Waltz With Bashir

"Waltz With Bashir" is one of the best films of 2008. Ari Folman, documentarian, pieces together his past in the war in a fragmented, visually unmatched documentary in which he details the lack of clarity of the war in amazing animation. Folman finds twisted poetry in the 1982 Lebanon war in which he was in, and also shows the lack of recollection caused. When he meets a friend of his, who describes his murdering of sentinel dogs, the flashbacks that he never had come piling on. There is one in particular where he emerges from a sleep in the sea, and walks dazedly through a destroyed city. It's power is enhanced by a haunting score by Max Richter that I can't describe. The movie is somewhat the same: indescribable, stunning, (as Ebert sort of said) harrowing, and (as someone said I believe) very strange. All-in-all, "Waltz With Bashir" is a masterful achievement, (as someone said) one where a former soldier documents his horrible memories and (as someone said) quite brilliantly at that. He captures the very nature of the battleground, the falter of reality, the lives scarred, and the ultimate destruction caused. It is endlessly worthy of praise, for its bold and daring look. Although one part in particular drags, it is not enough to deter the course of Folman's great film. A

No Country for Old Men

"No Country for Old Men," Joel and Ethan Coen's magnificent adaptation of Cormac McCarthy's 2005 novel of the same name, is the best film of 2007, no questions asked. It does so much with but a few characters, a helluva lot of scope, and great cinematography. Roger Deakins was nominated twice for an Oscar in 2007 for cinematography, for "The Assassination of Jesse James..." and this film, and he got beaten by "There Will Be Blood cinematographer Robert Elswit. As with the other film, Deakins truly captures wonders with his camerawork. Without him, "No Country" would have lost its touch. Edited pristinely by only the best in the business (that is, "Roderick Jaynes"), adapted perfectly by the Coens, and acted with the utmost precision, "Men" is a first-rate, literary action drama.

Javier Bardem got the Oscar he most definitely deserved as Anton Chigurh, a serial killer with a plan of action. He's after Llewelyn Moss (Josh Brolin, in his best performance, unfairly ignored by the Academy), an ex-welder who stumbles upon drug money and unwisely takes the money and runs. Tommy Lee Jones turns in his best performance as Ed Tom Bell, the sheriff who's interest is in helping Moss escape from the clutches of Chigurh's cattle bolt gun. And Woody Harrelson gives us a performance that will make us forgive him for his dreadful work in "Seven Pounds,": he plays Carson Wells, another man going after the money. Four great performances. They're all solidified by the wonderful, experienced direction by the Coen Brothers. They have made lowbrow comedies ("Burn After Reading," "Raising Arizona," "The Big Lebowski"), a Hollywood satire ("Barton Fink"), and a certain police procedural that made them famous ("Fargo"), but they have not done anything like this. This is their magnum opus, and they were rightfully awarded for their toils. They also make stars out of their actors: Bardem breaks through with a collected and terrifying uber-villain, Brolin makes a name playing a pained man on the run, and Lee Jones proves himself yet again with some terrific work. The Coens definitely know how to play their cards right, and the structure of this film shows just that. It's brilliant, tight, and suspenseful. This is everything Cormac McCarthy could have hoped for and more. A

RocknRolla

It was not the plot in "RocknRolla" that kept me in, nor the style that's become Guy Ritchie's trademark. It was the stunning nature of the director's well rounded characters that are the basis for the film. Without these types, we would have nothing but chaos. The film is just as well anchored by a pretty good turn from Tom Wilkinson, who shows yet again that he plays the same character every time. He's Lenny Cole, crime boss, a man who owns the criminal world pretty much like Bill Cutting owned the Five Points. He's making a deal with Uri (Karel Roden), his Russian counterpart, and Uri offers him his "lucky painting," which we wisely never see. Cole loses the painting almost immediately, and calls on narrator Archie (Mark Strong) to get it back. While this is all going on, we also are introduced to a criminal group known as the Wild Bunch, which consists of One-Two (Gerard Butler), Handsome Bob (Tom Hardy), and Mumbles (Idris Elba). There's also Cookie (Matt King), who I call attention to as he is a British Steve Buscemi who's a little more hip. They are robbing Uri and his guards and they have one scene in particular, where Ritchie breaks out his kinetic camerawork for the only time in this film. There is also Stella, played by the sexy Thandie Newton, a sleek accountant who is somewhat of a love interest. But the main character and source of trouble is Johnny Quid, played by Toby Kebbell, Lenny's stepson, who fakes his own death regularly so he can go drug himself out. There is one strange scene where Johnny plays the piano and talks about his addiction to cigarettes, easily one of the best in the movie. The movie itself is a little shortchanged do to its complicated plot and conclusive climax, but the script is a spark plug here, written by Ritchie and performed well by his great cast. It's surprising how this one stays afloat, but it's actually quite a decent action pic. That's what a great cast is for: reviving your movie, and Ritchie knows how to do just that. It's a well-made, well-acted, and very well-scripted vehicle, and, although overbearing at times, sometimes hits high marks. The biggest problem is that it can at times be a real strain to like, but Guy Ritchie keeps that thought in check enough for you to praise the film's subtle qualities. B-

Gran Torino

If there was one thing I learned while watching Clint Eastwood's amateurish racial drama, it was that he couldn't sing. The song that concludes this film, written he, his son, and a couple others is caterwauled by Dirty Harry himself. Eastwood made some fantastic films this decade ("Million-Dollar Baby," "Letters From Iwo Jima"). Here Clint doesn't achieve much. He gives an okay performance, but he's the only one who gets a good performance milked out. Eastwood seems to have lost his direction skills. Plus, where is Paul Haggis when we need him? Why did Eastwood work with the terribly written, profanity heavy script from Nick Schenk? Who knows. All I know is that Eastwood overplays the racism. He is Walt Kowalski, a man who's heavily shaken from his time spent in the Korean War. He is a racist, but I doubt that's a secret. At the beginning of the film, at his wife's funeral, we also realize he is a blatant jerk. He is the most anti-social guy you can imagine. I give the Academy a rare pat on the back for not celebrating Eastwood cussing his way through nearly two hours of a film. We also meet in the opening minutes the priest, Father Janovich (Christopher Carley, in a very terribly acted performance). He wants Walt to confess. Whaddya think Eastwood says to that? The film also is not spared of terribly two-dimensional characters. Walt's family is a cast of paper-thin portrayals by actors who are unlucky enough to have signed on to such a film. We also meet Walt's neighbors, a Hmong family who he obviously holds in contempt for just being Asian. Of course, these are the people who soften his heart. Especially pressured young man Thao (Bee Vang), who, under pressure from his cousin's gang, tries to steal Walt's prized Gran Torino. He then works, by his family's command, for Walt, who somewhat takes him under his wing. The plot has a lot of potential, but it is subjected to Eastwood's hammy directing. There are some good characters, like Sue, played by promising actress Ahney Her. But the film submits to ridiculousness. Walt's barber, played by John Carroll Lynch (who played Norm Gunderson), has a terribly executed scene. There are moments intended to be funny. Schenk thinks these are good moments, but they are seriously duds. Nothing works really, but yet there is still some sort of underlying charm from Eastwood and Her. This is what saves the film from being a terrible bust. But still, you can't really ignore that there are a score of problems here. C-

This film is very, very profane and violent. Not for children.

Millions

"Millions" is a fantastic family film, one of the greatest achievements in children's filmmaking that I've seen in a long time. Danny Boyle, known mostly for his gross-out work in "28 Days Later," his heroin-addiction film "Trainspotting," and most recently, his uplifting, fast-paced "Slumdog Millionaire," shows that he can make films for all ages. His film is witty and truthful about many things, money most prominently. Frank Cottel Boyce adapts his own book here, and he makes sure none of the charm is lost. If anything, the screen version is better. "Millions" follows two brothers named Damien (Alex Etel) and Anthony (Lewis McGibbon) who's mother has died and their father (James Nesbitt) is having to manage their lives and having to keep them at middle-class level. Damien is a wonderfully rounded character, especially in the facet that he can speak to saints. These sequences are some of the biggest fruits of the film. Anyways, Damien happens to be watching trains when a large sum of money in a bag drops from a train. Damien lets Anthony in on the secret. Of course, there is conflict over the spending. Damien wants to help the poor, and in many instances, he does. Anthony is more caught up all the status symbols that the X-Gen is into. He wants to spend the money and make connections at school. Another problem: in a few days, the Euro will become the new currency of Europe. This heightens the anxiety. This is all very well done. There was only one subplot I didn't really enjoy: that was of the unidentified Man (Christopher Fulford) who gives the film a bitter edge. He threatens Damien over the money. See, he was stealing it, and the kid got his hands on it. This is the part where Boyle doesn't direct with the strongest of hands. He does tune this out well, though, and towards the end redeems himself with a series of uplifting episodes that warm our hearts, minds, and bodies. Boyle taps into a vein that he rarely does, and it works spectacularly. He realizes all of the book's joys, and adapts them into the film. One of my personal favorite scenes was that of the Nativity play director, played by Boyce, the screenwriter, himself. The cameo is a delight in a film full of them. Everyone can see this powerful, striking, and beautiful movie. A

What Should and Will Win Best Adapted Screenplay? - 2008 Oscar Edition

And here is my analysis on Best Adapted Screenplay.

What Will Win: Slumdog Millionaire (written by Simon Beaufoy, from the novel "Q and A" by Vikas Swarup)
Beaufoy's delightful, well-written screenplay is very good. Although most of the action is visual, there are some very good lines that Beaufoy's spins here. The Academy will award this to "Millionaire", hands down. No questions asked.

Second Thoughts: Delightful? Well-written? Upon second viewing, I believe I went a little too far. I believe that "Slumdog's" script should rank even below Frost/Nixon on this list.

What Should Win: Doubt (written by John Patrick Shanley, from his own play)
I know I'm not the only one who finds Shanley's script utterly fascinating and brilliant. Although the actors are top-notch here, Shanley's script is magnificent. He supplies the likes of Streep, Seymour Hoffman, Adams, and Davis with enough great dialogue so that they can shine. No doubt it will be beaten.

The other nominees:
The Reader (written by David Hare, from the novel of the same name by Bernhard Schlink)
Although the script isn't that great, Hare weaves some interesting images in. Take for example the scene intercut between the dinner and the lovemaking. That's brilliant.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (written by Eric Roth, from the short story of the same name by F. Scott Fitzgerald)
Oh, how I didn't like the script by Roth. It draws way too many parallels to the far superior "Forrest Gump" and treads on too many cliches to get anywhere. Roth has written great movies before ("Munich," and "The Insider" were amazing), but here he gets the nod just in the gust of Button praise.

Frost/Nixon (written by Peter Morgan, from his own play)
Just as much, Morgan's script was bad. Filled with cheesy one liners for Frank Langella and dumb dialogue for everyone else, this is one of the least deserved nominations of the year. How did Morgan go from "The Queen" to this?

Who and What Should and Will Win Best Picture and Best Director? - 2008 Oscar Edition

My Best Picture and Best Director analysis. I decided to make one set of predictions since the predictions would be the same.

What Will Win: Milk (dir. Gus Van Sant)
As they will do in the Best Actor race, the Academy will take the political route here and pick Gus Van Sant's Harvey Milk biopic. The film, though, is quite astounding. Sean Penn and Josh Brolin turn in great performances, supported by Emile Hirsch, James Franco, and Diego Luna. It's a historical film that makes you feel in the moment. This may be Van Sant's finest hour.

What Should Win: Slumdog Millionaire (dir. Danny Boyle)
Although not the actual best picture of the year, it's the best of the nominees. Danny Boyle's fast-paced, wonderful film set in Mumbai is a grand achievement. The editing, cinematography, and score are Oscar-worthy. Dev Patel's subtle turn as the lead character on a game show is very well done. It's an "crowd-pleaser" but there have been good crowd pleasers before. This is a great one.

Second thoughts: ed. Upon re-watching both Slumdog and Milk, I've come to the conclusion that "Milk" should have in fact taken the top prize at the Academy awards.

The other nominees:
The Reader (dir. Stephen Daldry)
Stephen Daldry's timeworn moral drama is Oscar-worthy until the last 45 minutes. Even still, this is a very good movie, featuring one of Kate Winslet's best performances. David Kross and Ralph Fiennes, as Michael Berg, portray the changes of the man very well. The film strays from Bernhard Schlink's novel, but what can I say? It works.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (dir. David Fincher)
A problematic drama from David Fincher is a gimmick-driven fable of uneven proportions. Brad Pitt showed more acting ability in "Burn After Reading." Cate Blanchett was fine. Taraji P. Henson was good, not nomination-worthy. The special effects and makeup were good I guess. Fincher makes a romantic movie for once. I don't think it works.

Frost/Nixon (dir. Ron Howard)
Ron Howard's media picture is the weakest of the nominees this year, and doesn't have many high points at all. It has been lapped up by critics who have confused the film with the genre, and who have taken in Frank Langella as Nixon because it's "presidential." This movie's only facets have to do with the interviews, but the movie is more about the setups, unfortunately.

The Top Ten Worst Snubs by the Academy - 2008

I was happy (ed. then) for all the praise being lauded onto "Slumdog Millionaire," but I believe the academy made a lot of flaws in 2008. Here is my list:

Top Ten Worst Snubs (One place per film):
10. Kristin Scott Thomas (I've Loved You So Long) - Best Actress
9. Rachel Getting Married, Jonathan Demme, Rosmarie DeWitt/Debra Winger, Jenny Lumet, and Declan Quinn - Best Picture, Best Director, Best Supporting Actress, Best Original Screenplay, and Best Cinematography
8. Josh Brolin (W.) - Best Actor
7. The Fall - Best Art Direction (as others may have said)
6. Gomorrah - Best Foreign Film
5. Happy-Go-Lucky, Mike Leigh, Sally Hawkins, and Eddie Marsan - Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actress, and Best Supporting Actor
4. Doubt and John Patrick Shanley - Best Picture and Best Director
3. Hunger, Steve McQueen, and Michael Fassbender - Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor
2. Synedoche, New York, Charlie Kaufman, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Adam Stockhausen, and Judy Chin - Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor Best Original Screenplay, Best Art Direction, and Best Makeup
1. The Wrestler, Darren Aronofsky, and Bruce Springsteen - Best Picture, Best Director, and Best Song

Who Should and Will Win Best Actor? - 2008 Oscar Edition

Best Actress, Best Picture, and Best Adapted and Original Screenplays coming soon. Here are my picks for Best Actor.

Who Will Win: Sean Penn, Milk
After Prop 8, the Academy will give itself a pat on the back for handing the Oscar to Penn for playing gay, iconic politician Harvey Milk. Penn is mesmerizing. This is work again not to be ignored.

Who Should Win: Mickey Rourke, The Wrestler
I haven't seen such vigor, sadness, and flawlessness in a performance in a long time. Rourke's leading turn in "The Wrestler," which is quickly becoming the most underrated film of the year, is the best performance in recent memory, easily one of the best of the decade. Rourke may pull an upset (!), but I doubt it. But do yourself a favor, and see this.

The other nominees (I wasn't huge generally on any of these three, but it's been a while since I've seen them):

Richard Jenkins, The Visitor
Jenkins, a character actor no one pays much attention to, does a pretty good performance. He plays a depressed professor who returns to his NYC apartment to a couple living inside of it. He also did a very funny turn in "Burn After Reading" to solidify himself as a double entertainer in 2008 (EW approved).

Frank Langella, Frost/Nixon
Langella plays Nixon pretty well, but doesn't deserve a nomination. It's a nice performance that adds a little to a very weak effort about the interviews between the two title characters. It's better than Michael Sheen as Frost, at least.

Brad Pitt, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
If there was nomination in 2008 less deserved than Pitt as Button, I'd like to see it. Pitt (actually assisted by six other actors) slumps through a leading man job where he flexes no acting muscles. He'll never return to the same mindset as in the 90's, where he chose good roles ("Twelve Monkeys," "Fight Club").

Who Should and Will Win Best Supporting Actor? - 2008 Oscar Edition

Here's the male counterpart of my first analysis.

Who Will Win: Heath Ledger, The Dark Knight
It's no secret: Ledger has the Oscar wrapped up, and it will be the second win by an actor who passed away before he could get the win. Ledger is scary good, I admit, and he brings truth to a role that may have been botched by another actor. This is a very good performance.

Who Should Win: Michael Shannon, Revolutionary Road
Shannon is perfect choice for the insane, genius mathematician John Givings, who rains on the parade of the Wheelers. He shows that the Wheelers are in fact like everyone else. Shannon, in short, aggressive scenes, out acts both DiCaprio and Winslet and he deserves the Oscar, because he is simply amazing.

The other nominees:
Philip Seymour Hoffman, Doubt
Seymour Hoffman is not to be looked down upon. He has taken a back seat in a race he maybe could and should win another year. He plays Father Flynn, the accused, who has been believed to have molested a child. It is a fantastic performance. Check this work out.

Josh Brolin, Milk
Brolin, who was better as the 43rd President of the USA, brings some scariness to the role of Dan White, the man who shot Milk. He captures that sore loser essence so perfectly, and he throws all of his anger onto the shoulders of Milk, who will not concede. Brolin deserves praise for this, and his nomination is certainly fitting.

Robert Downey, Jr., Tropic Thunder
Not to be outdone, Downey, Jr. caps off his high-flying comeback year with a hilarious turn as a method actor who attempts to play an African-American character with a surgical facelift. There were some nice, funny moments in "Thunder," and Downey supplied almost all of them.