Name Change

I changed the name of my blog so it sounds more like a cheeky film blog and less like a hip hop group from the early 90's that samples movie scores.

Review: Inception

When the credits rolled and I was thrust back into reality, I only had one word on my mind: Wow. Inception is, by far, the best film I've seen this year. Maybe the best I've seen in a couple of years. I was wary; anytime there's as much buzz around a film as there was around this one you have to be. Often your expectations get too inflated and you feel just a wee bit disappointed afterward, even if you like the film.

I'm not creative enough to have expected more than this. 

I've always been a fan of Christopher Nolan. I saw Memento when it was new and thought that it was an excellent and very thoughtful film. Any one who knows me knows I love Batman, so I loved his exceptional installments in that franchise, particularly The Dark Knight, which I thought deserved at least a nomination for Best Picture, if not the award. However, I think it will be this film that launches Nolan into the pantheon of great directors. Why? Because it's his film. He wrote it and directed it. Unlike Memento, he had $160,000,000 to work with. It's the first time that he's had the chance to take his own intellectual property and expand it to its full potential.

Inception is a visually stunning film. Not just in the usual way, that it has beautiful locales and lush Art Direction, though it does, but in a way that leaves you literally stunned. The special effects are mind-blowing. At one point, Joseph Gordon-Levitt is suspended in an anti-gravity environment ( I won't explain why, since that would spoil the story and probably take several hours) and is moving with such ease and grace that for a moment I actually believed that the actor was floating. When I realized that this wouldn't be possible unless he were in Space or a free-falling airplane, the spell was broken long enough for me to think, "How the hell did he do that?" before being sucked back into the plot. I didn't think about it again until the film was over.

Nolan assembled a stellar cast for this picture. It had just the right balance of  established, well-respected superstars ( Leonardo DiCaprio and Marion Cotillard), solid supporters ( Michael Caine and Cillian Murphy) and the brightest of young talent (Ellen Page and Gordon-Levitt). All turned in superior performances, as expected.

Inception, at its core, is a sci-fi action/adventure film, but it doesn't feel like it. It's an emotional and affecting movie. Yes, there's a lot of action, but the reason it's so good is that the story is good. I wasn't glued to the screen to see the next special effect, though that probably would've been enough, I was waiting to see what happened next. This is not a film about which anyone will tell you to go see it just for the visual effects (unlike another much hyped sci-fi action-er that came out recently).

Nolan was overlooked at the Oscars in 2009. It won't happen again. Inception is the best film of the year so far, and unless someone releases the next Citizen Kane before next March, I predict that it will be duly recognized by the Academy.  

The 82nd Annual Academy Awards: Best Picture Nominees

The Oscars are three weeks away and I'll be doing a number of posts about the event from now until then. This one is about a bit of controversy surrounding the awards this year. The Academy has made the decision to increase the number of Best Picture nominees from five to ten. Most Oscar fans I've talked to think this was an unnecessary and irritating move and frankly, I agree.

The Academy has tried to paint this as an homage to the past, when, during the first decade of the nods, anywhere from eight to twelve films were nominated for Best Picture. They even brought out a sign that had the ten 1939 nominees listed on it and asked who the audience would prefer be taken off to make it five. It's true, all ten were great films. It would have been extremely difficult to cut the list down to five.

But the Best Picture still would have been Gone with the Wind. Hands Down.

The first major problem I have with this change is it implies that the nomination is more important than the award itself. It doesn't matter if you have two, five, ten, or twenty nominees, there can still only be one Best Picture. The Golden Globes nominate ten pictures, but they also give out two awards. If a picture isn't considered good enough by Academy voters to be in the top five, why would it have any chance of being voted the winner by those same voters?

If I believed that the Academy was really doing this to pay tribute to Hollywood's Golden Age, I might be slightly less annoyed. Unfortunately, I don't. Not for a second. This is about The Dark Knight. Yes, The Dark Knight. The Oscars have always been accused of being out of touch with the commercial audience. This is nothing new. However, when Christopher Nolan's blockbuster failed to garner a nomination last year, despite being hailed by fans and critics alike as one of the best films of the year and producing the Best Supporting Actor (Heath Ledger), some claimed that the Oscars had finally fallen off the deep end. Frankly, I thought The Dark Knight was one of the best films of 2008 and would have been glad if it had been nominated, but this issue, for me, is not about the number of nominees, but the courage of the Academy voters. If they had wanted to nominate The Dark Knight, they should have, without worrying about the possible backlash of nominating a Batman movie.

The Academy hopes, I'm sure, that nominating a few more fan favorites might provide a boost in ratings (it should be noted that, even without the benefit of the World's Greatest Detective, last year's telecast was the highest rated in history). However, I don't buy that either. I think you either like award shows or you don't. You think the Oscars are relevant or you don't. The inclusion of UP in the Best Picture category won't change that. In fact, those who don't watch the Oscars have probably already forgotten that there are ten nominees.

It made sense in the early days of the Oscars for there to be more nominees. Under the Studio system of the time, studios would release two or three films per week. Actors would do a movie a month, rather than one per year. There were simply many more films released in those days. Now there's much less to choose from. The Academy claims that the wider net will allow something other than dramas, epic, and dark comedies to be nominated. Here's rub there, they nominated five dramas, two dark comedies, two epics, and UP. None of the films were a huge shock when the nominations were announced. There are no dark horses or sentimental favorites in the group. The only two that might have that kind of appeal is UP, which will no doubt win Best Animated Feature, and Precious, which would have been nominated under the old format, as well. None of them have the feel good credentials of say, Slumdog Millionaire, which won in 2009, or even Juno (the kind of film the Academy supposedly doesn't nominate) which got a nod in 2008.

What the Academy doesn't realize is that the emotional connection that most people have with award shows comes from the Actors, not the films. Look at any "Favorite Oscar Moment" montage, either on YouTube or the ones broadcast during the event, and it will be filled with acceptance speeches from the acting awards, not Best Picture. It's likely that more people will tune in for the possibility of American Sweetheart Sandra Bullock winning Best Actress then the possibility of her film winning Best Picture. Sure, everyone loves the little film that could, but when it comes right down to it, those films are pretty rare.

Finally, there's the telecast. Why would you want to add elements to an event that is notorious for its length? Last year's show was, in my humble opinion, pitch perfect. It was the best telecast the Academy Awards had had in years. They finally realized that putting the nominees and presenters closer to the stage would cut time and confusion. The acting awards took center stage as past winners were brought out to pay tribute to current nominees, which guaranteed that even the most dignified Hollywood royalty were genuinely and visibly moved. Even the musical numbers seemed just a little better. With an extra 15 minutes or so dedicated to Best Picture (remember that each film gets a short segment mixed into the show in addition to the presentation of the awards), one wonders what will be sacrificed to keep the network happy.

I'm sure the awards will still be fun to watch, but I'm really hoping that this convention is dropped in 2011 and they go back to the formula that's worked for the last six decades. Five films.

One Best Picture of the Year. 

Bravo's 30 Even Scarier #22: American Psycho (2000)

This film is on Bravo's 30 Even Scarier Movie Moments. While I'm not a huge fan of that list, I am a huge fan of this movie, so I decided to put this review from 2008 here. It clocks in at #22. 

I really enjoyed this film. It was really, really, funny and very well crafted.

It's the story of Patrick Bateman (Christian Bale), a wealthy wall street hot shot who has buried himself so deeply in the 80's yuppie culture that people don't even know who he is. In fact, several characters think he's actually someone else; all of the names are different. That's how generic he is. The thing is, he's also a murderous psychopath whose losing control of his "tendencies". So, I suppose that makes him unique. Bale is great as a pompous, overstuffed, emotionless psychopath who feels nothing but greed and anger. He does have other interests, though. He loves music, food, and fine things.

This movie, in my opinion, is a black comedy before it's anything else. The murders are more comically over the top than scary; there's not a ton of suspense. But the comment on the absolutely self-absorbed new rich in the 80's is just hilarious. They call each other by the wrong names and don't even realize, nor do they care. They obsess over who has better clothes, a better car, a better apartment, or a better haircut. My favorite scene is when they're comparing business cards, all of which look identical. They're all so preoccupied that they don't even notice if Bateman mentions that he killed someone the night before, or realize that he has a body in his overnight bag (only that it's a great bag).

Now, there's a lot of violence, sex, swearing, and nudity in this film, which makes no difference to me, but if you're offended by such things, you're probably not going to enjoy this movie. However, it's really funny and smart, so if you can stomach it, I highly recommend this film. A dern good time.

Best line in the whole thing: "I have to go. I have a lunch meeting with Cliff Huxtable at the four seasons."

Bravo's 100 Scariest #99: Creepshow (1982)

This has become a favorite of mine. It's #99 on Bravo's 100 Scariest Movie Moments. This post is from 2008.

I loved this movie. I thought it was absolutely hilarious. If you have a dark sense of humor at all, you'll find this very entertaining. I'll go through the segments one by one:

"Father's Day" features a really snooty family and a laughing corpse who wants cake. It's very funny and over the top gorey.

"The Lonesome Death of Jordy Verrill" stars Stephen King himself in the title role. It's the story of a yokel who finds a meteor filled with mysterious goo. Soon, Jordy realizes that touching that meteor wasn't such a good idea after all, as a strange neon green plant begins growing on everything, including him. This one wasn't as funny as some of the others, but it was still really good and Stephen King was great.

"Something to Tide You Over" has Leslie Neilsen in it. 'Nuff said.

"The Crate" stars Hal Holbrook as a professor whose friend finds a pre-historic monster in a crate in one of the school's science halls decides that it's the perfect way to get rid of his overbearing and obnoxious wife, played by Adrienne Barbeau. This one was my favorite. Perfect balance of funny/scary.

"They're Creeping Up on You" features a cold-hearted and agoraphobic old Billionaire (can't help but think Howard Hughes) whose apartment is suddenly overrun by cockroaches. This one was very good, too. The old guy was really funny and the cockroaches were very creepy.

So, if you liked Tales of the Crypt, you'll probably like this. I would recommend it; it's a darn good time.

AFI 100 #9: Vertigo (1958)

This is an interesting film. It's listed as #61 on the original AFI 100, but on the 10th anniversary list (2007) it jumps all the way to #9. They also list it as the #1 Mystery. It's also on Bravo's 30 Even Scarier Movie Moments, at #6. Great Film. Another post from '07. I'll start posting new ones soon, I promise. 

Wow, Hitchcock films continue to amaze me. Vertigo has all the stuff that you would expect from a old Hitchcock classic- Murder plots, intrigue, madness, sleuthing, heartbreak...blonds. They're always blond; you notice that?

Anyway, It's the story of John "Scotty" Ferguson, played by the incomparable James Stewart, who has to retire from the police force because he discovers he has severe acrophobia. It's so bad that he gets vertigo (dizziness, sometimes leading to fainting) whenever he gets up high. He decides to just sit tight for a while before he figures out what he should do next, but his old college buddy calls with a favor to ask. He wants Scotty to follow his wife around; he thinks she might be losing her mind. Scotty is reluctant, but eventually agrees.

I got confused in the middle for a few minutes, but I think you were supposed to. This is an excellent, excellent film. I'm not sure I liked it as much as I liked, Rear Window, but that may just be the lack of Grace Kelly. I would highly recommend it.

Bravo's 100 Scariest #54: The Changeling (1980)

This is one of my favorite horror films, another post from 2007 about #54 on Bravo's 100 Scariest list, The Changeling. Great flick.

There are few films that I can classify as chilling. Scary? Yes. Spooky? Sure. Dare I say, even creepy? plenty. However, there is something about this film that is utterly chilling. It reaches into your bones and latches on. It's rather slow moving, so you have to be patient, because all of that set up time adds to the effect.

I think the reason that this film is so effective is that it's not only creepy, but it's heart-wrenching. All the characters are so tragic. There are no villians, per say. Only victims.

The film stars the incomparable George C. Scott playing a man who has lost his wife and daughter in a tragic accident. He moves from New York to Seattle to start over, and rents a beautiful old house from the historical society to live in. Strange things begin to happen right away and so he sets out on a quest to learn the history of the place. He doesn't exactly like what he finds.

If you like movies that are completely psychological, say, like the original The Haunting; you will love this film. There is only one scene that uses anything even close to a special effect and only one scene where any blood is shown. The atmoshpere of the old house is perfect and the use of sound effectsis amazing.

One last thing, the music is fantastic. This was an HBO movie, so it's a little hard to find, but it's worth the effort. It was released on DVD, so keep lookin'!

(As a side note, I first saw this movie when I was six, and it effected me so that I didn't sleep for a week. Literally. Didn't sleep for a week.)