Showing posts with label Academy Award Nominee. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Academy Award Nominee. Show all posts
A Single Man Review
Posted by Should I See It
on
Saturday, March 27, 2010
, under
A Single Man,
Academy Award Nominee,
COlin Firth,
Julianne Moore,
Matthew Goode,
Nicholas Hoult,
Tom Ford
|
comments (0)
Film: A Single Man
Director: Tom Ford
Starring: Colin Firth, Julianne Moore, Matthew Goode and Nicholas Hoult.
Plot: A gay college professor in 1960s Los Angeles struggles come to terms with the death of his lover. The film follows him on the day he intends to commit suicide.
Let me be clear, A Single Man is not a movie for choc top eating or popcorn munching. Any noise emanating from the audience is a distraction. Not only because this film is very quiet (literally), but this film requires focus in order to fully appreciate the beauty and the detail. Director (and former fashion designer) Tom Ford has been criticised for overdesigning the film, but the highly stylised visuals works in its favour. Going into the film I did expect it to look good (what else can you expect from the man who single-handedly revived Gucci?), but what I did expect was for Ford to be a decent storyteller. Every frame has been carefully constructed to let you a little bit more into George’s world: to show what it’s like for a man struggling to get through the day as normally as possible. I felt as though I was watching film as art as opposed to film just telling a story.
The film tends to lose a little bit of pace in the final act. The minimal dialogue wears a little thin and the film has a little bit of a struggle to keep itself moving all the way to the end.
Thankfully we have Colin Firth in the leading role to distract us from the pacing problems. He gives a wonderfully un-Colin-Firth-like performance as George, the man at the centre of the story.
Without Firth’s skill, without his ability to withhold and yet display so much, George would disappear, swallowed by the heightened visuals. But Firth holds his ground. You only need to watch Firth's face as he is told of his lover's death. The camera presses slowly in. You see his disbelief, his struggle to maintain control, his anger that he cannot attend the funeral. It’s truly a marvellous scene, for which Firth deserved the actual Oscar, not just the nomination.
As for the supporting cast: Matthew Goode plays George’s lover Jim, seen through flashbacks, gives a performance that I actually for once, like. But I felt his character lacked definition. But then I suppose its George’s idea of Jim that’s important. George cannot live without him, whatever type of man he might be.
Julianne Moore’s role as George’s perpetually drunk friend Charley, is a little more than an extended cameo.
Nicholas Hoult is good, as college student Kenny, who takes an interest in George, but not quite up to par with Firth. I see a lot of potential in him, but maybe I was distracted by the amount of make up or fake tan that he was wearing. I’m pretty sure he had more make up on his face that the rest of the cast combined (females included).
However, I did find the relationship between George and Kenny (Nicholas Hoult) to be a little disconcerting: mainly because of the whole teacher/ student thing. I also am uncomfortable with George replacing Jim with Kenny. People tell me that George want replacing Jim, he just found something to live for…. But I disagree. So much is made of the age difference between George and Jim and George and Kenny that the film seems to be drawing an intentional parallel between Jim and Kenny. Is there really that much difference between one you can’t live without and the one that you can live for?
The film tends to lose a little bit of pace in the final act. The minimal dialogue wears a little thin and the film has a little bit of a struggle to keep itself moving all the way to the end.
Thankfully we have Colin Firth in the leading role to distract us from the pacing problems. He gives a wonderfully un-Colin-Firth-like performance as George, the man at the centre of the story.
Without Firth’s skill, without his ability to withhold and yet display so much, George would disappear, swallowed by the heightened visuals. But Firth holds his ground. You only need to watch Firth's face as he is told of his lover's death. The camera presses slowly in. You see his disbelief, his struggle to maintain control, his anger that he cannot attend the funeral. It’s truly a marvellous scene, for which Firth deserved the actual Oscar, not just the nomination.
As for the supporting cast: Matthew Goode plays George’s lover Jim, seen through flashbacks, gives a performance that I actually for once, like. But I felt his character lacked definition. But then I suppose its George’s idea of Jim that’s important. George cannot live without him, whatever type of man he might be.
Julianne Moore’s role as George’s perpetually drunk friend Charley, is a little more than an extended cameo.
Nicholas Hoult is good, as college student Kenny, who takes an interest in George, but not quite up to par with Firth. I see a lot of potential in him, but maybe I was distracted by the amount of make up or fake tan that he was wearing. I’m pretty sure he had more make up on his face that the rest of the cast combined (females included).
However, I did find the relationship between George and Kenny (Nicholas Hoult) to be a little disconcerting: mainly because of the whole teacher/ student thing. I also am uncomfortable with George replacing Jim with Kenny. People tell me that George want replacing Jim, he just found something to live for…. But I disagree. So much is made of the age difference between George and Jim and George and Kenny that the film seems to be drawing an intentional parallel between Jim and Kenny. Is there really that much difference between one you can’t live without and the one that you can live for?
Should I See It?
A Single Man Official Site here.
The Blind Side Review
Posted by Should I See It
on , under
Acadamey Award,
Academy Award Nominee,
Sandra Bullock,
The Blind Side
|
comments (0)
Film: The Blind Side
Director: John Lee Hancock
Starring: Sandra Bullock, Tim McGraw, Quinton Aaron and Kathy Bates
Plot: The story of Michael Oher, a homeless and traumatized boy who became an All American football player and first round NFL draft pick with the help of a caring woman and her family.
I have decided that i do not like American Football. I always thought that Australian Rules Football was awful, but American Football is decidedly worse. As far as I can tell, the game basically boils down to who can throw the other team down on the ground the fastest.
Well, at least that's the job of Michael Oher (Quinton Aaron) on his school football team in The Blind Side. Football coaches form universities far and wide come to see Michael flatten one of his teammates during practice. Why he is throwing them on the ground, I have no idea (the football speak is lost on me). But I guess as any Australian watching a movie about American football you only have to know is that there are a lot of spills, and all you really have to pay attention to is the score at the end of the game.
I guess that's one of my main dislikes about The Blind Side: there's a lot of football, when really the engaging part of the story is the Tuohy clan taking in Michael and making him part of the family.
I am surprised that The Blind Side was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Picture (I don't think anyone thought it might win, but it was nominated so that's enough), It's enjoyable, sure, and there are a few good laughs, but it's not really that different to any other film of this genre.
Sandra Bullock aside, most of the acting is mediocre, the biggest disappointment being Quinton Aaron as Michael Oher. He doesn't have that *thing,* that watchability, that intensity, that power to make us REALLY care for HIM. The audience feels sympathy, but it's more about his circumstances than his character. Which is a shame, because I really wanted to like his performance, I even tried to like it; but to no avail I'm afraid.
Bullock is undoubtedly the best thing about the film. Her performance elevates the film from being too clichéd and saccharine and makes it bearable. Who else could deliver dialogue such as:
LEIGH ANNE'S FRIEND: You're changing that boy's life.
LEIGH ANNE: No, he's changing mine
without making the audience cringe? Bullock's fast talking, sometimes brash, but always incredibly generous Southern matriarch Leigh Anne Touhy is a breath of fresh air.
Bullock runs rings around her co-stars, who try in vain to match her. Tim McGraw as her doormat husband fails miserably. Only Kathy Bates as Michael's Democrat tutor comes close.
Having seen the film, I am still surprised at Bullock's Academy Award win. Yes, she was good, but I am so over people winning awards because “it’s their turn.” Maybe everyone was just so surprised that Bullock could do much more than her usual from com fare that they jumped at the chance to recognise it?
To conclude: Bullock is great, everyone else is so- so, but the film, dare I say, it is exactly what you would expect: designed to leave you feeling all warm and gooey inside at the end.
Should I See it?
Yes, Bullock's performance makes it worth it.
The Blind Side Official Site here
Avatar Review
Posted by Should I See It
on
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
, under
Academy Award Nominee,
Avatar,
James Cameron,
Sam Wothington,
Sigourney Weaver,
special effects
|
comments (2)
Film: Avatar
Director: James Cameron
Starring: Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldana, Giovanni Ribisi and Sigourney Weaver.
Plot: A paraplegic marine dispatched to the moon Pandora on a unique mission becomes torn between following his orders and protecting the world he feels is his home.
James Cameron really wants to be Peter Jackson. I mean really, really wants to be Peter Jackson. Avatar is sort of like a poor man’s Lord of the Rings, but set in the future instead of the distant past. Actually to be more accurate, it’s more like The Lord of the Rings meets Fern Gully meets The Little Mermaid. I shudder to think what The Lord of the Rings would have been like if James Cameron had got his hands on them. (I think that is the most times anyone has ever used The Lord of the Rings in one paragraph!)
For the biggest movie in the world, it is sooooooo lame. The plot…wait, what plot? I guess you can call the very fine piece string that ties the scenes together a plot. It’s essentially Pocahontas with CGI, but it doesn’t bring anything new to the story, or allegory, whatever you want to view this as.
The plot is too dumb (please forgive me for using that word, but it’s true)… it’s okay for it to be simple, but in a film with so much money and set in a world with so much potential it is seriously lacking in depth. I guess it is fitting in a film with so much CGI is driven by a story that is entirely superficial. I would have liked James Cameron to be a bit cleverer in presenting his pro-environmental, anti-colonial (not so subtle) subtext.
The opening and the third act were a bit boring. The second act, however, where most films start to get a bit lost, is where Avatar takes off. As Jake explores and begins to understand the Na’vi (the blue creatures), the film actually becomes emotionally engaging. It’s (almost) interesting when Jake becomes emotionally involved with the fate of the Na’vi.
At a mammoth 161 minutes, Avatar is too long. It could have ended at the destruction of the Home Tree (I actually thought that was the end), and that would have been a much more interesting ending. Seeing the humans being confronted with their guilt would have been very effective. As it stands, the ending is incredibly predictable and does not hold much hope for the human race.
Sam Worthington does precisely what is asked for him and that is: be the hero. My only gripe: All that money in the budget and they didn’t allow for a dialect coach for him? I’m all for and Aussie ‘making it’ in Hollywood, and I believe Worthington is very, very talented (I’ve been watching his career since I saw him in Bootmen in 2000) but his accent waivered in and out so often that it was distracting.
As for the rest of them: Zoe Saldana is very good, Sigourney Weaver was annoying and Giovanni Ribisi does his best Ari Gold impression. There’s nothing earth shattering about the performances or characters in this film.
Even though the story elements left much to be desired, I applaud the technology that was created and used in this film. The use of motion capture (or whatever it was) to create the blue creatures (or the Na’vi or the Avatars, whatever) is impressive, particularly in the capturing of the facial expressions of the actors. Some of the environments created for the film were also very pretty. Jake’s first experience of the real Pandora was full of wonder. I especially liked how things would glow for a few moments after the Na’vi touched them.
But the film as a whole left little to no impression on me. I couldn’t remember the names of the characters or the people or anything to do with the world. Anything that I have mentioned I have had to look up. I just take that as proof of how uninvolved I was with the story.
Should I See It?
Well, you probably have already seen it, so you know that Avatar is an overhyped, overblown, glorified cartoon. And that’s me being generous.











