And the Stoney Goes To…..

I know you’re all on the edge of your seats (or toilets), but I should probably clarify something before I hand out these awards: I am not a real film critic.  I’m a stoney film critic.  The qualifications for the two are very different.  One requires a degree, training, and an analytical mind.  The other requires some weed and the desire to spend time alone in dark rooms.  This ain’t the oscars, its the stoneys.  Keep that in mind. 

I was tinkering with ways to have my readers act as presenters, but I just couldn’t figure out how to make it work.  It basically would’ve required that each presenter write an introduction to each award.  I know I could tap the right people for something like that, but I didn’t think I’d get all the intros submitted in time so I tabled the idea.  Next year, there will be presenters. 

And now, without further ado, the 2010 Stoney Awards:

The 2010 Stoney Award Nominees!

Is it possible Charlie Wax will be snubbed at the stoney awards?

OK gang, its that time of year again (for the first time).  No need to dance around it.  Let’s get to the cock. 

Best Picture: Shutter Island, MacGruber, Inception, Greenberg, True Grit, The Kings Speech

Worst Picture: Legion, From Paris With Love, Season of the Witch, Copout, A-Team, Hereafter

Best Lead Actor/Actress: Will Forte- MacGruber, Mia Wasikowska- Alice In Wonderland, Jeff Bridges- True Grit, Natalie Portman- Black Swan, Hailee Steinfeld- True Grit, Greta Gerwig- Greenberg

Best Supporting Actor/Actress: Matt Damon- True Grit, Nic Cage- Kick Ass, Barbara Hershey- Black Swan, Hugo Weaving- The Wolfman, Christian Bale- The Fighter, Geoffrey Rush- The King’s Speech

Worst Lead Actor/Actress: Jonathan Rhys Meyers- From Paris With Love, Lucas Black- Legion, Dany Boon- Micmacs, Mary Louise Parker- Red, Jessica Biel- The A-Team, Bradley Cooper- The A-Team

Worst Supporting Actor/Actress: Gemma Atterton- Clash of the Titans, Michael Sheen- Tron: Legacy, Tyrese- Legion, Kevin Pollack- Cop Out, Frankie and George McLaren- Hereafter, Ben Barnes- The Voyage of the Dawn Treader

Best Director: Christopher Nolan- Inception, the Coen Brothers- True Grit, Martin Scorcese- Shutter island, Tom Hooper- The King’s Speech, Tim Burton- Alice In Wonderland, Ben Affleck- The Town (just kidding)

Worst Director: Kevin Smith- Cop Out, Ridley Scott- Robin Hood, Louis Leterrier- Clash of the Titans, The Hughes Brothers- The Book of Eli, Paul Haggis- The Next Three Days, Pierre Morel- From Paris With love

Best Aesthetic: The Wolfmin, Alice in Wonderland, Tron, Inception, Shutter Island, Micmacs

I’ll be awarding a gold, silver and bronze stoney for each category, Olympics-style.  I merged the “actor” and “actress” awards because I only saw and reviewed 30 movies this year, so I felt like splitting the genders diluted the field somewhat.  There will also be a few special awards for….outstanding achievement….in the feld of…..excellence. 

I’ll give you the weekend to ponder and consider.  The results drop Monday.

O Blackest Of Swans

not mutually exclusive

Black Swan came out almost two months ago, so I have to assume if you were going to see it, you’d have seen it.  It feels a little silly doing a review this far after the release, but I’d mainly just like to get a dialogue going.  I feel like this movie warrants discussion, and I want a few outside opinions for a variety of reasons. 

First of all, I was extremely hung over when I saw it.  And whats worse, I hadn’t eaten anything other than an apple that day.  My stomach really goes haywire these days if I don’t eat a decent breakfast.  In high school and college I never ate breakfast.  Even my first few years in the real world* I’d often go without.  Now the second my stomach is empty it becomes a crippling malady.  I’m confused by this change.  It’s unsettling. 

*You know, working for my uncle, spooney sales, medical studies.  The real world. 

The combination of my hangover, an empty stomach, and the fact that I’m grossed out easily (except by violence) really worked against me on this one.  I had a tough time with several scenes.  The finger-cutting and toe-stubbing in particular.  Matty no likey.  And the fact that I was oobie doobie ensured I’d be thinking too much about the scenes that disturbed me.  All in all, it was a pretty miserable theater experience.  That definitely affected my impression of the movie.  I kept telling myself not to let it alter my opinion of the film, but how could it not?  We see movies to have a good time, after all.

Another factor was my companion on this hang, who swore she had the movie totally figured out afterwards, and filled my addled brain with what may have been nonsense.  She said the entire movie was about mind control.  I’m not sure how accurate that is. 

What was this movie really about?  I have a feeling when asked that question Darren Aranofsky takes shelter in that land of mysteries directors love so well.  Vague answers, winks, proliferation of theories.  When a director treads that path I’m left to assume its a VERY calculated move.  I simply can’t believe a good director would make a movie without knowing precisely what he/she wants to say.  Is that cynical?  Should I stop trying to define art?  Don’t answer that.  It was a stupid question.

I’m tempted to say this film was overrated, but I don’t want to be that guy.  If a movie these days even hints at originality I try to award points for that.  Black Swan is definitely original.  I’ve never seen anything else remotely similar.  And there is definitely something to be said for a movie about ballet that can appeal to male viewers.  To take a decidedly feminine topic and make a gender neutral movie is no small feat. 

One problem: Dreams, visions, and any type of false reality always strikes me as a bit of an easy way out.  I want a director to be held accountable for each scene and its impact on the viewer.  What Arrenofsky has essentially done is give himself carte blanch to use any startling image or event without being tied to its effect on a real plot.  Because that part of the plot isn’t real.  That feels cheap to me.  Dream sequences and hallucinations almost always do.

I can’t say I loved the casting, either.  Not bad necessarily, but inconsistent.  Look, I’ve got nothing against Mila Kunis personally, but I’m just not ready to take her seriously as an actress.  And I’m definitely inclined to root against someone who became an “it” girl (or boy) without actually doing anything good.  Her success screams “I hired the most aggressive agent and publicist I could find and told them I was willing to do anything to be famous.”  This is a snap-judgement.  But seriously, the girl from That 70s Show in a potential oscar winner?  How did that happen?  What has she ever done well?  They really should’ve stuck with the original plan and gone with Latifah here. 

I’m also pretty sure Winona Ryder is a bad actress, while we’re on the subject.  In fact, at times I’ve found her downright terrible.  This wasn’t her worst effort, but she was an odd choice, to say the least. 

Portman, on the other hand, definitely belongs in movies of this caliber.  She’s very good, we all know that.  And she definitely did a perfect job evincing sheltered, timid and alone.  The viewer has no choice but to pity her almost right from the start.  The stuff with her mom in particular was great.  That was just an excellent character.  Virtually all of my favorite scenes included her in some way (masturbation scene!).  I felt like an entire movie could’ve been made just out of that relationship.  Barbara Hershey is due a major tip-of-the-cap here.  As is Vincent Cassel for his portrayal of Thomas, predatory choreographer extraordinaire.  This truly was the part his face was born to play.  

I’m awarding Black Swan points for plot, aesthetic, and suspense.  But I still can’t shake the feeling that this film is riding a wave of praise it didn’t really earn.  Am I off base here?  Let’s talk about it.  I realize this review is poorly written and irrelevant, but that doesn’t mean we can’t have a discussion. 

What think you?

The Best Trailer I’ve Ever Seen

 

Uh, yes please!  I’ll be a monkey’s uncle if this movie doesn’t kick ass.  This is what I want.  Right here.  My boy OMD tipped me off a while back.  Then, whilst viewing Black Swan ce soir (Too late to review.  NOT!  Coming soon!), I was once again treated to this masterpiece.  I loves me some trailers.  I think this is the best non-LOTR trailer I’ve ever seen.  I should give them a stoney award.  Actually, come to think of it, I really should issue 2010 stoneys.  Maybe I’ll do that.  If so, expect Macgruber to be highly decorated.  More so than Legion?  Tune in to find out!

So yeah, The Tree of Life.  Drops in May.  Get excited with me.  Written and directed by Terry Malick.  He’s awesome, right?  Although I can’t say The New World looked very good.  Anyone see that?  Help a brother out?

That name again is Tree Of Life (Mr. Plow)

Tron 2: The Wrath Of Tron

I saw Tron: Legacy a couple of weeks ago and never got around to reviewing it.  I’ve been really busy filming the new season of Amazing Race.  Me and Leonard Maltin were the film critic team.  It was a blast, although I found out today our footage wasn’t used due to some controversial sexual material.  Did we win the race?  I’m not at liberty to say.

People always assume I’m a big fan of the original Tron.  An understandable assumption, given my proclivity for most such endeavors.  But in this case, not accurate.  I barely even remember the original.  Laser bikes and disks were about all I could recall.  There were also some vague recollections of a scene in a cave.  I may respect Tron fans, but I myself am not a Tron fan.  I was going in with a clean slate, for better or worse.

I’m guessing the plot was never really what the love of the original was all about.  It was about visuals and a glimpse of the future (I assume). 

An early problem Tron: Legacy encounters is how to handle the technology from the original.  In a sense, Tron predicted the direction computers would take our society.  Its predictions didn’t come true.  I’m not talking about 1984 here, but the original was all about how this digital universe was going to change the world.  Then the sequel is set in the present day.  So…..how did it change the world exactly?

The attempts to rectify this quandary are vague, but do the job if you’re willing to suspend your disbelief.  ENCOM still exists, and it sells some sort of operating system or network or some such.  They never say exactly what it does, but everyone needs it.  One problem: solved.

Now what to do about that pesky Grid?  The one that was supposed to change everything?  POOF!  It disappeared, along with Jeff Bridges, in 1989.  Now we’re ready to make a movie. 

Bridges’ son, played by the not-that-likable Garrett Hedlund, is a motorcyclin’ prankster.  He’s the leading shareholder of ENCOM, yet lives in some sort of converted garage in the slums.  Not your average billionaire orphan, right?  He gumptions his way into The Grid via secret passage and laser beam, and it’s off to the races.

Once on the grid, father and son are quickly re-united.  Bridges’ explanation of The Grid is an odd mixture of techno-babble and mysticism.  It sort of works.  He carries it well, anyway.  Its best not to think too much about what The Grid is or why it exists.  You’re there.  Try to enjoy it.  It’s not going to take your breath away, but there are some really cool visuals. 

I’m not a huge fan of the return to 3D.  I’ve seen it work and not work, but I’m naturally suspicious of anything the theaters can justify charging more for.  Some of these movies are shown in 3D without actually having been shot for 3D.  Before the start of Tron: Legacy a screen flashed admitting some scenes were shot in 2D, but that they would be shown as originally shot and not in 3D.  So parts of the movie were in 3D and other parts wasn’t.  Each scene, apparently, is shown the way it was meant to be shown.  Hmm.

Was this a sign of integrity by the filmmakers?  I wanted to think so, and I’m sure that was the design.  But this is Disney we’re talking about here.  If the movie was always intended to be shown in 3D, why did they shoot any 2D scenes to begin with?  It’s pretty clear the switch to 3D was a profit-grab just like it has been for most of the movies that have done it.  Shrewd gamesmanship, Disneycorp.  I guess its our move.

The good news is both the 3D and 2D scenes really did look excellent.  Words like sharp and crisp come to mind although I couldn’t necessarily explain why.  It wasn’t so sweeping as Avatar or so colorful as Alice In Wonderland.  Definitely a little more understated.  I enjoyed that. 

I think the key to this movie’s look was combining darkness with light.  A dark atmosphere lends credibility to any drama or action movie.  Ominous, tragic, foreboding, these are traits that will help an audience take a movie seriously.  The problem is, you can’t just make everything dark literally, because then the audience can’t see.  Sounds elementary, but directors still make that mistake ALL THE TIME. 

What directors need to strive for, and what Tron: Legacy succeeds somewhat in creating, is an aesthetic that feels dark no matter how bright the colors.  This particular film doesn’t use many colors, most of it is either simply light or dark, with the classic reds and blues from the original.  But the light and darkness always contrast beautifully.  The apartment where Bridges and the mysterious Quora (Olivia Wilde) are in hiding was a simple yet aesthetically pleasing afffair.  And the slow space-ride up towards the homeward portal near the end of the film was downright beautiful.  One of the best scenes of the year in my stoney opinion.  In both of these cases, the atmosphere was undeniably dark, yet everything was crystal clear.  I applaud that.

What keeps Tron: Legacy from being a legit movie, unfortunately, is the acting.  We know Bridges can hang, but he is all alone in this one.  Neither Wilde nor Hedlund bring much to the table other than a good body for spandex.  There are no cool cameos or respectable character actors.  The small role that begged for someone interesting, the flamboyant double-agent Zeus, was instead played by the unbelievably annoying Michael Sheen. 

There are other flaws, as well.  The original Kevin Flynn (Bridges) may have aged, but his program copy, Clu, has not.  So the villain is also Bridges, but in young makeup that looks totally stupid, just like young makeup always does.  The difference is normally its only used for a scene.  This movie leans on it for the entirety. 

And this may be nitpicking, but the title character, Tron, is largely ignored until the very end.  At that point we’re supposed to remember and care about him, but we’ve just watched a 2-hour movie in which he doesn’t say a word or even show his face.  It falls flat. 

When it comes down to it, this is a PG Disney movie with only one actor you could possibly give a shit about.  It won’t be winning any oscars.  But I think it can be enjoyed with the right attitude.  Suspend your disbelief.  Don’t think too hard about anything anyone asserts.  When Bridges says Quora, some sort of spontaneously created program, will “change the world” don’t ask any questions.  Just take it at face value.  Don’t think.  Watch and feel.  If you do that, and you get supe to the dupe beforehand, you will have a good time.

Tis The Season

 

I’ve really been on a roller-coaster ride with Nic Cage since I started this blog.  My opinion of him has changed many times.  It’s easy to just label him a lunatic and move on, but I’m not sure that tells the whole story.  A real psycho wouldn’t have picked Season of the Witch.  Allow me to explain.

I know it might seem like a wacky pick, but there really isn’t anything that weird going on here.  This isn’t The Wickerman.  It’s just a bad movie, cut from the same cloth as countless other bad movies.  If not for Cage’s involvement it would’ve been a simple straight-to-video affair.  It had all the makings of something you’d see on Starz at 3am. 

That’s not to say there aren’t laughs here, because there definitely are.  Cage and Ron Perlman* have a hilarious montage early on.  They fight battles, they get drunk afterwards.  I felt like that really set the tone.  This movie definitely isn’t trying to do too much, lets put it that way.

*Perlman is the second most famous actor in the movie.  The third is the guy who played Marvin Ranney on Band of Brothers and Al Capone on Boardwalk Empire.  Legit shows to be sure, but I’m still not sure whether I like him or not. 

When asked about his choices, Cage inevitably gives a simple answer: he picks the roles that sound fun to him.  We’ve pretty much got to take that at face value now.  There could be no other conceivable reason to make Season of the Witch.  It can’t have been the biggest payday, and I seriously doubt anyone involved with it ever thought it would be critically acclaimed.  Cage liked this project.  Thats why he took it.

Is that still respectable if the movie is really bad?  I think maybe it is.  Take a look at this rap sheet: Ghost Rider, The Wickerman, Season of the Witch, Knowing, Bangkok Dangerous, Sorceror’s Apprentice, The Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call- New Orleans.  All of these movies came out within the last five years.  I would imagine he handpicked all of them against the advice of his manager, agent, and everyone else involved with his career.  He must just be a big fan of stuff like this.  Of bad action movies. 

I’m sure Cage probably is crazy.  I just think there may be a simpler explanation for his choice in roles.  We all have our bad stuff that we like.  If I was an actor and I was offered an Ernest remake (currently watching Scared Stupid) I’d probably jump at the chance.  This would come fresh on the heels of my starring role in Underworld 4.  My indie pet project would be a buddy flick with Lambert.  So yeah, I get how an actor’s choices based on what he actually likes could appear weird and counterproductive. 

As to the movie, it sacrifices any chance at legitimate suspense in favor of cheap clichés.  Cage and Perlman get caught deserting the crusades and sentenced to escort a witch to a monastery for judgement.  At first we wonder whether the girl is actually a witch.  This lasts all of 10 minutes before it is revealed via a series of sinister smiles that she is, in fact, a witch.  They could’ve kept us guessing as long as they wanted.  Chose not to.  Or maybe forgot to?

It’s hard to care very much about a movie when the people who made it clearly don’t.  I can’t imagine the process of writing something like this.  ” Uh yeah-yeah, so, uh, there’s this knight. and he gets sentenced to escort this witch, and, you know, they have some adventures, and some people die, and there’s some gross stuff like maybe from the plague……and then I guess thats pretty much it.”  I just can’t fathom the impetus, brainstorming sessions, screenwriting.  Did anyone involved have any goals besides “make a few easy bucks”?  Apparently only Cage.  He’s the only one giving his all.  Again….respectable?

I guess what I’m saying is that I’m less inclined to write off every decision Cage makes as mere lunacy when there is clearly a pattern here.  His choices reflect bizarre tastes, but not an addled brain.  Unless you consider those to be the same thing.  Personally, I do not.  I cannot.  Too many bizarre tastes of my own.  Let’s just say my boy Sweetums gave me Man of the Year for Christmas.

SPOILER ALERT!!!!

Cage’s death scene is really, really hilarious.  One of the best I’ve ever seen.  It, along with the early montage, made the movie for me. 

I’ll tell you what was wack though: that satan “twist” at the end.  Give me a break.

More like True Great!

 

I never saw the original True Grit.  I gather its something of a classic?  I don’t know, I guess old movies in general really don’t do it for me.  A real film critic could never say that, but a Stoney Film Critic is all about lazy admissions.  The old stuff isn’t my cup of tea.  Maybe its the production values.  Or maybe I’ve just never made the effort.  I sort of tried to get into Hitchcock at one point, but it was half-assed and never took.  When it comes down to it my experience with anything before 1980 is extremely limited.  I realize this isn’t very cool.

I considered checking out the original first, but that seemed a poor strategy for reviewing the reboot.  I deemed it best to go in fresh.  A wise decision.  Knowing the plot and outcome beforehand could only have lessened my enjoyment.

When I discovered the film’s protagonist was a 14-year-old girl, I was disappointed. I almost never like child actors. They usually annoy me, and if not I’m indifferent. “The kid wasn’t that bad” is pretty much the ceiling. Or it was, anyway. I thoroughly enjoyed newcomer Hailee Steinfeld as Mattie Ross. I’m not going to throw out words like masterful or brilliant, because that would seem silly when applied to a fourteen-year-old. What I will say is that I highly doubt they could’ve found anyone better for this role. It was clear from the beginning this girl was going to get it done. And she actually got better as the film went along. It was impressive. I really enjoyed her performance, and was definitely rooting for her character.

I’m a bit of a sucker for modern westerns in general. I enjoyed Unforgiven, Apaloosa and 3:10 to Yuma, I liked both Tombstone and Wyatt Earp*, I was one of Deadwood’s few fans, and Jesse James is one of my favorite movies of all time (does that count as a western?). Even a piece of shit like The Quick and the Dead is OK in my book. And of course I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention the grand-daddy of them all, Wild Wild West. I mean we all loved that one, right? I was so inspired when I first saw it I wrote scripts for three sequels and sent them to Warner Bros. post-haste. Negotiations broke down over my demands that Will Smith be replaced with Ice Cube and Roman Polanski be brought in to direct. I had a vision, and I stuck to it. The project is currently in remission.

*I know Costner has become a total clown and that colors every movie he was in, but my boy Denny Quaid did a fine job as Doc Holliday in Wyatt Earp.  It’s not his fault he had to be compared with one of the greatest acting performances of my generation.   

Where was I? Oh yeah, modern westerns. I like them. I knew I’d probably like True Grit. What I didn’t know was just how much I’d like it. I’ve seen over 30 movies in the theater this year, and this was easily one of the best. Probably top 3. Definite Oscar material.

What made it so good? This might sound like an easy answer, but I think it was the acting. And not just the aforementioned Steinfeld. Everyone was believable. Jeff Bridges, Matt Damon, Josh Brolin, Barry Pepper. Even the bit parts were consistently well done. The Coen Brothers really impressed me with their attention to detail. I go back and forth on them, but this was a definite score. I’ll be seeing their next movie for sure.

Bridges is hot right now, and I don’t quite know how to feel about that. Crazyheart didn’t do anything for me. In fact, I was pretty turned off by it without really knowing why (Gylenhaal?). So I was ready to hate on Bridges here if I felt he was receiving undue praise. He wasn‘t. Rooster Cogburn was a classic character, and Bridges played him perfectly. To say otherwise would be hating just to hate.

As good as Bridges was, to me Damon was even better. He wasn’t given nearly as much to work with. I mean, Bridges just had to act like a grizzled badass. He did it well, but it was probably pretty easy. Damon had his work cut out for him. His character, LaBoeuf, must’ve been very hard to get right. He had to be a tough Texas marshal capable of tracking down outlaws and camping under the stars, but also a total square. Basically, the Wild West’s version of a dork.

I don’t think there are a lot of guys who could’ve pulled that off; but pull it off he did. So much so that by the end he was far and away my favorite character. I laughed at him, I respected him, and I ended up really cherishing his screen time. This performance definitely improved my opinion of him. I’ve always been more of an Affleck supporter. Ironically, sure, but I actually do like him. Maybe now I like Damon too? I might have to put the clamps on that though. Saying “I prefer Affleck” whenever anyone mentions Damon is one of my favorite bits. Has been for…..10 years?

Neither the cinematography nor the score blew me away, but both served their purpose very well. The Coen Brothers definitely know how a good period piece should feel. I’d like to see them tackle an older time period. Renaissance, middle ages, classical, I’d gladly take any of it. I know Americana has pretty much been their bag thus far, but if they ever want to do another remake a foreign film would be a great move for them. So much cred.

I gushed a bit here. What can I say, its been a tough few months at the cineplex for your boy Big Hatt. I assumed The Fighter would be the one to re-energize me, but it turns out True Grit rode in on the white horse. I’m just glad somebody did.

SPOILER ALERT!!!

It seemed silly to discuss the plot given that this was a remake, but I did want to touch on the ending briefly.  It was awesome.  The moment when Mattie finally shoots Tom Chaney was triumphant,  Rooster saving her life was touching, and her final recollections are bittersweet.  And none of it was corny.  Bravo, Coen Brothers, bravo.