I've finally made my decision. Now, without further ado, my list is as follows:
1. The Departed
2. Pan's Labyrinth
3. Little Children
4. Children of Men
5. The Prestige
6. Letters From Iwo Jima
7. Little Miss Sunshine
8. United 93
9. Babel
10. The Last King of Scotland
Sunday, February 11, 2007
The Queen
Just as I suspected. The Queen is a movie solely based upon its leading performance. I had to dive right into that because this is the most essential information about the film.
I don't know, the subject matter doesn't seem entirely interesting enough to hold a film. Frankly, if Helen Mirren's performance wasn't as perfectly spot-on as it was, the film wouldn't really have a saving grace. Well, Michael Sheen also does quite a good job. The acting in the movie, in general, I guess, should get a round of applause. But it's the actual movie itself that I just find to be slightly interesting. It's very much a character study about a character that I had no reason to be very interested in. I got the depth of what was trying to be portrayed pretty early on... and it just stayed there. I was just not very satisfied with this film. Perhaps Rotten Tomatoes and it's near-perfect rating of it had me expecting a masterpiece, but this was just not too much.
Now Helen Mirren will win the Oscar, and she deserves it, too. No one is as convincing at being someone that they are not as she is at being the queen. But as for the other awards, including Best Picture and Best Original Screenplay, I would be baffled if it one them. It's definitely not one of the best movies of the year, and the screenplay was hardly noteable.
I really think I was expecting more. Disappointment is never good. Especially this close to the Oscars.
C+
IMDB information on THE QUEEN
I don't know, the subject matter doesn't seem entirely interesting enough to hold a film. Frankly, if Helen Mirren's performance wasn't as perfectly spot-on as it was, the film wouldn't really have a saving grace. Well, Michael Sheen also does quite a good job. The acting in the movie, in general, I guess, should get a round of applause. But it's the actual movie itself that I just find to be slightly interesting. It's very much a character study about a character that I had no reason to be very interested in. I got the depth of what was trying to be portrayed pretty early on... and it just stayed there. I was just not very satisfied with this film. Perhaps Rotten Tomatoes and it's near-perfect rating of it had me expecting a masterpiece, but this was just not too much.
Now Helen Mirren will win the Oscar, and she deserves it, too. No one is as convincing at being someone that they are not as she is at being the queen. But as for the other awards, including Best Picture and Best Original Screenplay, I would be baffled if it one them. It's definitely not one of the best movies of the year, and the screenplay was hardly noteable.
I really think I was expecting more. Disappointment is never good. Especially this close to the Oscars.
C+
IMDB information on THE QUEEN
Thursday, February 01, 2007
New Layout -- Top Ten List Almost In
Anyone who's been here before may notice that I've changed my layout a bit. I'd been meaning to change some things around and I finally got around to it. Hope it makes things more convenient for you, the reader.
As for my Top Ten of 2006 List goes, I've pretty much created a list already. However, I want to give all films a chance, so I will not make my list until I've seen The Queen, at the very least. If I can fit in Flags of Our Fathers and Notes on a Scandal I will, but I have a feeling they wouldn't make my list. I'll see them for nomination purposes before I make my Oscar predictions. But my Top 10 list should be ready with in the next week or so. Patience.
As for my Top Ten of 2006 List goes, I've pretty much created a list already. However, I want to give all films a chance, so I will not make my list until I've seen The Queen, at the very least. If I can fit in Flags of Our Fathers and Notes on a Scandal I will, but I have a feeling they wouldn't make my list. I'll see them for nomination purposes before I make my Oscar predictions. But my Top 10 list should be ready with in the next week or so. Patience.
Dreamgirls
Although taking a little time away from Los Angeles, I can never take time away from the movies. I finally caught Dreamgirls after a month of staying away because of the constant sold out theaters. I certainly did not get a sold out crowd; I went on a Monday night in New Orleans. There were 4 people in the theater.
As for the film, I enjoyed it. Not one of the best musicals I've seen, but it was definitely a fun film. The talent is tremendous. I can't even go 3 sentences without mentioning how wonderful Jennifer Hudson is. At the start I was hesitant. I thought, "could someone who has never acted before really win an Oscar? I mean, she's just singing." But her performance is amazing. "And I Am Telling You I'm Not Going" is the highlight of the film and one of the greatest moments of cinema from the past year. That song/scene alone will win her the Oscar or my name isn't Jon. And believe me, it certainly is.
The rest of the movie isn't bad. It's not one of those things where just a few aspects of it are good. There are loads of good performances. I was particularly impressed by Jamie Foxx, a man who I've been quite unimpressed with in the past. I thought he did a better job in this film than he did in the Oscar-winning performance of Ray. Ah well. Not that I want him to win. I think Eddie Murphy did a very good job as the James Brown-like Jimmy Early. And the songs are good, too. It's just fun to hear the different songs and go through the times with the music.
One thing I thought was going to be true about the movie was that it was going to feel a little odd being on the big screen since a lot of musicals don't translate well. However, this did just fine. The way they incorporated the music into montages and background worked perfectly in cinema. This is obviously something that wouldn't have happened on the stage, so the movie wasn't just a replica of the stage version, either. It's nice to see adaptations take some freedom with things.
As for what isn't hot about the film, there are problems with length (as there usually are in musicals), some performances that were less than extraordinary, and some dissatisfaction with the wrap up of the plot. But hey, who really cares?
But I'm not surprised about it not getting the Oscar nomination. I liked the film a lot, but I don't think it's one of the 10 best films of the year. It's not really better than the films nominated for best picture. But it's still an enjoyable movie. One of the most fun films of the year. It just wouldn't be right to go down in history as the "best film of 2006" when it's really just good entertainment with a few amazing performances. It's fine. Let it destroy the competition in every category it's nominated in. Forget the loss for best picture. It'll live on.
B+
IMDB information on DREAMGIRLS
As for the film, I enjoyed it. Not one of the best musicals I've seen, but it was definitely a fun film. The talent is tremendous. I can't even go 3 sentences without mentioning how wonderful Jennifer Hudson is. At the start I was hesitant. I thought, "could someone who has never acted before really win an Oscar? I mean, she's just singing." But her performance is amazing. "And I Am Telling You I'm Not Going" is the highlight of the film and one of the greatest moments of cinema from the past year. That song/scene alone will win her the Oscar or my name isn't Jon. And believe me, it certainly is.
The rest of the movie isn't bad. It's not one of those things where just a few aspects of it are good. There are loads of good performances. I was particularly impressed by Jamie Foxx, a man who I've been quite unimpressed with in the past. I thought he did a better job in this film than he did in the Oscar-winning performance of Ray. Ah well. Not that I want him to win. I think Eddie Murphy did a very good job as the James Brown-like Jimmy Early. And the songs are good, too. It's just fun to hear the different songs and go through the times with the music.
One thing I thought was going to be true about the movie was that it was going to feel a little odd being on the big screen since a lot of musicals don't translate well. However, this did just fine. The way they incorporated the music into montages and background worked perfectly in cinema. This is obviously something that wouldn't have happened on the stage, so the movie wasn't just a replica of the stage version, either. It's nice to see adaptations take some freedom with things.
As for what isn't hot about the film, there are problems with length (as there usually are in musicals), some performances that were less than extraordinary, and some dissatisfaction with the wrap up of the plot. But hey, who really cares?
But I'm not surprised about it not getting the Oscar nomination. I liked the film a lot, but I don't think it's one of the 10 best films of the year. It's not really better than the films nominated for best picture. But it's still an enjoyable movie. One of the most fun films of the year. It just wouldn't be right to go down in history as the "best film of 2006" when it's really just good entertainment with a few amazing performances. It's fine. Let it destroy the competition in every category it's nominated in. Forget the loss for best picture. It'll live on.
B+
IMDB information on DREAMGIRLS
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Letters From Iwo Jima
Not the best movie in a foreign language of the year (as the Golden Globes would leave you to believe), but mostly because there were some great ones this year. This is a truly great movie about a side of the story of World War II that isn't told very much. Japan. The movie is moving. It's gripping. It's great. The pacing can be much at times and the subject matter is chaotic... but it works. It's a very important film, and will definitely be remembered as such. Clint Eastwood needs to stop making such fantastic movies. He's becoming too good.
B+
IMDB information on LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA
B+
IMDB information on LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA
Sunday, January 07, 2007
Golden Globe Nominees
Interesting choices. Here's my take on what needs a take.
The double nominees are proof of the laziness of whoever is in charge of choosing the nominees. Leo is wonderful, I swear I love him. I wanted him to win for The Aviator. But to be nominated twice? There were better performances than either or both of his films (The Departed/Blood Diamond) in Dramatic roles. Probably. I'm not going to think of one. And Clint Eastwood for both of his Iwo Jima movies? I haven't seen either of them yet, so I won't be prejudiced. But I highly doubt they are both so much better, direction-wise, than the rest of the films this year. In fact, the fact that Alfonso Cuarón wasn't nominated proves it. And putting Scorcese in there is just because they have to.
What is the deal with the Foreign Language films? Why is Mel Gibson's movie in there? And Letters From Iwo Jima? I believe those are both movies made by Americans. They are really cutting away from the foreign countries by choosing two films by American directors. Not that it matters, since Pan's Labyrinth is a shoe in. :)
The lack of separation of Adapted and Original Screenplays is annoying. The Departed is taken almost directly from its original form, Infernal Affairs. Granted, it probably is the best screenplay, but it's adapted, so doesn't deserve to even be nominated, let alone win.
Ben Affleck is nominated for an award. For his acting. That's kind of funny.
It would be stupid if Sacha Baron Cohen won for Acting in Comedy. He is just doing a character the exact same way he has been doing it for years, only now it's in a movie. It's not deserved. The other nominees in that category aren't too great, anyway. Johnny Depp should just get it, because he's always good as Jack Sparrow and it would please everyone. That blockbuster, moneymaking bastard.
Very good to see that Little Children got recognition as a Best Picture nominee.
Very bad to see Children of Men is nowhere in sight in the entire away ceremony.
I won't pick my choices, because this isn't the Oscars. It's not important yet.
The double nominees are proof of the laziness of whoever is in charge of choosing the nominees. Leo is wonderful, I swear I love him. I wanted him to win for The Aviator. But to be nominated twice? There were better performances than either or both of his films (The Departed/Blood Diamond) in Dramatic roles. Probably. I'm not going to think of one. And Clint Eastwood for both of his Iwo Jima movies? I haven't seen either of them yet, so I won't be prejudiced. But I highly doubt they are both so much better, direction-wise, than the rest of the films this year. In fact, the fact that Alfonso Cuarón wasn't nominated proves it. And putting Scorcese in there is just because they have to.
What is the deal with the Foreign Language films? Why is Mel Gibson's movie in there? And Letters From Iwo Jima? I believe those are both movies made by Americans. They are really cutting away from the foreign countries by choosing two films by American directors. Not that it matters, since Pan's Labyrinth is a shoe in. :)
The lack of separation of Adapted and Original Screenplays is annoying. The Departed is taken almost directly from its original form, Infernal Affairs. Granted, it probably is the best screenplay, but it's adapted, so doesn't deserve to even be nominated, let alone win.
Ben Affleck is nominated for an award. For his acting. That's kind of funny.
It would be stupid if Sacha Baron Cohen won for Acting in Comedy. He is just doing a character the exact same way he has been doing it for years, only now it's in a movie. It's not deserved. The other nominees in that category aren't too great, anyway. Johnny Depp should just get it, because he's always good as Jack Sparrow and it would please everyone. That blockbuster, moneymaking bastard.
Very good to see that Little Children got recognition as a Best Picture nominee.
Very bad to see Children of Men is nowhere in sight in the entire away ceremony.
I won't pick my choices, because this isn't the Oscars. It's not important yet.
Pan's Labyrinth
I really loved Pan's Labyrinth. It was a great movie. I mean... well, I walked out of it thinking, "I cannot think of anything that I disliked about that film." And that is true.
The film has a wonderful parallel between a fairy tale world and harsh reality. It captures human emotion. It is visually wonderful. It has great pacing and a wonderful balance of time between different parts of the movie. It is rich in all ways. And in the end it gives a lot of room for reflexion. It is sad and philosophical. I can keep stating these facts of the movie, but it just remains that it is wonderful and must be seen. This is one of the best movies of 2006, but will probably just be tossed in the "Foreign Language" category of the Oscars. Psh.
A
IMDB information on PAN'S LABYRINTH
The film has a wonderful parallel between a fairy tale world and harsh reality. It captures human emotion. It is visually wonderful. It has great pacing and a wonderful balance of time between different parts of the movie. It is rich in all ways. And in the end it gives a lot of room for reflexion. It is sad and philosophical. I can keep stating these facts of the movie, but it just remains that it is wonderful and must be seen. This is one of the best movies of 2006, but will probably just be tossed in the "Foreign Language" category of the Oscars. Psh.
A
IMDB information on PAN'S LABYRINTH
Friday, January 05, 2007
Perfume: The Story of a Murderer
I was going to watch Freedom Writers for a screening at work, but then I discovered Perfume was going to be playing, as well. I wanted to see Perfume a lot because the trailer looked interesting and it was directed by the director of Run Lola Run. This seemed more appealing than Freedom Writers.
Perfume started off well. I enjoyed the beginning quite a bit. Visually, the film is very pleasing. Director Tom Tykwer creates very visually spectacular films, and this is no different. The story worked for a while, too. I enjoyed the parts with Dustin Hoffman and a lot of the introductory stuff. The movie had me for a while.
Then the movie kept running. And not a lot happened. The film suffers from the same weakness that many films are suffering for lately: it is too long and too slowly paced. The movie starts to feel long after a while. And it is quite long. 2 and a half hours, at least. And not a lot happens, really. And it works at the beginning, but I was dosing off towards the latter half of the film. I woke up (and proceeded to wake my arm up) in time to catch a spectacular orgy sequence. Ah yes. But by this time the movie just felt lifeless. I got what happened at the end, both plainly and thematically. But I didn't care. Somehow I went from fairly engrossed to apathetic. And that just isn't good.
I guess there's enough there for others to maintain interest. It's not a bad movie, really. There are just problems. I don't feel it could be considered a great movie, but a co-worker of mine walked out proclaiming its greatness (but, then again, he was very excited by the said orgy sequence). So opinions can be all over the place. I'd just warn those who are easily bored to steer clear.
C+
IMDB information on PERFUME: THE STORY OF A MURDERER
Perfume started off well. I enjoyed the beginning quite a bit. Visually, the film is very pleasing. Director Tom Tykwer creates very visually spectacular films, and this is no different. The story worked for a while, too. I enjoyed the parts with Dustin Hoffman and a lot of the introductory stuff. The movie had me for a while.
Then the movie kept running. And not a lot happened. The film suffers from the same weakness that many films are suffering for lately: it is too long and too slowly paced. The movie starts to feel long after a while. And it is quite long. 2 and a half hours, at least. And not a lot happens, really. And it works at the beginning, but I was dosing off towards the latter half of the film. I woke up (and proceeded to wake my arm up) in time to catch a spectacular orgy sequence. Ah yes. But by this time the movie just felt lifeless. I got what happened at the end, both plainly and thematically. But I didn't care. Somehow I went from fairly engrossed to apathetic. And that just isn't good.
I guess there's enough there for others to maintain interest. It's not a bad movie, really. There are just problems. I don't feel it could be considered a great movie, but a co-worker of mine walked out proclaiming its greatness (but, then again, he was very excited by the said orgy sequence). So opinions can be all over the place. I'd just warn those who are easily bored to steer clear.
C+
IMDB information on PERFUME: THE STORY OF A MURDERER
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Best of 2006 List... COMING SOON
Best of 2006 Top 10 list coming once the following movies have been viewed by myself:
Pan's Labyrinth
The Queen
Letters From Iwo Jima
Flags of Our Fathers
Dreamgirls
Notes on a Scandal
...and perhaps a few more. But once those have been viewed, I'll try my best to compile my list. I already have a crude list of the very best of what I've seen so far (narrowed down to about 12). So probably by the end of January I will have a list. Hopefully within the next few weeks.
Pan's Labyrinth
The Queen
Letters From Iwo Jima
Flags of Our Fathers
Dreamgirls
Notes on a Scandal
...and perhaps a few more. But once those have been viewed, I'll try my best to compile my list. I already have a crude list of the very best of what I've seen so far (narrowed down to about 12). So probably by the end of January I will have a list. Hopefully within the next few weeks.
Monday, January 01, 2007
Ratings
Due to a request (I guess my work is read?), I'm adding ratings with each writing I do on a movie that I have viewed. However, I can't promise that the paragraph or whatever I write about the movie will justify my rating. The rating is just a simple way of seeing my feeling on a movie. The words are just thoughts. As for the complete reason behind things... well, one could just ask me.
(I rate this post a C+, it's a bit boring).
(I rate this post a C+, it's a bit boring).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)