I’ve been a huge admirer of Jeff Bridges for years now. Very few actors in Hollywood have as diverse of a work history

As Jack Baker, a pianist in The Fabulous Baker Boys

as him. Bridges has never shied away from independent films, and also has never vied like crazy for commercial results. He has played a ship captain, a psychotic kidnapper, a gymnastics coach, a misunderstood genius pianist, and, of course, The Dude. Bridges has built a resume that defies convention and avoids being typecast as any particular character. This is a rare feat. Actors often times stay within one genre, or stick with what works for them at the box office. Bridges has delved into any genre you name.

This is actually what makes Crazy Heart so amazing. Bridges ability to elevate any material has been his strength throughout his career. The story of Crazy Heart is something that has been done many times before. This is the story of Bad Blake, a former country superstar that is now a full-blown alcoholic playing gigs in bowling alleys and dive bars. He drives himself to his shows and gets drunk before and during, resulting in sloppy sets. The public that does come to see him still embraces him as they are flattered he has come to pay them a visit.

This pattern finally breaks when he meets his new love in Jean Craddock, played by Maggie Gyllenhaal. She is a reporter that comes to interview him to get her music writing career off the ground. These two engage in a passionate and believable affair, despite their vast age difference. Though I never have been a fan of Gyllenhaal and think she is one of the most overrated actresses of her generation, she is solid here and plays her side of the love story with intensity, sympathy and real confusion in her simultaneous love and resentment.

Bridges transcends any sense of familiarity of a common story and gives this material new heart in his commanding performance. Though there are many scenes where he is loaded to the gills, you never get tired of seeing him refuse to wrestle with it. He is such a fine actor, he makes every minute of this journey one that is worth taking. He simply takes your breath away with full embodiment of Bad Blake. One aspect that is fresh about this story is that no one has the typical trite freak-out that often times accompanies these subject matters. When the final straw in his drinking pops up, what follows in his actions are new and non-melodramatic. It is actually handled with dignity and class.

One of the themes in this film is the battle of who and what is “real country” and who is just posing. Colin Farrell plays Tommy Sweet, Bad Blake’s protégé. Blake is resentful towards this younger star’s success and how he is playing big shows. In interviews he refuses to talk about him, to give the younger star his due. And not until we meet him can we make up our minds about this shady figure. Farrell has a mere twenty minutes of screen time, if that. And in those minutes, he is the best that he had ever been. His small but meaningful performance and interaction with Bridges’ Blake gives the latter character a new dimension. The protagonist is fleshed out tenfold in those brief moments. My favorite scene of the entire movie is when they duet on stage, and while the two of them alternated lyrics, their facial expressions replacing dialogue, an entire relationship played across the scene. It was magnificent.

This is a film about how life just happens. It is a film about how events continue to occur that challenge you. It teaches you that through your interactions with people in your life, whether they are good or bad, you have to rise to the challenge. These characters in the film don’t run away from anything. They face their demons; they accept them. Though that acceptance doesn’t always mean that everything turns out they way they want, it turns out that they can move forward instead of dwell. Acceptance of oneself is the ultimate goal. Even if there have been less than stellar decisions.

SPOILERS…DON’T READ IF YOU HAVEN’T VIEWED

At the end of the movie the two lovers don’t end up together. At first view, I was disappointed and thought that this wasn’t in line with everything that had transpired so far. But as I thought about it, I realized how great it was to see a film that depicted the reality of life. Bad Blake had his career and his sobriety for his personal success. The peace that they made at the end was all the closure we needed. They forgave each other and realized what they gained from their relationship. This was touching and real and it was nice to see it on the silver scree for once.

Filed under: Bad Ass Leading Men, Oscars, Relationships, silver screen by admin
Tags: « Colin Farrell - Crazy Heart - Jeff Bridges - Maggie Gyllenhaal - Oscars »
No Comments »

So the Academy Awards Nominations were announced today, and as per usual, comedies were ignored.

The biggest, although not surprising, slight is the absence of the comedies The Hangover, (500) Days of Summer, and It’s Complicated. This is why I have such trouble with the Oscars. As almost any actor will testify, comedy is much harder than drama the majority of the time. The skills that it takes to get timing down are often thought to be much more difficult, as it either succeeds, or falls flat. This is a great article on the merits of comedy and its place in the industry. So, with two of the most inventive comedies to come out in years (The  Hangover and Summer) to be ignored for the best picture nomination, the Academy continues with their prejudice towards this all important and gracious genre. Shame on the Academy.

Let’s go over five major categories:

Best Picture:

AVATAR, The Blind Side, District 9, An Education, The Hurt Locker, Inglorious Basterds, Precious, A Serious Man, Up, Up in the Air

I’m surprised that The Blind Side and A Serious Man got the nominations that The Hangover and Star Trek deserved. I think that The Blind Side came through due to its phenomenal box office gross of over $200 million and obviously all the praise and affection Sandra Bullock has garnered. My prediction for the win is going to be AVATAR, not necessarily because it is the best movie as whole,but because of what it accomplished at the box office (the new number one of all time) and the new film/computer technology.

Best Director

James Cameron (AVATAR), Kathryn Bigelow (The Hurt Locker), Jason Reitman (Up in the Air), Quentin Tarantino (Inglorious Basterds), Lee Daniels (Precious)

I don’t think that any of these come as much of a surprise. Many think that Clint Eastwood was a contender for Invictus, but I think that Reitman edged him out and is certainly building a resume here, with his second nomination in three years (First for Juno). But I think that since Bigelow has snatched up every prize, with the exception of the Board of National Review and the more commercially driven Globes, that she will beat out Cameron for her direction on The Hurt Locker.

* Fun Fact: Bigelow and Cameron used to be married. If she wins, she will be the first female ever to win this prize.

Best Actor

Jeff Bridges (Crazy Heart), George Clooney (Up in the Air), Colin Firth ( A Single Man), Morgan Freeman (Invictus), Jeremy Renner (The Hurt Locker)

There really aren’t too many surprises here, with these five men being the most nominated of the awards season. I was surprised to see Morgan Freeman get so much love throughout the season for a movie that didn’t make much of an impression. I guess when you pair up with Clint, you’re good to go. But Jeff Bridges will take this prize home and he deserves it. The performance he gives in Crazy Heart is as good as it gets and he has the edge over Clooney because of his time in the business (and a previous four nominations with no win) and the legacy he will leave in the industry. It is his time.

Best Actress

Sandra Bullock (The Blind Side), Helen Mirren (The Last Station), Meryl Streep (Julie & Julia), Carey Mulligan (An Education), Gabourey Sidibe (Precious)

This is probably the category that is the least predictable this season. Though they had a lot of buzz going into the awards season, the newcomers Carey Mulligan and Gabourey Sidibe have lost all momentum that put them into even being nominated. This race is between Streep and Bullock. Streep was outstanding in Julie & Julia and a lot of people feel it’s time that she won again since her last Oscar was for Sophie’s Choice in 1983. She could definitely take it. But then a lot of people think it’s time to recognize Bullock. She has been in the industry for so long and this is her first nomination. She plays a real life heroine, much like Julia Roberts did to take home the statue with Erin Brockovich (Julia Child was a celebrity chef). I’m going to predict Bullock because of the momentum she has built up over the last several awards shows. But Streep could easily pull the upset (she did tie with Bullock at the Broadcast Film Critics and also won the Globe). But Bullock got the SAG, which gives her the edge.

Best Supporting Actor

Christoph Waltz (Inglorious Basterds), Woody Harrelson (The Messenger), Christopher Plummer
(The Last Station), Stanley Tucci (The Lovely Bones), Matt Damon (Invictus)

This doesn’t need much of a debate. Waltz will take the Oscar for his hilarious and simultaneously ruthless performance in Inglorious Basterds. No one can beat him. Brilliant script, brilliant performance. He was like a kid in a candy store, just chewing up that dialogue.

Best Supporting Actress

Mo’Nique (Precious), Penelope Cruz (Nine), Vera Farmiga (Up in the Air), Anna Kendrick (Up in the Air), Maggie Gyllenhaal (Crazy Heart)

How the overrated and unlikeable Gyllenhall weaseled her way into this category for the first time is beyond me. She has not been nominated the entire season! I think she rode Bridges’ momentum and the Academy wanted to give the film another nod. The supporting actress statue goes to a newcomer a lot of times, and I think that Anna Kendrick would have stood a great chance had Mo’Nique not been her competition this year (nice to see her also break away from the horrid Twilight films and leave Stewart in the dust with her brave performance). She has taken every award thus far, and will finish with the big prize for her dramatic turn in Precious.

Any thoughts where I am wrong? Correct me=)

Filed under: Comedy, Oscars, Quentin Tarantino, Sandra Bullock, silver screen by admin
Tags: « Academy Awards - AVATAR - Christoph Waltz - James Cameron - Jeff Bridges - Kathryn Bigelow - Mo'Nique - Oscars - Sandra Bullock »
No Comments »

I was so fired up for Mel Gibson’s comeback. Public meltdowns aside, I have a soft spot for the actor, as he has played some of the most iconic roles in the action genre to date including: Mad Max, Martin Riggs, and William Wallace, to name a few (am I going to get totally panned for saying I also have a soft spot for
Rick Jarmin, his character in Bird on a Wire with Goldie Hawn?? Come on, when it’s on television, you know you tune in. Right? Right?). So when the trailer for Edge of Darkness came out, I was pumped and looked forward to the film for the past couple months.

After all, Mel hasn’t been on the silver screen since his solid and sympathetic turn in M. Night Shyamalan’s last great film, Signs. He did, of course, make two turns of directorial brilliance in The Passion of the Christ and Aplocalypto (both are must-sees, though I rate the latter higher for its innovation and direction). And then he had his brushes with the law that made headlines.

After the great work he did in the past ten years in front of and behind the camera, I am genuinely surprised he thought that this film was the one to make his return. The film is a political thriller about a nuclear research plant and the implementation of illegal weapons. It sets up the U. S. as the villain without touching upon the current state of nuclear development across the world. I’m pretty tired of this common and cliché point of view that so many films take nowadays.

The film is simply boring and by the numbers. Mel plays Thomas Craven whose daughter, Emma (Bojana Novakovic), comes home for a break from her work at the aforementioned plant. She is sick and keep throwing up and when she is about to tell her father, a Boston cop, what is going on, they open the door to  leave for the hospital, and she is shot dead. The writers use the red herring of leading us to believe that the assassin was gunning for Mel’s character, but we know that there is a lot more to this and now we are led down the path of Craven’s investigation.

What follows is trite action sequences, boring dialogue, and over the top acting. Damian Young is just too much as the Republican Senator Jim Pine, who is trying to cover up the nuclear research company’s actions. The inaccuracy of this aspect of the story is startling. Not until after this movie was written (based off of a BBC miniseries from 1985) was the first Republican senator elected in over 30 years to said state? Me thinks this is trying a little too hard to be overly political.

Politics aside, this film tries to take us in the territory that Liam Neeson’s Taken did a year ago. That film did what this film tries to do much better. The action was tighter, and script more coherent (albeit much more simple) and the characters more sympathetic and interesting. One thing that does surprise me about this movie is that it was directed by Martin Campbell, the man who gave us the brilliant remake of Casino Royale with the best action sequences in years.

Here he fails, and lets us down. And the bigger shame is that he lets Mel down, too.

(Word is that Mel is gearing up to star in Under and Alone, a film based and the true account of an ATF agent that infiltrated the Mongol Nation motorcycle gang. Now THAT would have been the comeback we have been waiting for).

Filed under: Action, Bad Ass Leading Men, silver screen by admin
Tags: « Action - Iconic Roles - Mad Max - Martin Campbell - Martin Riggs - Mel Gibson - Poor Politics - Taken - William Wallance »
No Comments »

So…I don’t get it. WHIP IT! Is now added to my growing list of box office conundrums. Why did this picture not do well at all (in fact it basically tanked) at the box office? Oh, that’s right, the public seriously does not recognize quality fare when it is right in front of their faces. Actually, WHIP IT! smacked the audience in the face with its righteous previews and amazing marketing campaign. Alas, the public ignored it, despite stellar reviews.

And, as I am always honest with my readers, I missed it in theaters, too. In my defense, it was in and out before you can say “Go back to your turtle shell!” (see said movie for more amazing zingers) so I can honestly say that I wish I would’ve supported it.

In the film, Ellen Page continues to cement her role as the new Molly Ringwald of the current generation. This picture, along with her star making turn in Juno, have fashioned her into the sort of neon-alternative-grunge-punk rebellious poster girl this generation needs. I had Winona in all her angsty glory in Realty Bites and Drew (the Director of said film) in Mad Love. Young girls have Ellen Page, and they should be grateful for that and be taking notes for how to stay out of the “in crowd.” The interesting thing about Page’s role in this film is that it is very similar to her role in Juno. The AMAZING thing is that she fashioned this role into an entirely different entity. She puts a whole new spin on being original and unique. Young girls can take notes from this. They should be. Have you seen how slutty they dress nowadays?

The plot of the film is simple: Teenage girl being forced into pageants by her over-bearing mother falls in love with a novelty known as roller derby and keeps it a secret. Well, we all know how this turns out. The parents always find out. One parent makes good on their daughter’s happiness, etc… Oh, and there is a boy. The thing that I did think was really amazing about this film was the truthfulness brought forth by the succinct and honest dialogue. This script is an example of how you make an old story fresh. I cared about what the characters were saying to each other. The exchanges between mother and daughter were painstakingly and lovingly honest. This was a film about a relationship and the war of understanding between a mother and daughter.

I also thought that this being Barrymore’s first attempt at directing, it might get a bit messy. But, she has crafted a film about the struggle of love and acceptance that we can all relate to. I think that she was the perfect chick for the job because she has had public obstacles of her own to overcome, and infused her own knowledge and growth into the movie. Her loving nature comes through in each and every scene, even the aggressive derby ones! Her open nature is felt in every scene, in every line. And the bonus is that she adds a bit of humor now and then in a small role.

WHIP IT! Is a movie I highly recommend. It gives a voice to young chicks everywhere that they should pursue whatever gift they possess, no matter how random. But it ultimately deals with our relationships with ourselves: how we treat and nurture our individuality and what we think is best for us. It certainly is a struggle, and often times we have to push outside our comfort zone. But no matter what, it is always worth it in the end. It gives us attitude. And an attitude is irreplaceable.

***Zoe Bell is in this and for the record, I want to see more of this woman. She was Uma Thurman’s stunt double in the Kill Bill films and had a lead part in Tarantino’s Death Proof (one of his most over looked and underrated films if you ask me. I know, I know. This opinion is ALWAYS  met with disdain. But I stand by my view). Her few scenes add an instant spark to the movie and cannot wait until her next big move. We’re watching you Bell. Dazzle us. Please

Filed under: Bad Ass Heroine, Drew Barrymore, Killer Dialogue, Quentin Tarantino, Relationships, silver screen by admin
Tags: « Drew Barrymore - Ellen Page - Life - Quentin Tarantino - Zoe Bell »
No Comments »

So I’m a huge fan of anything that has to do with Science Fiction films. I’m a big fan of movies that have the whole, “one man must strive to save the world-alone” theme. I’m a big fan of Denzel. And I’m an even bigger fan of Mila Kunis (sacrilege, I know. But she kicks ass). So The Book of Eli was a movie that I very much enjoyed. I didn’t completely love it, but it won me over due to its message (though a bit heavy) and leading characters.

The first hour of this movie was fantastic. We had Denzel soldiering on across the screen in a barren wasteland, formerly known as the lush and beautiful country of America. A war had hit that took out most of the countries people and the architecture and resources on it (referencing current conflicts). Now the remaining people trade items such as handy wipes and clothes instead of money to survive. This is an obvious allegory for the apocalypse described in The Bible, and I think that anyone that has seen the previews of this movie has already deciphered that is the book that Denzel’s Eli is carrying.

(A central theme side note: it was really nice to see a Hollywood movie portray the importance of the Christian religion, along with all others, for once. Usually it is torn down and portrayed as the enemy. Not in BoE. This film actually is wonderfully old fashioned in the way that it conveys a message of the critical importance of the written word. In a world where more and more people are into technology and ignoring how shitty devices such as Kindles are ruining our society, it was nice to see both religion and books being touted as the last cornerstones to our humanity.)

Back to the action. This film borrows many scenes from Road Warrior and that didn’t bother me one bit. It sort of became an homage as the time went on (lol). By the time the first action sequence rolls along and Denzel takes out about five different thieves, I was ready to go. The thing about Denzel is that even with lesser material, his presence onscreen is captivating and you listen to what he is saying without realizing you are doing so. This is one of the anchoring factors in the movie and it works with its theme in that the main character is a “prophet.”

Gary Oldman plays the villain (of course, though it’s been a bit since we’ve seen him as nasty as he was in Leon) and Kunis is his “daughter.” He forces her to spend the night with Denzel in order convince him to help him find The Book, unaware he possesses it. One thing leads to another and Kunis and Denzel forge a father/daughter relationship and venture out together to take to book to The West. Kunis is spunky and tough and this time gets to display a lot more action heroine range than she was allowed to in the dreadful Max Payne.

The story drags towards the end and the action lessens, delving into the critical message. I really liked this film. The best action sequence plays around Kunis’ escape when she is recaptured by Oldman and had me almost jumping out of my seat due to her female bad ass glory (Note to Tarantino…….When you make Kill Bill 3……consider Kunis for the role of BeBe….PLEASE). Nonetheless, many plot holes pop up and when you finally “see” Denzel’s character’s flaws, you will be scratching your head how in the world he pulled that off….unless you just want to have “faith” in the movie and be a believer.

That what I chose…

Kunis’ shades are super sweet, too. So even if the apocolpyse comes, we can still have great sunglasses

Filed under: Bad Ass Heroine, Quentin Tarantino, SciFi, silver screen by admin
Tags: « Book of Eli - Denzel Washington - Mila Kunis - Road Warrior - Science Fiction »
1 Comment »

Oh James Cameron, how I love thee. You gave me Aliens, my all-time favorite sci-fi flick. You also proved with this film that sequels can be even better than the original. Then you gave us T-2, and cemented that you were the king of the sequel (no Oscar-acceptance-speech-for-Titanic pun intended). What followed was the fun action romp of True Lies, which, for better or for worse, was just fun with no substance. And then came Titanic. Though audiences to this day are divided on whether this was a great film, I fully support all the praise it garnered. Who cares about the special effects here, what was so remarkable about this movie was the touching and emotionally rich story you wrote. No one saw that coming. And! You proved all the naysayers wrong who predicted failure for this piece, due to budget and endless delays.

And now, Mr. Cameron, you gave us AVATAR. A film so unique, that it is winning award after award just because of the way it looks (this is not a knock, this is actually kind of a compliment). The technology you used was remarkable, especially since you are the inventor, at least partially, of said film technology. So, why, oh why, did you have to rip off Dances with Wolves and take the movie down a notch?

It is interesting, if you think about, because historically, all of your films have had an exceptionally strong story and point of view. Even the previously mentioned True Lies. Sure, it was comedic action, but the plotline was coherent, and had enough originality to make you forget that it has been done many times before. Aliens had a phenomenal story (and if you ever check out the director’s cut, the story and dramatic arc of Ripley’s character because even more developed due to many deleted scenes). Titanic, The Abyss, and don’t even get me started on The Terminator, which was so original in that tapped into everyone’s worst nightmare and developed into a fully realized human love story enveloped in the action ride!

So when I was sitting, joyfully, through the scenes in AVATAR, my mind was repeating DwW the entire time. Plus, you had to add in one of the most hated elements of films in today’s sensitive climate: the anti military aspect. Now, I have read interviews that you have done, and I understand that you have said that you were honoring the military by making the hero an ex-marine and the film is actually criticizing the ill use of military forces. (And Sam Worthington is nothing less than outstanding in this role. He gave an understated and welcoming performance of insecurity and bravado that I hadn’t seen in awhile). So, okay, James, I sort of get that. But why couldn’t you have put an original spin on it?

I love your work, Mr. Cameron. I think that AVATAR will go down in history for changing the face of cinema (for better or for worse, you people decide. Does this mean soon, we won’t actually be seeing people’s faces and their expressions? I think not, as we will have the indies). The film is remarkable beautiful and I enjoyed every moment, despite my critique. But I hope that as you’re basking the success of AVATAR (and we know you are and how big your head gets when these massive successes happen) you are simultaneously putting an exceedingly original spin on your next movie, . Think Ripley, think Linda Hamilton…think…..oh who am I kidding? I’ll see whatever you give us….probably more than once=)

Filed under: Open Letter, silver screen by admin
Tags: « Aliens - AVATAR - celeb commentary - James Cameron - Open Letter - Sam Worthington - Science Fiction - silver screen »
No Comments »