things that have happened to Jon and Wendy: he left them, and now that they've got him, he's gone.

There are moments, whole moments, when it seemed like Hoffman was in another, better movie, one that dug deep into life's cruel joke called growing old, into the reality of adult children caring for their dependent parents, into the horror of figuring out what to do next. I wish I could have seen that movie. It could have starred all the same people but instead of wasting time on Wendy's affair with a married man, it would have shown us Jon grading papers in a chair next to his father's bed for just a few seconds before Wendy found him there. B-

*Whatever happened to her? She's still making movies, but I feel like I haven't seen her in anything since approximately 2001.

**I love Marisa Tomei, and I kind of wish Tomei was one of those actors who used to be bigger but now has a TV show. Christian Slater's supposed to have one in the fall, for pete's sake. And if you think I wouldn't watch it just because it stars Christian Slater, you really missed the boat on that one.

The Counterfeiters (2007)

Brief: Salomon Sorowitsch (Karl Markovics) is a renowned counterfeiter in 1936 Berlin. He gets caught, and his jail sentence leads to a concentration camp. Toward the end of WWII, the detective who arrested him, Herzog (Devid Striesow), now an SS officer, brings Sally in along with other printing (Adolf Burger, as played by August Diehl), inking (Sebastian Urzendowsky), and bank specialists to perfect the British pound and American dollar in order to finance the war.

A few weeks ago in Ask the AV Club, a reader wondered what the clubbers' problem was with this and other Holocaust movies (it's the third letter, so you've got to scroll). I read the response and started to worry about what would happen when I saw it for myself. Tasha Robinson is right in that the movie presents a story we've never seen before in a way that we have. For the most part, though the material is fresh, the movie seems familiar. Writer-director Stefan Ruzowitzky's script, based on Adolf Burger's book, is facile. It's somewhat strange that it's Burger's book, but his character isn't the hero (at least not in the short term) or even the protagonist. At any rate, Ruzowitsky is too quick to set up Burger and Sally as polar opposites. Sally will do anything to survive, while Burger is so steadfast to his principles that he's willing to get them all killed. If there's anything in between, Ruzowitsky doesn't want you to think about it.

Still, this movie has its good points. Markovics gives an astonishingly cold and reserved performance. He's careful not to reveal any emotion until the last possible moment, making even the slightest twitch of the eye shattering. His will to survive is so strong that he can bend others to it, but we never see why. That's just the way he is. Plus he's got a sexy thing going with his strange, beautiful face.

Combined with Marius Ruhland's fantastic score (he puts aside the stirring strings for a more folk feel) and the amazing lighting that I must attribute to cinematographer Benedict Neuenfels (if this movie was silent, you could understand it entirely from the shifting lighting. I wish I knew who designed the concept because it is beautifully evocative), it's easy to overlook the film's characterization flaws and still get something out of it. It makes me want to read the book, to be honest. B

Whoa, whoa, whoa, Tobias, listen to me. Dreams are worth fighting for. Now, are you gonna be an actor, or are you gonna be a doctor?

Not to spoil anything, but he's gonna be an actor. A bad one. Carl Weathers makes a good point, though. Dreams are important, so you can read all about movies that are in whole or at least in large part dreams in my latest Culture article.

Across the Atlantic Sea

Alright, so I'm not in Manchester. But I am in London, and, thus, I will be posting even less than usual. I have movies I want to write about, gentle readers, but no time in which to do it. That should change upon my return. Until then, rent Before Sunrise and Before Sunset and think of me off having my own European adventure.

Starting Out in the Evening (2007)

Premise: A graduate student (Lauren Ambrose) seeks out a reclusive, out of print author (Frank Langella) as the subject of her master's thesis, while his daughter (Lili Taylor) seeks out an ex-boyfriend (Adrian Lester) recently returned to New York.

Would that this movie had come out here before I wrote my Top 10. There's a large extent to which this movie is about the cruelty of having to grow old, so I briefly considered comparing it to the recently viewed The Savages. That would have been wrong. It would do the movie an injustice. Instead it's closer spiritual cousin is found in Once. Fred Parnes and Andrew Wagner's screenplay, from Brian Morton's novel and directed by Wagner, is as much about artistic creativity as John Carney's beautiful picture. It shows artistic creativity as it comes out the other side: deadened, perhaps lost, an ember awaiting a bellows.

Who is Langella? Where has he been hiding? I've been watching him in movies for years, but now I'm seeing him: his brown eyes, his blue lips. He's a giant, and he's adept at using his physiognomy against himself when needs be. It's a performance that requires a closed man to open himself for reasons you that would seem to be the opposite of those intended, and Langella carries it of so gracefully.

Ambrose has recently reminded me that I like her even if I didn't go in for that show she used to be on. There's genuine passion in her voice when she talks about Schiller's characters, an unmistakable literary love. You can hear the subtle differences in the way she talks about them and the way she talks about everything else. Her voice is rich with subtext even when her character isn't.

I can never get enough of Taylor, and now I feel like I'll never be able to get enough of Taylor and Lester together. Ariel's honest in a way that kills me because she's caring and she's also self-reflexive. As for Lester, he should be doing Shakespeare every day of his life. And complaining about people glowing at him. Every movie couple should be so luck as to have such natural intimacy and chemistry.

What a gloriously literary movie. I could say nothing better about it than it makes me wish I could read the (non-existent) books discussed therein. A+

Pop Culture Round Up: March 15-21

Sorry I haven't posted more this week, kids. Soon as I get the chance, I'll have more for you. Until then, enjoy your PC fun.

Whoa, what? "Reinventing" Cupid? I wonder how that's going to work.

The accent fun continues apace.

That she is. Wait, is her hair blonde in that photo? Oh, no, just light brown and blonde highlights. I can live with that. A bit fug the photo shoot, though, no?

What kind of movie? Eh, Scott Cohen's still cool.

Yay, math! Wait, what? Movie math, peeps. Don't worry.

Pop Culture Round Up: March 10-14

WHAT? If I knew for certain that Buffy would be available, I would upgrade to a faster connection today.

Damnit, I am going to have to get a faster connection. This is the motherload.

Okay, now this trend is just out of control.

Whoa, Cherry Jones as a female president? Sign me up! But what will her relationship to Jack be?

Doesn't everyone know by now that "In the butt, Bob" is true?

Well, aside from the fact that J.M. Barrie was Scottish, I never much cared for Gywneth's accents, and Kevin's spotty attempt is part of the joy of watching Robin Hood, I quite like this list.

I went ahead and let my jaw drop when I read this news. I realize that glorious Rob Thomas wrote a little Dawson's Creek back in the day, but wouldn't you like to see 90210 filtered through V-Mars's neo-noir (and orange and blue) lens? Or maybe kind of whimsical like that other show he created?

I'm all about this list (esp. No. 10) except number six. If you know you are in for a long movie or that you are the type of person that normally has to go, just make a point of sitting on the aisle and perferrably on the same side as the exit. It works, and it's not nearly the distraction that he's suggesting.

Dialogue avec mon jardinier (2007)

Story: An artist (Daniel Auteuil) on the brink of divorce and fed up with Parisian life returns to his country home, where he employs an old school friend (Jean-Pierre Darroussin) as his gardener.

It's a little facile that someone in need of saving in a movie always seems to find someone to save him or her. Unless, of course, you are watching a dramatic-thriller, in which case the person in need of saving will meet an Artful Dodger-type and have to learn to save him- or herself.

Still, as a man in need of saving, you could do a lot worse than Auteuil. He excels at the uptight Parisien in need of saving, even when he's as loose as the philanderer he plays here. He doesn't go in for big scenes so much as quiet implosions, and it makes the man at the centre seem all the more real for it. Plus he gets to laugh and smile a lot more here than I've ever seen him.

As the man who could save the city man with his country wisdom and down to earth nature, Darroussin goes beyond the archetype. As the eponymous gardener, he has just enough linguistic tics and odd habits to make him a believable human being without pushing him into quirky territory. To be honest, there's something luminous, almost angelic, in his dedication to gardening. To watch him rekindle a decades old friendship with ease is all the more touching.

Director and co-writer Jean Becker has little to do between the talent of his co-stars and the stunning backdrop of the painter's country estate photographed by Jean-Marie Dreujou, so he mostly stays out of the way. I can't blame him. If I had that sun dappled garden, Auteuil, and Darroussin to work with, I'd certainly be tempted to stand back and admire. B+

Pop Culture Round Up

"Cynicism is very easy. You don't have to justify it. You don't have to fight for it." Michel Gondry is lovely man.

This is sort of underbaked, but I feel like I know where Molly Redden is coming from. I'd rather see Casino Royale than The Holiday, too.

Would anyone else rather hear about some of the matches in the poll than in this post?

EW's 30 under 30.

For bacon joke enthusiasts.

I wonder if Simon Pegg could take McG in a bar room brawl, though.

He has carved out quite the niche for himself, hasn't he?

“Multiply the number of big laughs in the movie times $10 million, and you get the ultimate domestic box office,” Mr. Pollock said. “Ten big laughs, $100 million.” Leave it to the Times to end an article about comedies on a sour note.

This is explotative and wrong. Good thing those nice folks at the Vulture are around to take the piss out of it.

Victory in our time!

YES! Yes, yes, yes! The greatest show on television finally has the greenlight for a third season. Will that waitress keep Jason's baby? We'll find out! Will Matt and Julie ever get back together? We'll find out! Will Taylor Kitsch take his shirt off? Probably repeatedly! Best! Show! Ever!

The Short Take: the unexpected edition

Live Free or Die Hard (2007)

Perfect St. Valentine's Day movie: heavy on the explosions and eye candy, light on pretty much everything else. It's delightful popcorn fare that offers little besides Timothy Olyphant's steamy good looks and Bruce Willis and Justin Long getting into silly tiffs. It's everything you want in an action movie. B

Definitely, Maybe (2008)

I think this movie may even been slightly worse than I was anticipating. At least I know that Abigail Breslin's mom isn't dead or out of the picture. In the face of her parents' pending divorce and as the result of her first sex ed class, Maya asks her dad (Ryan Reynolds) how it came to pass that her parents got married and had a child. For reasons that only make sense in as much as they are necessary for the plot to occur, her dad opts to tell her the overlapping story of the three most significant romantic relationships in his adult life and let her figure out which one he ended up marrying. During this time he tells her terrible things about her mom (like how she cheated on him), about himself, and convinces her that he was secretly in love with another woman all along. Aside from a teary-eyed moment, this apparently has no lasting damage on the poor child's psyche. Too bad the entire movie wasn't about Kevin Kline's character. That I'd like to see. C

Being Julia (2004)

This has to be one of the most charming movies I've seen in a long while, and Annette Bening's breathtaking performance as an British stage actress taken in by young American man makes it all the more frustrating that she just can't beat Hilary Swank. I love seeing a woman scorned come out on top. Between Bening and Jeremy Iron's giggling make up scene and Bening's final drink, you pretty much want to pull up a seat and have a beer with her. Plus it's got Bruce Greenwood and Michael Gambon as a ghost. Who can argue with that? A-

The Dreamers (2003)

If I never see this movie again, it will be too soon. It's not that it's that bad, really, but, like The Other Boleyn Girl, it can never seem to make up its mind as to what it wants to be. Why have Matthew (Michael Pitt) narrate much of the story only to show scenes of which he has no knowledge? It's weird sticking point, I know, but it can be easily rectified by not putting so much emphasis on Matthew, Protagonist. The best part of his narration (and his character for that matter) are the monstrously idiotic things he says, and how believable it is that this 20 year old American in 1968 Paris would say or think such stupid things. Even better than that is Eva Green playing Isabelle as a deranged child instead of an adult. If only the movie could stop being so gross and start being as cool as it seems while "Hey Joe" plays over the DVD menu. C

Undertow (2004)

I could not for the life of me figure out why I rented this one not even after I watched the trailer. Do I really like Jamie Bell enough to seek out his movies? That would mean that I have to go see Jumper, so I am guessing not. Having seen it, the only thing I can figure is that a) I read a positive review somewhere (perhaps claiming that it is underrated?) or b) I wanted to hear Philip Glass' sparse and sadly underused score. Director and co-writer David Gordon Green's feature has a groggy, underwater quality to it that draws you in, but it also makes it difficult to connect with the story at large. It focuses on familial overreactions that could benefit from a little more background and exposition. On the other hand, the scene with Dermot Mulroney telling the story of the gold coins has a lasting quality far beyond the rest of the movie. B-

In Bruges (2008)

Premise: After a hit goes awry, boss Harry (Ralph Fiennes) sends hitmen Ray (Colin Farrell) and Ken (Brendan Gleeson) to Bruges to await instructions. When the instructions come, however, it doesn't appear that either one is up to following them.

Tragic. Comic. Tragic-comic. Tragicomic. If you can imagine these two things smushed up together, overlapping in unexpected ways, you can imagine writer-director Martin McDonagh's sophmore feature. His story of guilt, retribution, and spiritual awakening clinches on a dead priest and a midget (Jordan Prentice) filming a dream sequence. It's hilariously sad.

McDonagh's found the best way to work with Farrell's range, in what's probably the best performance I've seen from him since Tigerland, if only because the role in no way depends upon Farrell's charisma. It loosens him up to be a natural, regular sort of bloke. Ray's a mess, but he's not a soapy over-acting mess. He's the quiet kind of mess that shouldn't be left alone to think about what a mess he's in.

Farrell's has an easy chemistry with Gleeson, as Ray's put upon minder who tries to make the best of the situation, sightseeing Bruges' medieval glories. Ken's the only character who's sadder than Ray in all of this, so watching him try to save Ray is all the sadder. He just wants a chance to do some good, to save the next one.

Would that I could see Fiennes this loose on a regular basis. Harry may have principles, but they're fun ones to watch at work. There's also a terrific pair of women, Clémence Poésy and Thekla Reuten, as Ray's love interest and the inn owner, respectively, that brighten up their scenes considerably.

The tragic and the comic go slapping against each other regularly, turning into each other in a split second. It's equally delightful and sad. A-

P.S. To the man who walked up to the other man with a three year old in the theatre, asked pointedly, "Do you know what movie this is?", and reminded the guy that there was a lot of violence to follow: je t'aime.

The Other Boleyn Girl (2008)

Idea: Seeing a chance to swoop into a power vacuum, Thomas Boleyn (Mark Rylance) encourages his eldest daughter Anne (Natalie Portman) to catch the eye of King Henry VIII (Eric Bana) during a visit. But when Anne out rides Henry during a hunt, his attentions turn to Mary (Scarlett Johansson), Anne's younger and married sister. Exiled to France, Anne returns a changed woman, and she sets out to win the King for herself.

Philippa Gregory's best selling novel has the impressive pedigree of having been adapted for the screen by Peter Morgan. Not only did he pen two of 2006's best reviewed movies, but he also wrote the 2003 mini-series Henry VIII, starring Ray Winstone. All in all, I'd say he knows his stuff.

It also has powerful, impassioned performances going for it. This is the best Johansson that we've seen since Ghost World. Her heart and face are open and exposed for the camera. It's a delicate performance, to make Mary chafe against her oppression and grow up, and it's one suited to Johansson's talents.

Portman is, as always, a working wonder. Anne goes from schoolgirl to vamp to beaten down in so short a time, and Portman carries it off with natural grace. It's too bad she's not much of a yeller, though. She gets a bit raspy at times.

Bana is also quite good, although I feel like he plays two Henrys instead of one. It's not that either isn't believable or well done; it's not even that the first Henry couldn't turn into the second. It's more that we are missing a scene or two that would make the transition easier to swallow.

That's the problem, really, with this adaptation: it can't decide what it wants to be. It can't decide if it wants to be about Mary or about Mary and Anne, and it suffers for it. The focus on Mary suggests that it is the former, as well as the fact that we see and hear nothing of Anne when she is in France. But later in the movie we are treated to scenes involving only Anne that we know right well Mary has no knowledge of. Because of those scenes, it feels like screentime is lost to other important aspects of Mary's story, like when, exactly, she fell in love with Henry (her admission comes out of left field) and what became of her husband.

Largely, though, the movie suffers under Justin Chadwick's ridiculously over the top dramatic direction. Give it a rest with the pathetic fallacy and tell me how you get the light to caress Portman's neck like that, would ya? B-

The best way I could sum him up is to say Bob Dylan has never been about to get out of town before the shootin' starts.

After you read my incredibly long review of I'm Not There., did you wish you could read just a little bit more of my thoughts re: Todd Haynes' take on Dylan's life and his music? And, hey, wouldn't it be cool if I threw in some thoughts about Superstar: The Karen Carpenter Story and Velvet Goldmine? Of course you did. So read all about it in my latest Culture article.

Top 10 of 2007

I made a list. Then I whittled it down to a second list. Now I'm presenting you the third. It was tough. It was a spectacular year for movies, and I only saw and reviewed 50 of 'em in the last year. A whopping 22 received grades in the A range (surely I sign that I am going soft?). Here's the cream of that crop:

1. Once
2. No Country for Old Men
3. There Will Be Blood
4. Zodiac
5. Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street
   
6. Gone Baby Gone
7. The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
   
8. This is England
9. Hot Fuzz
10. Grindhouse (theatre version only, which is why . . . )
    
11. Tie: Persepolis and Ratatouille

Okay, so that's technically 13 movies. I've got Grindhouse on there as a whole that is greater than any one of its parts (not that those parts aren't awesome), but I had to go to 11 because Grindhouse, as I knew it, has ceased to exist. You are really missing out, by the way, if you have picked up either feature on DVD on its own on if only because you'll never know what I'm talking about when I menacingly intone, "He's saving up his nickles and dimes . . .". As for the double count for 11, I reviewed the two together, and I don't want to pick between them. So I didn't. Ten's a nice round number that everyone can count to, but it's not always the best number to go with.

As for the rest of it, what a romantic, depressing, funny, crazy, beautiful year. Oh, and a little happy birthday shout out to Feria Films, who turned four last month. It's going to start asking 4000 questions a day, I just know it.

Oscar Wrap Up (2008)

Well, I got a lot of those wrong.

Good for me, though. Good for you.

Good for the Coens even if I didn't think a sweep was forthcoming. I sincerely hope their little corner of the sandbox has room for all those statues. Good for the Academy for rewarding a critically beloved picture instead of a middling one.

Good for she who would call herself Diablo for giving a short, sweet, touching speech in a Betty Page inspired outfit.

Good for the insanely dreamy Javier Bardem busting out the Spanish.

Good for Marion Cotillard for struggling valiantly to deliver her speech in English, for being so genuinely surprised, and for being genuinely happy when Lavergne and Archibald won for makeup.

Good for The Bourne Ultimatum for picking up so many technical awards. People like it, critics like it, why shouldn't the Academy?

Good for Swinton for not only being herself but for giving a delightfully off centre speech.

Good for Daniel Day-Lewis' speech, so strange and smart. If your acceptance speech isn't the moment to refer to your picture as a golden sapling springing forth from Paul Thomas Anderson's head, when is it? And that he wished he had his son, H.W. Plainview with him? Made it seem like even if he was a lock, he still had the good grace to feel awed.

Boo on Rebecca Miller's dress. She's an attractive lady, so I don't understand why she would do that to herself.

Boo on Colin Farrell's hair.

Boo on the lack of screen time for my dear Jon. I'd rather see him, even slightly stiff as he was, than any of those "reflecting on my win" montages. Unless, of course, they could rustle up some more footage of Jack Lemmon. He's great at everything (even beyond the grave).

Boo on having Miley Cyrus say "awesome" during her presentation just because she's young.

Boo on whatever was happening to the bust of a variety of normally good looking women, like Jessica Alba's purple feathers or Anne Hathaway's garland or Jennifer Garner's squashy pancake boob.

Boo on Gil Cates, who hates Amy Adams for some reason, and on Bill Conti, who hates any one who didn't win an acting award. I want to hear what those who made shorts or editing decisions have to say, damn it!

And finally, may the prize of the best part of the whole shebang go to Glen Hansard and Markéta Irglová. Their song was truly the best, their speeches about hope inspiring, and the moment when Jon brought Markéta back out* the most tear worthy.

*We all secretly believe that this was his idea, right? Right.

Stayed tuned tomorrow for the greatest of all post-Oscar events: my top 10.

Oscar Round Up (2008)

To review the rules, click the label and read the original Oscar Round Up post.

Forgotten who's nominated? Here's your hook up.

Last year I was once again stuck at a rate of 5/6, but I am learning to live with it. It's a good ratio if you think about it. This was, as it turns out, a spectacular year for movies, and it's even more exciting to see that a lot of deserving movies are up for Academy Awards this year. Let's move on to the predictions then, shall we?

Performance by an actor in a leading role

George Clooney in Michael Clayton
Daniel Day-Lewis in There Will Be Blood
Johnny Depp in Sweeney Todd The Demon Barber of Fleet Street
Tommy Lee Jones in In the Valley of Elah
Viggo Mortensen in Eastern Promises

This has got to be one of the saddest line ups I've seen in years. Not because the performances are poor. They're are each individually astonishing. It's sad that they all have to go up against each other at the same time knowing only one will win it, especially given that who will win is a virtual lock. It's a pity really. I'd like to see what, say, Mortensen or Depp would say given the opportunity.

Who will win: Day-Lewis.

Who should win: The far recesses of my brain just spat out Steven Buscemi for Interview, if you can imagine, although I'd add Glen Hansard for Once to that list. Choosing amidst the list, it would really have to go to Depp. He sings and slashes throats. What more does the Academy want from him?

Performance by an actor in a supporting role

Casey Affleck in The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
Javier Bardem in No Country for Old Men
Philip Seymour Hoffman in Charlie Wilson’s War
Hal Holbrook in Into the Wild
Tom Wilkinson in Michael Clayton

My, how offensive this category is right off the bat. He's the fucking lead in that movie. His character's name is in the title for pete's sake! Again, this is a sad line up for the reasons stated above. If Holbrook picks up the statue, it will be one of those lifetime-achievement-in-disguise awards, to which I am historically not opposed. If any of them won, really, I don't think I could find a reason to argue. Even so, I'm going to go with . . .

Who will win: Bardem.

Who should win: Affleck, for lead actor. For reals.

Performance by an actress in a leading role

Cate Blanchett in Elizabeth: The Golden Age
Julie Christie in Away from Her
Marion Cotillard in La Vie en Rose
Laura Linney in The Savages
Ellen Page in Juno

Damn it, why did they have to go and make the men's categories so easy to call and the women's so tough? Let's drop Blanchett for her unappealing turn in an unappealing movie, and Linney for no other reason than the fact that is just seems so unlikely. That leaves us with Page (a relative newcomer, which Oscar has traditionally favoured in this category), Cotillard (a young French stunner), and Chirstie (stirring performance in a thoroughly depressing movie). Page is the odds on favourite, although I'd say that the real grudge match is between Cotillard and Christie. Tricky.

Who will win: Christie.
Who should win: Wei Tang for Lust, Caution, Emily Mortimer for Lars and the Real Girl, Markéta Irglová for Once.

Performance by an actress in a supporting role

Cate Blanchett in I’m Not There
Ruby Dee in American Gangster

Saoirse Ronan in Atonement

Amy Ryan in Gone Baby Gone
Tilda Swinton in Michael Clayton

Let's save ourselves some time and admit that it seems to be down to Blanchett and Dee. One of them didn't have a lot of screentime but has a lifetime of work worth rewarding (à la Holbrook) and the other was a knockout in the midst of several deserving performances. She's the very centre of a movie that would seem to have no centre without her. Plus the Academy has a crush on her in a big way. Even so . . .

Who will win: Dee (?). This one's gonna be close. I wish we could see the numbers on it after the envelope is opened.
Who should win: Blanchett. Who am I to deny it?

Achievement in directing / Best motion picture of the year

Directing:

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, Julian Schnabel
Juno, Jason Reitman
Michael Clayton, Tony Gilroy
No Country for Old Men, Joel Coen and Ethan Coen
There Will Be Blood, Paul Thomas Anderson

Picture:
Atonement
Juno
Michael Clayton
No Country for Old Men

There Will Be Blood

There's no better way to handicap one than to invoke the other. A given movie won't necessarily bring home the pair, but it will almost never bring home the big one without at least a director nod.

That said, we can eliminate . . . Atonement. Aw, crap. I didn't think Atonement would win in the first place. Now I am going to have to think about this. Clayton was smart and twisty, and, while everyone likes it, no one seems to love it. If Juno goes home with the prize, it would be the result of No Country and Blood splitting the dark, decaying America vote. I hope it doesn't. Both of the last two films are masterworks bound to resonate for years to come. I may have given them different grades, but I'm not sure one truly is better than the other. They're both outstanding examples of why filmmaking can be vital. They are both nominated for picture, director, and adapted screenplay. It's simply a question of whether there will be a sweep or whether someone will be going home with a consolation prize.

Who will win: Schnabel / No Country for Old Men.
Who should win: I'd be more than pleased to see either of the last two take Oscar home in both cases. Otherwise, stay tuned next week for my Top 10 of 2007.

What a fantastic year for film. I could be wrong about many of these. They're all so hard to call, and I love the Academy for getting that much right. Let's see what fun Jon has in for us come Sunday night.

Persepolis (2007)

Premise: A young girl, Marjane (Gabrielle Lopes as a child and Chiara Mastroianni as a teen and adult), lives through the Islamic revolution in Iran, finding quiet moments to be true revolutionaries with her politically active parents (Catherine Deneuve and Simon Abkarian), her grandmother (Danielle Darieux), and her influential uncle (François Jerosme).

This is an astonishing picture. It takes a time into which we have little insight on the individual level, focuses it through the lens of a precocious child, and refuses to make a big deal out of everything. It's not that there aren't big deals in the movie. There are plenty of them. But it's filled quiet with moments that the movie allows to resonate in ways I don't think it would have if it had been a live action feature. There's an excellent sense of when to linger and when to move on to the next. Most importantly, in her co-written and co-directed film based on her autobiographical graphic novel, Marjane Satrapi doesn't spare herself.

It's that insight into herself, her willingness to show times when she did mean things and times when she did stupid things, that makes this picture, co-written and co-directed with Vincent Paronnaud, so poignant. It's easier to believe someone who doesn't give herself a free pass. And, as such, she gives us wonderful insight into the real dangers of neither assimilating into a monolithic culture nor outwardly rebelling.

I feel like I am being vague about this film, and I don't mean to be. I'm reluctant to spoil even one minute of the gorgeous black and white frames for you. There is something so beautiful and interconnected about this film that I'm not sure we can talk about it until you see it for yourself. Until then, A+.

While I've got you here, I should mention that I also saw another of last year's fantastic animated features: Ratatouille. Oh, how sweet, how funny, how sumptiously wonderful. It really does deserve to be one of the best reviewed movies of the year and one of the biggest commercial successes. I'm at a loss to tell you if I think the moment when a drunk Linguini complains that ratatouille sounds like rat patootie or if the entirety of Peter O'Toole's performance as restuarant critic Anton Ego is the most hilarious bit. Suffice it to say that this movie is charming, clever, and inspiring. Everyone should see it. A+