Film Snob.

W.

gloriasara — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 02:26:19 +0000

All right. I don’t even like former president George W. Bush in the slightest as a politician, and let me just say to start this off: Oliver Stone’s film about the man is the biggest piece of propaganda and bullshit that I have ever seen.

W. begins with George W. Bush, as sitting president in conversation with this advisors and cabinet members, before flashing back to his partying college fraternity days. The movie goes back and forth between these moments in his life, depicting both his dwindling political career, and the struggles he faced at home with his alcoholism, and deteriorating relationship with his father. We follow Bush’s change from party animal to born-again Christian, from a boy who couldn’t hold a job to a man who wanted to run for governor of Texas, and eventually the president of the most powerful country in the world.

Before I say what was terrible, the good news is that I loved Josh Brolin’s performance as the title character. He got George W. Bush down from accent to mannerisms, and was entirely and utterly believable. I thought the entire cast did a fine job of acting, and the casting was terrific–when Dick Cheney first arrived on screen I actually for a second wondered if he was playing himself.

As for the rest of the film, the writing was awful. I’m not sure what Stone’s objective was in making this film–poking fun at Bush? Revealing a hidden persona? Emphasizing what a terrible president he was? He made fun of him all right, sticking in the infamous Bush-isms that had the entire world laughing at the USA for ever electing the man. (Is our children learning? Misunderestimated!) I’ll give Stone credit for one thing: he made George W. Bush seem more human, but as for depicting his political career, he pulled what Bill Maher did in Religulous that ruined the film for me: the movie is so one-sided and obviously a testament to Stone’s extreme left-winged political views, that it comes off as utter arrogance and a childish attempt to humiliate the man. I mean, how is anyone who watches this film not expected to GAG and scream, “ARE YOU SERIOUS?!” when Dick Cheney says, “Take over Iran. Take over Iraq. Take over the world.” … Right.

Once again, I don’t like former president Bush. He was a liar and one of this country’s worst presidents, and no doubt the worst of the last fifty years. But I’m not interested in watching two hours of someone making fun of him when I could just flip on John Stewart.

W. **/*****

2 for Josh Brolin.

Milk

gloriasara — Fri, 20 Mar 2009 17:08:11 +0000

I am really loving the Best Picture nominees. I still have to see Frost/Nixon, but by the four films I’ve already watched, I can easily say that 2008 has been one of the best years for film in a very long time.

I never heard of Harvey Milk, before I found out sometime in early 2008 that Sean Penn was going to be giving my love, Leonardo DiCaprio a run for his money in this new movie about an openly gay politician, working as the San Francisco supervisor in the 1970′s. But admist the controversy surrounding gay marriage, following the passing of Proposition 8, as well as learning that an individual in my personal life had been a closeted homosexual for years and finally came out–I’m really glad I did hear about this man.

The film is about the life of Harvey Milk. There isn’t much more I can say to describe the film, other than to tell anyone who reads this to go to wikipedia.org and search for Harvey Milk and read about his life and accomplishments. After reading it, I felt like the movie followed his life very closely. Anyway, it is the issues in the film that were brought up, which I would like to discuss. Throughout the movie, Milk encouraged everyone who was in the closet to come out. “Let people know that they know a gay person, so they can know that they are not perverts, or weird, or dangerous.”

I feel like this is the greatest lesson that could be learned by watching this film, and it was a lesson learned by one of the members of my family, who found out after three years that one of his best friends, was gay. Up until that time, he was blatantly a homophobe, and full out said, if he ever had a gay son, he’d “beat him straight.” But upon realizing that “one of the guys” was well, a gay guy, he took a complete 180 and is still best friends with him, because he as a person didn’t change, he’s still him and he just happens to be gay. It’s stories like these, as well as the ones presented in Milk that provide hope for every gay man or woman, who is afraid of revealing who they are to their friends and family.

On top of the message of hope, is the revelation of the utter atrocity and hatred exhibited by anti-gay activists of the time. His name slips my mind, but another politician, campaigned for the removal of all openly gay and lesbian teachers in public schools, arguing that they would convert their children to a homosexual lifestyle. I thought incorpating these views were brilliant, especially in contrast to the message of Milk, for it highlighted how ridiculous and ignorant the agendas of many anti-gay activists are.

While Milk was a beautiful movie, for its wonderful portrayal of an honest, hard-working politician, I found a few faults with it. I don’t feel as if the supporting cast was developed enough–especially the character of Dan White, (portrayed by Josh Brolin) who would go on to assassinate Harvey Milk. I didn’t feel the tension between the two characters enough to believe that White would kill the film’s hero, and certainly did not agree with Brolin’s nomination of Best Supporting Actor. James Franco, for his performance as Milk’s onetime lover and longtime friend, was far more deserving. Even in the shadow of Sean Penn’s excellent performance, Franco lit up the screen with every appearance and was an absolute pleasure to watch.

I really liked Milk. It was completely deserving of its nomination, though it was faulty in its development of secondary characters, which, if corrected, could have pushed it to be the best of 2008.

Milk. ****/***** (4 out of 5)

My ranking of the Best Pictures ( so far)

Slumdog Millionaire
Revolutionary Road (haha! : | )
The Reader
Milk
(large gap)
Benjamin Button

To add–I really liked Ben Button when I first saw, but then I saw Slumdog and I thought, “Oh my God, that was SO much better,” and then I saw The Reader and I thought, “Wow, THAT was ALSO so much better than Benjamin Button,” and then after seeing Milk, I feel like Benjamin Button is in an entirely different category than the other nominees. Technically, Benjamin Button was amazing. Depth and story? Completely different league than Slumdog, Reader and Milk.

The Secret Life of Bees

gloriasara — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 18:39:00 +0000

Based on Sue Monk Kidd’s novel of the same title, (that I had to read back in 2005 for school. ), The Secret Life of Bees introduces us to Lily Owens (Dakota Fanning), a 14-year-old girl living with her cruel father and loving, black caretaker Rosaleen (Jennifer Hudson) in 1960′s South Carolina. Heartbroken over having no mother, and being forced to live with her abusive father, Lily often dreams of the mother she never knew, and is haunted by the actions that led to her untimely death.

In midst of the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Lily accompanies Rosaleen to go register to vote. They cross paths with a group of the town’s notorious racists, and as they taunt Rosaleen, she offends them, and in response, she is beaten and arrested. Lily makes a brash decision, and runs away from her father’s home, and heads for the hospital where Rosaleen is temporarily being cared for, and frees her. The two run off and find themselves at the home of the Boatwright sisters: August, June, and May, beekeeping, honey making women who teach a Lily a few things about life, and may even hold the secrets to the past she’s yearning to know about.

The Secret Life of Bees was not a great film, but it also was far from being a bad film as well. It presented the story well, was heartwarming and special, greatly enjoyable and also though provoking. It was finely acted, notably by Sophie Okonedo in the role of May, a mentally troubled, deeply sensitive, but loving and sweet woman. I thought the film slipped sometimes into cliche and fluff, instead of staying within realistic and sentimental. Dakota Fanning in the lead role was good, but I feel she often goes overboard often in her acting, which adds to the cliche and fluff factor. Overall though, it was a perfect film to watch on a Saturday night at home: entertaining and well acted. It’s worth your money.

The Secret Life of Bees ***/*****

The Reader

gloriasara — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 03:14:30 +0000

One of the five nominees for Best Picture, The Reader begins with a man, Michael (Ralph Fiennes) looking back on the day that he, a fifteen-year-old boy (David Cross), fell ill and met a beautiful, yet mysterious woman twice his age, Hanna Schmitz (Kate Winslet). Hanna helps the young Michael home, who recovers and soon returns to Hanna to thank her. The two talk casually at first, but soon strike up a deep, romantic affair. Their relationship becomes deeper than merely sexual, as Hanna begins to ask Michael to read to her everyday. Hanna enjoys hearing the stories, and one begins to feel that it is this sharing of literature that joins them more than their physical lust. The months pass as no one learns of their taboo affair, before ending rather abruptly. Fast forward six years, to where Michael is attending Law School, and along with the other students of his seminar, is required to sit in and observe a courtroom proceeding, one which will go down in history as part of the Nuremburg Trials, where the forty-something year old defendant happens to be a very familiar face, and the one thing that may save her case and life, is something she’s not willing to admit.

The Reader is a deeply profound film, and never hesitates to stir every emotion a human is capable of possessing. It is not an easy film to watch–it becomes a question of morality for the viewer, when one must ask him or herself whether they can truly feel sorry for Hanna, or even look upon the relationship between she and Michael as anything short of abusive on her part, criminal and child pornographic. This is the problem many critics had with the film, but this is what makes the film so great: you are unsure of how to feel, and it forces you to truly reflect on the story being told and understand it fully. A great story is supposed to make you think.

The performances are nothing short of spectacular. When Winslet won the Supporting Actress category at the Golden Globes, many felt that it was undeserved for The Reader as it is argued that she was the lead role in the film. (Subsequently, she won in the Lead Acting category at the Oscars, which seemed to please people who were still enamored by her performance) However, I disagree, and believe Winslet was supporting. The Reader is not Hanna’s story. It’s Michael’s. Michael is the one present in every single scene, narrating the film; it is about his life and how a woman affected it. I believe Kate Winslet should have been nominated in the Supporting category, lose out to Penelope Cruz for Vicky Cristina Barcelona, and take the Leading award for her performance in Revolutionary Road. While The Reader was an excellent performance for her, she was far more deserving for Revolutionary Road, and it’s unfortunate that she couldn’t win for that movie instead.

David Cross, the actor who plays the young Michael Berg, is 18-years-old, and he was magnificent. I love Dev Patel…I mean, I really love Dev Patel…but I think Cross should have taken the Critics Choice Award for Best Young Actor, solely on this performance. He was wonderful. I can’t wait to see him in more movies.

Basically, I loved The Reader. Has it become one of my favorites, like Slumdog? No. My best friend asked me which I liked better, and to tell you the truth, they are so different in subject matter that they cannot even be compared. The Reader is not a type of movie that someone would enjoy, and turn it on to kick back and watch on a Saturday night, with nothing to do and a bowl of popcorn. I can’t see it again, and don’t want to see it again, because it is so riveting and emotionally stirring that it takes a lot out of you, and is rather exhausting and depressing. But not all movies are meant to entertain, or make you feel good, but rather tell a story, and make you think like hell and learn something from it. The Reader succeeded incredibly at that.

The Reader *****/*****

Religulous

gloriasara — Fri, 13 Mar 2009 02:58:08 +0000

Who is Bill Maher? A flaming liberal, who doesn’t give a shit what people think about it, and is opinionated, hard headed, and has an often times very entertaining HBO show. He’s also a blatant atheist, outspoken pot-smoker, and hates former President Bush.

He made a movie called Religulous, about well, trying to show the ridiculosity of religion.

I’m religious. No, I’m not a Christian. I’m a Baha’i, and if you’re wondering what it is Bahai.org is a good place to start looking. Anyway, throughout the film Maher tried showing how people’s religion interferes with their reasoning, and he did a great job at it, and even scared viewers a little when he interviewed congressmen and played clips from the Republican primary debate.

My one problem with the film? Everyone he interviewed was STUPID. There are plenty, PLENTY, of educated, free-thinking, deeply religious people. Albert Einstein was one. No educated person could possibly ever believe that dinosaurs and humans co-existed. (According to the film, there’s an exhibition in a museum displaying that. People are teaching their kids pure ignorance) I don’t care if I offend you if someone out there who actually believes dinosaurs and humans co-existed is reading this, but you my friend, are stupid and ignorant if you do. Anyone who practices pure idiocy in the name of God, is disgusting.

Maher also failed to show the bright side of religon and the good that it has done society. Notably in the 1960′s, Martin Luther King used his religious faith and his occupation as a minister to unite his congregation and launch the Civil Rights Movement. Of course, this wasn’t part of Maher’s goal, but his one sidedness came off as arrogance too often in the film which makes for a less enjoyable movie experience.

Overall though, Religulous? ***

Oscars.

gloriasara — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 17:30:25 +0000

It’s been some time since my last post, and to take a break from studying the Bible (I’m taking a New Testament course and I have an exam tomorrow) I thought I’d do my predictions.

Best Picture

Slumdog Millionaire
The Curious Case of BB
Milk
The Reader
Frost/Nixon

Who will win: SLUMDOG
Who should: One of my new favorites, Slumdog Millionaire.

Thoughts: Slumdog is amazing. The depth and poignancy and beauty of the film hasn’t been met by anything else this year. Technically, BB is the best. But a movie that people will remember and adore and love forever is Slumdog Millionaire. If it doesn’t win–just–AHHHHH but it will. It has to.

Best Director

Danny Boyle
Danny Fincer
Stephen Daldry
Ron Howard
Gus Van Sant

Who Will Win: Danny Boyle
Who Should: I really like Gus Van Sant, but seriously, Danny Boyle.

Thoughts: Again, I really like Gus Van Sant (Good Will Hunting, My Own Private Idaho…) but Danny Boyle did an amazing movie. Tis all.

Best Actor

Brad Pitt
Mickey Rourke
Sean Penn
Richard Jenkins
Frank Langella

Who will win: Mickey Rourke
Who should: Leonardo DiCaprio. But oops, he wasn’t nominated because the Academy is whacked.

Thoughts: I think everyone knows how I feel about this category. Please see my entry: The Oscars SUCK. But to emphasize, anyone who thinks Brad Pitt was better in BB than Leo DiCaprio in RR is smoking something and deserves to be put away in an institution. Ouch. Harsh.

Best Actress

Kate Winslet
Melissa Leo
Anne Hathaway
Meryl Streep
Angelina Jolie

Who will Win: Kate Winslet
Who should: Kate Winslet. Finally.

Thoughts: Kate Winslet rocks.

Best Supporting Actor

Heath Ledger
Phillip Seymour Hoffman
Josh Brolin
Michael Shannon
Robert Downey Jr.

Who Will Win: Heath Ledger
Who Should: Heath Ledger

Thoughts: I love how RDJ was nominated for Tropic Thunder, because he kicked ass in that movie and what’s even more ironic was that his character was a method actor always trying to win Oscars. And well, now he was nominated for an Oscar. HA. Anyway, Heath Ledger deserves this award completely and wholeheartedly. The speculation of, “Would he have been nominated if he hadn’t died,” is bull because he was amazing. He redefined the Joker, captivated the audience and controlled the screen whenever he came up. You couldn’t take your eyes off of him. He was terrifying, disturbing, funny, and brilliant all at once. If that’s not best supporting acting, then I don’t know what is.

Best Supporting Actress

Penelope Cruz
Amy Adams
Taraji P. Henson
Viola Davis
Marisa Tomei

Who Will Win: It’s a 3 person battle between Cruz, Davis and Tomei, but my money’s on Cruz.
Who Should: They’re all great, just not Henson because BB is a recycling of Forrest Gump and deserves only to win in the technical categories. GAH that movie irks me.

Thoughts: I love Marisa Tomei. I love Penelope Cruz. Viola Davis was great. It’s between those 3. Just–no picture or acting awards for Benjamin Button. PLEASE God PLEASE. It is not deserving of them.

Much Love to Fellow Leo Lovers

gloriasara — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 04:27:15 +0000

I checked my stats and got quite a few number of views from fellow Leo-maniacs. Thank-you ever so kindly.

I am beginning to get over my disgrace of Leo’s snub. But then again, I’m seeing RR again tomorrow so I may just fall into my depth of despair once more.

I saw the new Lifetime movie tonight, (Prayers for Bobby) instead of waiting 2 hours to see Slumdog again in theaters. I’ll post a review tomorrow.

Thank you again everyone.

The Oscars Suck.

gloriasara — Sat, 24 Jan 2009 02:34:18 +0000

I will sound as immature as I want to.

They suck.
They suck.
They REALLY effing suck.

I was bracing myself for this, I really was. But yet I had the SMALLEST twinkle of a hope that the Oscars would actually recognize the best performances of the year. Brad Pitt over Leonardo DiCaprio? Seriously? ARE THEY ON CRACK? With all due respect to Brad Pitt, who is a fine actor, (I loved him in Burn After Reading), but he did not, by any means, deserve a nomination over DiCaprio. Pitt did not even TOUCH the quality of performance that DiCaprio shelled out in Revolutionary Road. I have never seen an actor become so vulnerable on-screen before seeing Leo DiCaprio in RR, and to see him snubbed is just–bullshit. It’s utter, bullshit.

And Kate Winslet not being recognized for RR? I realize she got Reader love, but what is so wrong with double nominating? If someone is excellent in two films, they deserve to get nominated twice. Especially for RR, she was brilliant!

I’m done with the Oscars. I’ve lost a huge amount of respect for the Academy. I’ll watch for Kate’s one nod, SLUMDOGGGGGG (Jai ho!) and Heath Ledger. I’ll watch something else on other channels while I”m waiting for the awards I have an ounce of respect for.

The Golden Globes

gloriasara — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 22:25:54 +0000

The Golden Globes are TONIGHT! I love the Globes, because they’re far more entertaining to watch than the Oscars because I can actually say I care about every single one of the categories. I’m going to do my predictions, but only on the main film ones. I don’t have much of a preference for television.

Best Picture (Drama)

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Frost/Nixon
The Reader
Revolutionary Road
Slumdog Millionaire

Who will win: Slumdog Millioniare
Who I Want to Win: Slumdog Millionaire
Best Actor in a Leading Role, Drama

Leonardo DiCaprio (Revolutionary Road)
Sean Penn (Milk)
Frank Langella (Frost Nixon)
Brad Pitt (Curious Case)
Mickey Rourke (The Wrestler)

Who Will Win: Sean Penn (Milk)
Who I Want to Win: Leonardo DiCaprio (Revolutionary Road)

Best Actress in a Leading Role (Drama)

Kate Winslet (Revolutionary Road)
Meryl Streep (Doubt)
Anne Hathaway (Rachel Getting Married)
Angelina Jolie (Changeling)
Kristin Scott Thomas (I’ve Loved You So Long)

Who Will Win: Kate Winslet (Revolutionary Road)
Who I Want to Win: Kate Winslet

Best Picture (Musical or Comedy)

Mamma Mia!
Burn After Reading
Happy Go Lucky
Vicky Cristina Barcelona
In Bruges

Who Will Win: Vicky Cristina Barcelona
Who I Want to Win: Vicky Cristina Barcelona

Best Actress in a Leading Role (Musical or Comedy)

Meryl Streep (Mamma Mia!)
Rebecca Hall (Vicky Cristina Barcelona)
Sally Hawinks (Happy-Go-Lucky)
Frances McDormand (Burn After Reading)
Emma Thompson (Last Chance Harvey)

Who Will Win: Meryl Streep (Mamma Mia)
Who I Want to Win: Emma Thompson or Rebecca Hall

Best Actor in a Leading Role (Musical or Comedy)

Javier Barden (Vicky Cristina Barcelona)
Colin Farrel (In Bruges)
James Franco (Pineapple Express)
Brendan Gleeson (In Bruges)
Dustin Hoffman (Last Chance Harvey)

Who Will Win: Dustin Hoffman (Last Chance Harvey)
Who I Want to Win: James Franco (teehehee) for Pineapple Express

Best Supporting Actress

Penelope Cruz (Vicky Cristina Barcelona)
Kate Winslet (The Reader)
Marisa Tomei (The Wrestler)
Amy Adams (Doubt)
Viola Davis (Doubt)

Who Will Win: Penelope Cruz (Vicky Cristina etc)
Who I Want to Win: Penelope Cruz or Marisa Tomei (I’ve loved her since: Would you give a fuck what kind of pants the son of a bitch who shot ‘ya was wearing?!) or Kate Winslet

Best Supporting Actor

Heath Ledger (The Dark Knight)
Tom Cruise (Tropic Thunder) <–most WTF nomination of the awards season.
Robert Downey Jr. (Tropic Thunder)
Phillip Seymour Hoffman (Doubt)
Ralph Fiennes (The Duchess)

Who Will Win: Heath Ledger (The Dark Knight)
Who I Want to Win: Heath Ledger (The Dark Knight)

Thoughts?

Burn After Reading

gloriasara — Sun, 11 Jan 2009 17:40:24 +0000

I am not a fan of the Coen Brothers. I discovered this after watching Burn After Reading last night on DVD. I hated No Country for Old Men (GASP!) so I was hoping it was just a one movie thing with these two directors, but no. Their style is obviously present in the former film, which tells the story of a a bunch of, well, stupid people, doing stupid things, and wreaking havoc. If they only burned something after reading (catch the pun!) all the world would be fine.

Okay, so really, it’s a star studded cast. It starts out with a man, Osbourne Cox, (John Malkovich) who’s just been fired from the CIA for his alcoholism. Upon losing his job, he decides to write a memoir. Meanwhile, Cox has a wife (Tilda Swinton) who’s busy sleeping with a handsome (and married!) sex addict (George Clooney) who later meets a love-seeking, Internet-dating, gym employee (Frances McDormand), obsessed with reinventing herself through plastic surgery. One day at the gym, McDormand’s character’s co-worker, a handsome but empty-headed guy (Brad Pitt) finds a CD filled with secret CIA information. Unbeknowst to him, the CD is filled with notes of Osbourne Cox’s memoir: meaningless, irrelevant, information that has no significance to the U.S. government, whatsoever. Instead of listening to their boss (Richard Jenkins) and getting rid of the CD, the two gym employees embark on a mission to blackmail Cox, so that McDormand’s character may get the money for her plastic surgery. Wacky hyginks (an expression used my high-school drama teacher) ensue, and the characters spiral out of control.

So why didn’t I like Burn After Reading? A star-studded cast, good performances (notably Brad Pitt who was, for lack of better term, awesome) and funny plotline. Call me slow or stupid, but it wasn’t clear enough. It jumped from place to place, offered clues here and there, setting up a mystery, but never hit the nail on the head in an “OH! THAT’S WHAT’S GOING ON!” kind of way. I was interested at first, but after an hour of just waiting to know what the hell is wrnog with these stupid characters, and WHAT are they doing, I got exhausted, tired, and bored. Sort of like No Country for Old Men.

Burn After Reading

** 1/2 stars out of 5.

Comments are always wonderful.