On Trial: Oscars '09

Opening Statements: Last night were the 81st Academy Awards. As per usual, I set aside my evening to watch the entire ceremony. Also, as per usual, I had a giddy feeling throughout the whole thing. I love the Oscars.

This year I hadn't seen many Oscar nominees. I wanted to the AMC showcase of all 5 Best Picture nominees, but lack of sleep and feeling ill the morning of trumped that idea. Instead I watched The Visitor on DVD to have at least seen one of the Best Actor nominations (And Richard Jenkins is from DeKalb, IL, where I went to college).

Movies that had any nominations that I saw prior to the ceremony:
The Visitor (1 nomination)
The Dark Knight (7 nominations, 2 wins)
Tropic Thunder (1 nomination)
Vicky Cristina Barcelona (1 nomination, 1 win)
WALL-E (6 nominations, 1 win)
Iron Man (2 nominations)
Kung Fu Panda (1 nomination)
Presto (1 nomination)
which adds up to 20 nominations and 4 wins. A small percentage of the total. So unlike most people I won't be analyzing who should of won, who got their due, who was robbed, etc. I simply don't have the knowledge to compare.

I can, however, take a look at the ceremony itself.

This year was different. The new art department decided to take it another way and they sure succeeded. Whether or not every new idea should remain is up for debate, though. Is it guilty of making the Oscars impossible to watch, or innocent and a great addition to the showcase.

Cross-Examination

Music
Having Michael Giacchino run the music was a great idea. First off, I love his music from Lost. As I am a musician myself, I loved the idea of getting them out of the pit and onto the stage with everybody else. Some of the re-orchestrations were downright inspired as well. The swing Lawrence of Arabia that was mentioned brought chills down my spine. Also, having the orchestra play a medly of the nominated scores was also nice.
Verdict: Innocent

Opening Act
As much as I was wary of not having a comic as host, I thorughoughly enjoyd Hugh Jackman. His line of being an Australian playing an Australian in a movie called Australia had me laughing for a while. The song and dance number was awesome. Not only did it give a good shout out to the snubbed The Dark Knight, it included a nod to Iron Man as well. The final line of him being Wolverine had me cheering on my couch. It was awesome!
Verdict: Innocent

Acting Categories
This is why they kept the presenters secret. As much as I enjoyed the idea of past winners speaking directly to the nominees, I miss the film clips. In past years if I hadn't seen a movie by then the movie clips during the acting categories would give me an idea of what they did to get the nomination. I don't see either being any shorter than the other, so I'd say go back to the orignal format.
Verdict: Guilty

Clumping Categories
To save time, categories were often clumped together with the same hosts. While it saved time, it should be limited. Having Will Smith present for four different categories became a bit monotonous. Perhaps break up the sound away from Visual Effects and Editing? The technical awards are interesting but a bit boring. Having them together and not split up adds to that.
Verdict: Guilty

The Musical Song & Dance Number
It was fun. I am not a Beyonce fan, but she did have a movie out last year so it makes a bit of sense to have her. But I do feel the singers from High School Musical 3 and Mama Mia should have had a bit more to do rather than one song blurb and mostly act as backups. It took me a while to realize that they were even in the ensamble.
Verdict: Innocent

The Judd Apatow Film
Hilarious. While Pineapple Express was not one of my favorite Apatow films, they characters worked perfectly here. I laughed at comparing The Love Guru to Slumdog Millionaire. One a Razzie winner, one an Oscar winner. James Franco's reaction to himself in Milk was priceless.
Verdict: Innocent

The 2008 Clip Shows
I did not enjoy the look backs to 2008 as much as clip shows that deal with a longer history. However, the idea of giving credit to the films of the year that were not nominated for big awards was a caring touch. They did run a bit long, though. Also I wish they had had some words for which movies I was seeing clips of. Most I could recognize, but not all.
Verdict: Innocent

The Departed Clip Show
The short film itself was great, from what I could see. The camerawork when showing it was horrid. Zooms, pans, trucks. These were not necessary AT ALL. It was distracting. There were times where I could not read the names of those departed due to the camera trucking far away from the screen. Just stick with a direct feed of the screen from now on.
Verdict: Guilty

Closing Remarks
5 Innocent aspects to 3 Guilty. I think the Oscars were an improvment over last year in many aspects but not all. I have no idea how long it went or how previous ones have gone, so the overall time length has no bearing on my verdict.
Final Verict: Innocent. The Oscars have come a long way and have done a great job looking back. A few of the changes should be reconsidered or at least tweaked. With that the 2010 Oscars could be one to remember!

Random Review: No Man's Land (2001)

No Man's Land (2001), directed by Danis Tanovic, is a film set during the Serbian-Bosnian conflict. Two men, one from each side of the conflict, are stuck in a trench between the two front lines. A third man is lying injured on a jumper mine which will explode if he is moved.

At first the film feels as if it could go in the direction of having the two rivals begin talking and realizing that they are not as different as they had thought. You're left hoping that they could remain friends once the conflict is over. But No Man's Land is smarter than that. Old habits die hard and these soldiers do not change their ways within the day that the entirety of the films chronology takes place. Instead the two continue their escalating conflict with each other, injuring each other in the trench. When they are finally saved, one exacts his revenge by killing the other before meeting death himself at his U.N. saviors.

A third point of view beyond the two warring soldiers is from a U.N. sergeant who at first defys orders to help save the men from the war torn no man's land. We connect with him as he watches the two men that he worked hard saving die. The third solider in the trench is also a victim of fate. His mine cannot be disengaged so the U.N. pulls out, leaving him to explode.
The film ends with an aerial shot of the third man laying on the mind as the image fades to black. We have no knowledge of his actual fate and can tell our minds the mine may be a dud and he eventually walks away. But that would not fit with the tone of the film. One U.N. director also stated that he will be sending false information to both sides that the other side will be attempting to take the center trench. Will one of them move the mine? Which side? The Serbians, whose mine it was originally? The Bosnians, with their injured man upon it? We have no answers, much like the question of war itself.

The film takes a stance on action towards conflict. The U.N. sergeant says "Neutrality does not exist in the face of murder. Doing nothing to stop it is, in fact, choosing. It is not being neutral." It does not condone mere talks, nor does it condone being a warhawk. In the middle the answer lies. As the soldiers find themself in the middle of the two lines, our way must follow.

Part of the film feels like All Quiet on the Western Front (1930). That film also dealt with a pair of opposites stuck in a hole in the middle of the original no man's land. This time instead of one soldier immediately killing the other and having to deal with just a dead body, the tension from both sides comes to a clash. Either man can kill the other easily. The tide turns multiple times with one having a weapon, then the other, then both. The first soldier who may be identified as the films protagonist at first eventually becomes more bloodthirsty than the other. There is no good or bad unless they are both good and bad.

No Man's Land was awarded an Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film (Bosnia) in 2002. It beat out, among others, Le Fabuleux destin d'Amelie Poulain (2001, France) or Amelie for short. Amelie currently rides high with audiences, holding a position in IMDB's Top 250. No Man's Land only edges into the bottom of the list at times. Both films I have found worth my time and I could see myself watching Amelie more than No Man's Land. No Man's Land is a bitter fruit to swallow but indeed more filling. In this case I believe the Academy has made the correct choice.

2008 haikus...

To end the year 2008, I've decided to write some reviews for the (sadly few) 2008 release movies I saw this year. I either saw these in the theater or watched them on DVD. They are listed in alphabetical order

The Bank Job
No big explosions
But still has Jason Statham
How can this all be?

Be Kind Rewind
Jack Black and Mos Def
Recreate some cinema
Trailer has more laughs

The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian
The book was boring
And the movie not much more
Where is number three?

Cloverfield
Shaky camera work
Works better than the Blair Witch
Depressing ending

The Dark Knight
Though very hyped up
Emotional tour de force
Did not disappoint

Forgetting Sarah Marshall
Two guys, two hot babes
And add Seth from 30 Rock
Mix for raunchy fun

Get Smart
Never saw old show
So I can't compare the two
But still a fun film

Hancock
A non-comic hero
Is brought to life on the screen
Stick with the comics

Horton Hears a Who!
Unlike other films
Dr. Seuss not grave rolling
Haikus do not rhyme

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
Indy 4 is fun
Survives a nuclear blast
Indy immortal

Iron Man
Born to play the role
All audiences adore
Hope sequel is good

Mama Mia!
Pierce Brosnan can't sing
But most performances shine
Not a bad chick flick

Meet Dave
Has great title
But movie is lackluster
Some jokes are fun, though

Rambo
Was nothing but gore
Bloody was to kill people
Film should not exist

Speed Racer
Panned by critics
But deserves another look
New way to make film

Star Wars: The Clone Wars
I am quite biased
I love all that is Star Wars
Belongs on TV

Strange Wilderness
Waste of my minutes
Very few jokes got a laugh
Grandma's Boy better

Tropic Thunder
Can this really be?
A good Ben Stiller movie?
Yes and funny too

Vantage Point
Did not expect twist
But the gimmick got old fast
Has stable acting

WALL-E
Pixar's greatest yet
Which is saying quite a lot
Must get the Blu-ray

In Defense: Spider-Man 3...

Defending Spider-Man 3 is akin to jumping in front of a bullet headed for a freight train. It really doesn't need any help. With a $336,530,303 US gross and more possible sequels on the way, it was a powerhouse of a movie. Why does it need defending?

Love it - then hate it critics.

As part of May 2007's threequel "series," Spider-Man 3 was poised for a huge audience attendance. It was a huge hit that weekend, with lukewarm but not bad reviews from newspaper critics.

Then comes what I call the Phantom Menace syndrome. While in the theater and directly thereafter the audience member is thoroughly enjoying the movie. It isn't until later that they compare it to what has come before (this is especially true with franchise films). Upon comparison they find the movie isn't as high quality as the one that preceded it. Then the backlash hits. They feel tricked out of their money into seeing a movie that wasn't as good as before. Entirely disregarding their earlier feelings and sometimes even the movies quality on its own, a relentless tirade of anger emanates out via a keyboard, flooding movie blogs and message boards with hate.

Spider-Man 3 is not a bad movie. Nor is it a great movie. But due to its following of fantastic Spider-Man 2 and also being lumped into a grab bag of movies during 2007's threequel summer it gets put down far more than simply being judged by its own merits.

There are a few items within that keep getting brought up during negative reviews: Peter's "emo" stage and the multiple villains.

Peter's "emo" stage could have been handled better but its failure could be traced back to a single shot: Peter messing up his current hair into his "emo" hair. With such a focus on the hair, the subtleties of Toby Maguire's acting is lost. Now all the audience sees when Peter is in "emo" stage is that somehow his hair is different. While it gets darker, it does not appear to be hair dye as much as lighting effects. Also, the intensity in Toby Maguire's eyes as he acts in the less comical scenes are enough to sell the change in character. Alas that is not the case. Instead the hair was setup to have the focus and it is through the preposterousness of that change that the later comic scenes of Peter trying to be cool lose their touch as the audience already is thinking "so the hair makes him evil? or stupid? wtf?" It's like that Treehouse of Horror segment from the Simpsons where Homer gets a hair transplant from Snake and becomes evil. It destroys all suspension of disbelief.

The multiple villains could have worked better if there was no focus on Sandman's and instead some actual screentime for Venom. In the context of this movie, Topher Grace was perfect as Venom. Instead of the bodybuilder type from the original comics, we have a skinny kid that mirrors Peter very much. Harry Osborn as the new Goblin does not muddle to much up plot wise as he is only a physical villain for the first fight near the beginning. After getting his memories back later he becomes more of a psychological villain. James Franco's performance I think is the best of the whole cast, even when taking into consideration the overdramatic "so good." His transition to a hero at the end made me almost stand up in the theater and cheer. It is too bad he died. I would have loved to see him in further films.

The movie has good and bad points with its large collection of characters. Characters introduced in earlier movies get more screen time. Peter's landlord quits being a two dimensional character and has a bit of depth in his few scenes. Dr. Connors is also around in a more plot oriented fashion (and without having to be The Lizard!). The main problem is the introduction of new characters. And of course it is always a pleasure to see the characters from the Daily Bugle. The best scene in the whole movie is when J Jonah Jameson is in dire need of a camera to shoot pictures of the final battle.

Captain Stacy could have been replaced with a generic police captain but since the name recognition did not overweigh the role there wasn't much of a problem there. Gwen Stacy, on the other hand, was little more than a plot device to add some jealousy from Mary Jane. At least the filmmakers did not try to fit in the plot of her dying.

Spider-Man 3 is a movie that deserves another look. While not as good as the other two in the series, it is not the utter rubbish that some would want us to believe.

Within the Muck: Hudson Hawk...

Ah, Hudson Hawk. The Bruce Willis-written, 1991 Razzie award winner for Worst Picture, Screenplay, and Director. The movie that only made back approximately a quarter of its budget. A contender on many box office bomb top-number lists. What's possibly good in that?

One man: David Caruso

Playing Kit Kat, a member of the Candy Bar gang, he is notable for being seen but not heard. Maybe that is where the appeal lies? He does not communicate orally, but rather by messages printed on small cards.

Now why is this something different that it bears notation out of the drudge that is the rest of Hudson Hawk? Well, most of the characters within are downright annoying! It's usually quite an accomplishment for the most exciting character of a story to have zero dialogue, but when the rest of the cast are either boring or obnoxious the task becomes much easier.

He also disguises himself as other characters. This does not push forward the plot in any way. At all. But it's a refreshing change of pace. It raises odd questions as to why he mimics the characters? Is he ordered to do it? Does it coincide with him being mute? How much does he enjoy it?

As being a copycat goes, first he is seen dressed as Bruce Willis's character Hudson Hawk, copying his moves before getting hit in the face. He responds by warning Hawk of a later hazard. Later on he is mimicing Andie McDowell, which raises a whole new set of questions. When we last see him he is dressed as a stone statue.

Sadly, he is killed while as a statue, mute to the end. He gives a final card to Andie McDowell saying that he always liked her before dying. Such an interesting character given such a pointless death.




Sadly I wasn't able to find many high quality images of Kit Kat online. I would love to have an image of him in statue form. And perhaps a larger one in the red dress.

Another movie blog...

Yes, another movie blog. Just another blog to give the opinions of a single person and then have others crawl out the woodwork to either agree or believe those comments have "raped their childhood."

I'm probably a bit different from most movie bloggers. There are many times were I thoroughly enjoy movies that as a cinephile or film critic I am supposed to despise with all of my being. But I enjoy movies from all genres and qualities. I'm not going to compare a summer blockbuster to an independent art house or foreign film. Pirates of the Caribbean is no Lives of Others, but nor is Lives of Others a Pirates of the Caribbean.

To illustrate this, I like:

• Michael Bay films, especially Armageddon & Transformers
• threequels like Spider-Man 3 and Pirates of the Caribbean 3: At World's End
• Star Wars prequels and even Star Wars: Clone Wars
  

But yet give me British era Hitchcock, Akira Kurosawa, or anything else that is offered. I will watch it. I may not like it, but I give everything a chance.

My four favorite directors are quite common (Hitchcock, Kurosawa, Spielberg, Scorsese) and I am on a quest to see every since piece of work each has directed. I'm not there yet, but my journey into movies is only a few years old. I'm a fan of Star Wars and Transformers, play the drums and work as a freelance video editor.

I have a few ideas of reoccurring segments for this particular blog. One is In Defense, where I analyze a critically panned movie and try to pull to the forefront the diamond shining in the rough. Another is Within the Muck, where I will take an admittedly sub par movie and showcase interesting segments that shine out and deserve recognition, if not for the horrid surrounding it.

I hope you return to read. I look forward to write.

--David Schulz