I guess the best that can be said is that Kelly is a master of making those brief moments where you almost convince yourself that the movie’s going to be better than it is.

Liked Diaz and Marsden, though. No problems on that front as far as I’m concerned.

Aside from that, what’s with the trend of talking foxes in this year’s films (although the one here was not likely the Fantastic Mr. Fox–didn’t sound anything like George Clooney)

But as you allude to, it basically falls apart during the denouement. Up until then, it had been a fairly conventional film that still felt fresh, but the last fifteen minutes really work against what came before.

As an aside, hard to believe that this decade is almost over. It feels like yesterday that the rampant fear about the ‘millenium bug’ was everywhere and how it was going to bring society to a halt.

That’s only natural.

Touche, sir…

Sometimes you’re comments are slightly bewildering to me.

That’s only natural.

Today I got the free paper (Red Eye by the Chicago Tribune) at the train station, which I normally don’t read. They featured an “interview” with the goat from The Men Who Stare at Goats. The Q&A was really really really dumb. I guess they couldn’t get Clooney, but it reminds me why I don’t read the Red Eye in the first place. At least it will make good packing material for the move.

I just saw The Box tonight… and I wish I enjoyed it more than I did. Kelly took a simple cautionary tale and turned it into an overly convoluted movie that still relies on an ultimately simplistic Twilight Zone-ish reveal. Marsden and Langella are both quite good, but Diaz is terrible. And how can digital water effects actually regress from The Abyss twenty years ago?

I didn’t hate Southland Tales as much as everyone else.

Sometimes you’re comments are slightly bewildering to me.

Um… Jeremy Brett? Even the hastiest of internet searches will reveal droves of fans shouting at the tops of their lungs that Jeremy Brett is the quintessential Sherlock Holmes and that there can be none better. I feel RDJ will be wonderful in the role myself, but to say it has not been done memorably is a horrible disservice to Jeremy Brett who immersed his life into the character for nearly a decade.

Though I am an atheist and am vehemently against organized religion of any stripe, I appreciate how this movie affected you and that it caused you to want to look inside yourself and pushed you to do something about how you see and feel about the world.

When a movie causes you to want to keep it alive in the present long after you see it, I would say that movie was an unqualified success. And it’s great to see that’s what you took away from it.

Well-written, and I like the ‘we are the future, but we’re also the present’ idea.

There was a book by Dave Eggers some years ago called “You Shall Know our Velocity”.
People bagged on this book pretty badly. But the first thing I thought about while reading your review was this book: When faced with giving away things we want to do to help people, what are the consequences and does it really matter?

Check out the book…I think you’d like it.

If the high unemployment keeps up, I may be moving, too–into my car.

Hey Slim, for a cool $20,000 you can open up your own DVD rental Kiosk biz.

I want to fix this, but don’t know how.

Nothing to fix, really. I just frequently think that things you say are moderately bewildering. Not a bad thing.

In this case, I don’t see why the studios would spend a bunch of money to make a blockbuster and not bother to release them here. I can’t for the life of me figure out an upside to that approach.

Sorry things aren’t going well, Slim. I’m glad to be working in a recession-friendly(?) industry, BUT that doesn’t mean I think my job is 100% secure, or that the industry doesn’t fall on hard times.

Hope things pick up for you soon.

I think you’ll eventually see blockbuster movies made in America that are only released overseas.

Don’t want to overparse, and you could be right for all I know, but … sometimes you say things that just don’t make sense to me.

Salvation didn’t do horribly in foreign markets, but it will remain in the red for a long, long time. A lower-budget fifth installment could happen, but I’d imagine a reboot is more likely at this point.

In other news, the hosts of the Oscars will be Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin, which should be awesome. Reportedly Ben Stiller and Robert Downey Jr. turned them down.

What is the Terminator franchise valued at post-Salvation? I guess the next logical step is to do a remake, although you could probably get creative and make it a pseudo-sequel as well (Skynet attempts to replicate their assassination attempt on Sarah Connor in 1984 but, you know, succeed this time).

You could replace all the actors but not completely jettison what has come before, ala Star Trek.

Granted, I can’t imagine there are many folks who give a fuck about the continuity of the Terminator franchise…

While this certainly feels like a PR job instead of a warts-and-all biopic – his outrageous behaviour is carefully balanced to show that (most of the time) he’s a good husband – one can’t deny that this is a slick and entertaining picture.

It’s sharply directed and fast paced with a particularly good early performance by Paul Giamatti as an obnoxious radio manager. Stern and several members of his radio team play themselves and do a solid job.

There are weaknesses in the film; segments where the characters talk directly to the camera to explain their behaviour feels like padding and implicity a lack of faith in that character motivation was established during the core of the film.

Also, the scenes with Stern and his wife feel rather unconvincing as it’s hard to believe that two such contrasting personalities could survive in a marriage. Indeed, that their real-life marriage broke up not long after the film was made makes sense from that perspective.

Despite being an insubstantial film in many ways, even non-Stern fans would get some entertainment out of this film.

Not a done deal yet, and moving of course is a total pain in the ass, but I find myself looking forward to the new digs. Hopefully it will work out.

On a side note, Matt Damon is quite good in this. Very good.

Sometimes their lustre has worn off by the time I pop in the DVD…

I think this is pretty much the definition of ‘overrated.’

As I said previously, I like story concepts like this so perhaps that’s why I accepted it more than most critics have to date. Indeed I found the revelations and finale to be quite compelling

But it was also due to Kelly’s skills as a director; I really liked some of his work in the middle stages that helped create a genuine feeling of paranoia and dread.

There were a couple of key weaknesses though, starting with the casting. Diaz and Marsden were OK I suppose, but I think with better actors their characters and their fates would’ve been a lot more riveting.

(SPOILER)
But the really big problem was with the key moment in the film when Diaz decides to press the button. I just wasn’t convinced that her character would do that; they were facing difficulties but hardly enough to be convinced that this suburban couple would even consider pressing the button knowing the consequences.
(END SPOILER)

Still, I found this to be one of the more enjoyable films I’ve seen this year.

Put another way, if Werner Herzog talked about his depression while making a movie, would you necessarily believe it? Maybe, but….

The prologue is deceptively beautiful. The first and parts of the second act are tolerable, and the epilogue is visually interesting. Gainsbourg has a very psychologically demanding role, and I really applaud her performance. But other than that, I left the theater horrified, nauseous, cringing, and wishing there was a way to easily erase the imagery singed into my mind.

Unlike Brian, I am not easily distracted by the fakery in film. In retrospect I would have welcomed any distraction, including a visit from the resident theater mouse, to take myself out of the film. Instead I watched in absolute horror as “she” kept committing more and more violent acts. (I will never look at a rusty old pair of scissors the same way ever again).

Apparently, von Trier was depressed when writing the film. Some critics dismiss this, but I think it would take depression to write something this dark. I recently tried writing a novel based on a dark short story I wrote in high school. I’m just too happy to pull it off, so I had to stop writing. I can only imagine what I could write if I were in as dark of a place as von Trier.

Overall, I think there were some good parts to the film, but it wasn’t worth sitting through the sadomasochism. If you’ll excuse me, I’m going to curl up in the fetal position under my desk and suck my thumb.

In no particular order-

BEST:
Casino Royale, Inside Man, Rocky Balboa, The Prestige, United 93, Brick

REST:
V for Vendetta, Curious George, Invincible, Blood Diamond, We Are Marshall, Lucky Number Slevin

OVERRATED:
The Departed, Little Miss Sunshine, Pan’s Labyrinth, Children of Men

WORST:
Poseidon, Ultraviolet,

I really wanted to like this film until 1 hour into it, when I almost lost interest completely.

They really had a cool conceit here, but there were a few too-obvious problems.

1. Why does he walk around like all these things people are saying are new to him or strange in any way. Wouldn’t he have grown up hearing all these things? And just as people lie tacitly now and we just shrug it off, wouldn’t he do the same thing to all the truth-telling?

2. And if people have been doing this all this time, why would they still introduce themselves to people and say something stupidly personal? They don’t lie…not like they have to tell strangers every personal detail.

My love of Gervais kept me going with this, but his choice of projects, to me, is just baffling…I feel he could have made something soooo much stronger than this based on this premise.

I was blown away by the number of star cameos that were in this thing: Philip Seymour Hoffman, Edward Norton and Tina Fey, just to name a few…strong stuff…where is Norton’s next comedy that doesn’t have Smoochy in the title…

James:
The Prestige as the best of the decade? Oof.

Not the best of the decade, but certainly in the top 20. I enjoyed it more than The Dark Knight by a wide margin.

Kinda surprised by James’ inclusion of Infamous is his Best Of. I wasn’t the world’s biggest fan of Capote but I thought that Infamous was markedly inferior in comparison with the earlier film and overly glossy even on when taken on its own.

Hard to explain. I really enjoyed Jones’ performance a great deal and while saying that the film “has heart” seems cheesy: that’s the best way to describe it. I just found it endearing, particularly given my ultra-low expectations. Maybe a desire to root for the underdog came into play?

It’s far from being a perfect film (I thought Daniel Craig was miscast and some of the prison scenes are absolutely absurd) but I liked it all the same. Never warmed up to the Hoffman version.

I’d say that The Departed leads the Overrated crowd. As time has passed, the memory of that stupid final shot has lingered stronger than the rest of the film.

I’ve tried to overlook the bad and focus on the whole, but that stupid final shot is why the film is only in sixth place on my list.

By the way, Ebert tweeted that a remake is in development, starring Leonard DiCaprio and Tobey Maguire. His reponse? “Vomitvomitvomit.”

2.) Where has Nick been? Is everything alright?

I’m fine. At first the computer games took a bunch of my time (Fallout 3 and Team Fortress 2 were dangerously addictive). Then I overpromised myself on a few fronts and found myself with a bunch of stuff to do, so I did one of my unannounced dropouts, which I do once in a while. Been lagging behind responses I want to make to stuff here and reviews I want to do, since feel like I want to write in on them all, which I of course realize I can’t. Haven’t seen a single film in the cinema since Trick R’ Treat (which I have yet to review, blegh). Sorry if I worried or pissed off anyone. Try and be better, just need to find the time and brain cells.

As far as I can tell, it’s not regarded as one of Truffaut’s greater pictures, but it’s a fun time.

1.) Why do I keep getting little ‘edit this’ links on the comments and then it keeps disappearing?

You’ll see the “edit this” when you’re logged in. WordPress will keep you logged in if you tell it to, BUT I’ve noticed that when you use the “www.gone-elsewhere.com” URL, it won’t recognize that you’re logged in. If you use “goneelsewhere.wordpress.com” you should be good.

1.) Why do I keep getting little ‘edit this’ links on the comments and then it keeps disappearing?

and:

2.) Where has Nick been? Is everything alright?

‘The Prestige’ was good but not particularly memorable imo and one that I’d really care to see again.

1) Pan’s Labyrinth
2) Army of Shadows (made in 1969, released in US in 2006)
3) The Fountain
4) The Prestige
5) The Proposition
6) The Queen
7) Neil Young: Heart of Gold
8) Brick
9) Clean
10) Marie Antoinette
11) Inside Man
12) Tristram Shandy: A Cock and Bull Story
13) World Trade Center

Yes, I think that’s a list that better represents my current feelings.

I still think that Running with Scissors was easily the most rancid movie of the year, and one of the most rancid of the decade. Truly ugly.

Most of the rest of my classifications from that year I’m still comfortable with.

Kinda surprised by James’ inclusion of Infamous is his Best Of. I wasn’t the world’s biggest fan of Capote but I thought that Infamous was markedly inferior in comparison with the earlier film and overly glossy even on when taken on its own.

I’d say that The Departed leads the Overrated crowd. As time has passed, the memory of that stupid final shot has lingered stronger than the rest of the film. Also in this category: Babel, Lady Vengeance, The Descent, Casino Royale, Thank You for Smoking

I would love to know what Rob thought of it. Would like to vent about that transparently pointless film…

Best of the Rest – The Lives of Others (only the unnecessary final segment in the 1990s prevented it from being ahead of The Queen) Idiocracy (patchy but its best segments and satire was inspired), V for Vendetta, Children of Men, Rocky Balboa (especially good in the early scenes)

Overrated – An Inconvenient Truth (boring and came across as a PR film for Gore), Thank You For Smoking, Borat, Little Miss Sunshine

Underrated – The Break-Up, The Fountain, She’s The Man (no classic but nowhere near as bad as some reviews painted it), Marie Antoinette

Disappointing – American Dreamz

Bad – Van Wilder 2: Rise of the Taj

Worst – The OH in Ohio (atrocious)

Best Performances – Ulrich Mühe in The Lives of Others, Helen Mirren in The Queen, Aaron Eckhart in Thank You For Smoking

Worst Performances – Dennis Quaid in American Dreamz (never thought much of him as an actor tbh), Julie Hagerty in She’s The Man (sad to see her decline so badly from a career that held such promise)

In a movie where Nicholson mugs and Damon throws around an atrocious “Boston” attitude, it’s DiCaprio who really drew you into that movie and made you feel something for his character…since the movie itself didn’t do a real good job of that, at least not as good as Infernal Affairs did…

1) Best of 2006?
United 93, Children of Men, The Proposition, The Prestige, Infamous, The Departed, Borat, Little Children, The Host, Notes on a Scandal, The Devil Wears Prada, Casino Royale, Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby

GOOD
Bubble, Crank, Idiocracy, The Illusionist, Inside Man, An Inconvenient Truth, Jackass Number Two, Little Miss Sunshine, Miami Vice, Mission Impossible 3, V for Vendetta

DECENT
Clerks II, The Descent, Imagine Me & You, Marie Antoinette, Running Scared

AWFULLY GOOD
The Wicker Man

2) Worst of 2006?
Basic Instinct 2, American Dreamz, The Da Vinci Code, Hostel, Grandma’s Boy, Firewall, Ultraviolet, Slither, The Sentinal, I’m a Cyborg, But That’s OK, Poseidon, Just My Luck, Pulse (Remake), Sakebi

VISUALLY INVENTIVE, BUT HORRIBLE:
Night Watch: Nochnoi Dozor

HORRIBLY DULL:
Superman Returns

3) Most underrated?
United 93, Infamous

4) Most under-seen?
United 93, Infamous

5) Most overrated?
Babel, Brick, Thank You for Smoking, Hard Candy

6) Best performance(s) of the year?
Toby Jones – Infamous
Ellen Page – Hard Candy
Meryl Streep – The Devil Wears Prada
Cate Blanchett – Notes on a Scandal
Judi Dench – Notes on a Scandal
Matt Damon – The Departed
Leonardo DiCaprio – The Departed
Sacha Baron Cohen – Borat
Jackie Earle Haley – Little Children
Nicholas Cage – The Wicker Man (if tone of performance was intentional…we’ll never really know)

The charms of this film eluded me….

You’re dead inside.

Anyway, I’ve been beating the drum against celebrity voices for years. Billy Crystal was always my big gripe with Monsters, Inc., for example.

I think the success of Robin Williams in ‘Aladdin’ was a big turning point because iirc, he was so heavily promoted with the film that the film’s success was in part because of his association with it.

It doesn’t really make sense on any level… and would seem unnecessarily costly to add all these celebrities in.

As you say, kids aren’t going to care who the actor is, and adults will just be picturing gandolfini the entire time, so…

Most likely just used from a marketing stand-point for overseas sales…

I agree with a lot of the issues you guys have with this movie, but damn, if it isn’t one of the most thought-provoking sci-fi’s I’ve seen in a long time and if Rockwell didn’t give one of the best performances I’ve seen in a while.

I was really troubled by, as Jeanine first said, the computer could be ‘convinced’ to do things pretty easily.

There were quite a few instances that didn’t sit right, but Rockwell and the amazing ‘old school’ effects work phenomenally.

I don’t think Jones will be a major talent of historic proportions, but I look forward to his next one.

I don’t have any particular reverance for the book–I don’t remember reading it as a kid, though I did read it to my nephews once, but it seems to me the book is about the wonders (and dangers) of the imagination, and this one is a long parable about the fracture of the modern American family, and I did feel it hit me on the head. I really don’t want to see a movie about fantastical creatures who are nothing more than representations of psychological dysfunctions. What a dreary group!

I also wonder about the most fundamental change in the plot–in the book, Max is sent to his room, and it’s there than he imagines the wild things. By sending him off into the woods he externalizes the fantasy (what is he doing in the woods while this episode is going on?), making his mother worry and behaving more like a kid who needs a heavy dose of meds than Sendak’s Max.

Random rant–I have always wondered about using famous actors as voices in animated films (though this one isn’t animated, it sort of is). Up until the late eighties/early nineties, voice actors were mostly anonymous (can anyone but a Disney enthusiast tell me who was the voice of Snow White?) Why this changed interests me, because for an animated film that is geared toward children, what is the purpose of using voice actors that they probably haven’t heard of? The tots seeing Where the Wild Things Are have no idea who James Gandolfini is. The adults do, but are they seeing the film because his voice is in it? I would imagine he has a bigger price tag than an unknown actor, so I’m curious why this is done, over and over (Kung Fu Panda has a huge cast of high-price talent). Maybe they do it for less money, but still, what’s the point?

Of the four stories, I enjoyed the woodcutter’s the most. But the retelling of the same events was already getting old by that point. I’m glad I got to see the film, but I don’t need to see it again.

The IKEA-leading-to-sex-and-then-to-the-dance-number was…whew.

Not trying to be too down on all of these recent movies, but, wow. This one didn’t walk the line, it dove over it and i couldn’t get into it at all. Levitt should be a star, but his character is wholly unsympathetic cause he’s so…hooked on this girl who laid things out for him quite well and he still acted like he did.

And the guy who called it a “tone poem” is a pompous clown.

I would never call it a “tone poem” – anyone who says that is probably a pompous clown – but a family drama. Only unlike most family dramas, and even most family dramas that involve kids, it’s told through the point of view of a child. It’s one of the rare movies that doesn’t condescend to its child characters or use them as human shields in its exploration of family dynamics, and I loved it for that.

I’m going to see it again in theaters if I get the chance. I think it’s one of the best big-studio films in years.

I read the book at lunch today. I was more of a fan of Velveteen Rabbit growing up so I wasn’t as familiar with the WTWTA book. So I don’t really know what fans of the book really thought. There obviously isn’t much to the book except the major plot points.

I think the movie does a good job of exploring the aimlessness of Max’s imagination. Maybe it’s a little slow, but if you sat down and daydreamed for a couple of hours like Max, you may not end up with a perfect story.

I really think the point about all the characters acting like kids is worth reiterating. Think about something like Toy Story where the toys are more adult-like. They sometimes make jokes that only adults understand, roll their eyes, etc.

The wild things are much more child-like, dispite their stature. Everything they do is childish, such as their temper tantrums, and saying things like “I don’t want to play anymore”. It’s hard for me to think of another kid’s film that is truly through the eyes of a child.

Ebert made a comment in his review that because each of the wild things were unique, he wondered how they “reproduce their species”. I think he’s missing the point. When Max is imagining the wild things, he doesn’t think of the details. The characters don’t really have a back story, or even a future.

Think about Max’s vampire story from the beginning. His imagination of the wild things is not that much different. It’s short, and doesn’t make a whole lot of sense, but it’s just a story. You’re not supposed to ask questions about the how and why because it’s just all a passing moment in Max’s mind.

All I know about Walt & El Grupo I learned from IMDB, but the basic idea is that the government sent Disney and his animators to South America either to curry Latin favor or distract them…hoping the result would be that none of those countries would enter the war (at least against the US).

Many reviews say it’s too sunny a narrative or plays out like a whitewashed family home movie.

Can’t wait to see it!

Spielberg is one of my twelve movie gods that I worship in the temple of Xanadu that I have built in my underground lair, so to avoid pissing any of those directors off…

Let me venture a guess and say: Does the original ending have anything to do with her hurting herself? If that’s so…then pretty sad they would change it, because that’s what he sets up when he shows the stupid exorcism video.
******************SPOILER***********
The exorcism chewed her own arm off!
Does he follow through with that idea? Nope.

I do think the movie is weak in the area of story though. I know some folks have already excused that by saying it’s a beautiful tone poem or some such shit, but there’s a reason the original book is like six pages long with only nine sentences or something. Max’s lesson is a simple one. The movie has to keep hitting us over the head with just how darn difficult it is to be a family… over and over again… just to justify a feature film length.

But that last shot of Max and his mother at the table is beautiful.

“So you’re trying to tell me he’s set this entire thing up and we’re supposed to empathize with this young girl and then the ghost goes all gangster and punishes the boyfriend?” – The boyfriend isn’t the only one who suffers here.

“And at least ten ideas in this movie start, and then: go absolutely nowhere.” – I see a few that start and then aren’t explained, but the whole idea is that they and we don’t know what’s going on here.

“Which brings us to the ending, sir, and one of the weakest directing decisions I’ve ever seen.” – Reportedly the ending was changed from the original (which I’ve heard if you’re curious) at the suggestion of Steven Spielberg.

“And no words on the atrocious Ouija board scene?” – I agree it was pretty cheesy, but at least it was brief.

Perhaps my phrasing was inappropriate, and running wasn’t the correct word. If I have misrepresented that, then ‘my bad’.

But, hoooo-boy, do I not understand where you’re coming from. To wit:

…but most of it is captured very effectively from a still position

There are so many things that can be said about this movie simply from that sentence, like: You feel this is a good conceit that works effectively for an entire film?

I agree that the leg coming off the bed and being dragged through the house is one of the scariest moments captured this year…but placed into this movie as a whole?

I said there were many instances that worked, and worked incredibly well. Like the first time she stands and the tape fast-forwards? Incredibly creepy. But the third time with nothing happening, and then we’re supposed to buy that it was working-up to what happens later? Not a very good payoff at all.

Which brings us to the ending, sir, and one of the weakest directing decisions I’ve ever seen.

So you’re trying to tell me he’s set this entire thing up and we’re supposed to empathize with this young girl and then the ghost goes all gangster and punishes the boyfriend? Why, cause he was talkin’ smack through the movie? I didn’t know the ghost was a Blood…or maybe a Crip.

And no words on the atrocious Ouija board scene? There are sequences in this movie that a first-year film class would discuss and nix from their final projects.

I think you’re severely under-selling the film’s slow and creepy build of nocturnal happenings. You exaggerate about the “sixty minutes of running with a camera” as most of the film is POV from the camera sitting on a tripod watching them while they sleep. Yes it moves a few times to show conversations or to investigate noises and such, but most of it is captured very effectively from a still position. And it is incredibly goddamn creepy. From the door slowly opening then closing, to the shadow, to the footsteps seen and heard… all while the couple sleeps unaware… you can’t help but feel tense and creeped out. And the scene that starts with the “ghost” pulling her leg out from under the covers before dragging her off the bed? Easily the most terrifying and pulse-racing two minutes I’ve seen onscreen in the last twenty years. And those fast-forwarded scenes of her simply standing by the bed or over her sleeping boyfriend for hours at a time are also eerie as hell.

I also don’t understand what you mean by “If the malevolent spirit really had a problem with the young woman, why would it do what it does at the end?” Unless you define malevolent as ‘jovial or friendly’ I think it’s pretty clear why it would do that. Again, the final seconds are ludicrous, but the minutes leading up to them are brilliantly effective.

Yes it was done on a budget, yes the actors aren’t great (but they’re also far from terrible), and yes it leaves a few unanswered questions… but it’s still entertaining and scary. Blair Witch was a mediocre movie with an absolutely phenomenal and terrifying final few minutes… this movie is pretty scary and creepy throughout and then marred by three seconds of Spielbergian meddling.

Sorry I went on and on… had to make up for my recent absence.

Look at two similar sequences:

The opening of Casino Royale and the warehouse sequence in Surrogates.

In Casino Royale, the chase had space…it had beats and rhythms that fit the space it was in.

In Surrogates, it felt as though, like I said, the blocking and set dressing was created just to fit in that small space that was the only space they could find close enough to the production area in this land of great tax breaks.

Phew…do you parse your arguments with Jeanine this closely? I’m honored…but a bit exhausted…

As Brian says, it remains to be seen what the ten nominations will mean. I would imagine a few non-Oscar type films will get in (surely The Dark Knight would have bene nominated last year), but I don’t think it means that movies like Star Trek or The Hangover will get in, and if I were Harvey Weinstein I wouldn’t bet on an Inglorious Basterds nomination, despite Fillman’s love.

But on the other hand it does cheapen the honour and value of getting a nomination, so in the long term I don’t think it will be a good thing.

I think this begs the question, “honour and value” in whose eyes?

As things currently stand, only a small number of films can realistically hope to get a nomination, as you point out. Of those, the ones that do get a nomination do so due as least in significant part to the jostling of the films’ respective marketing efforts than any artistic merit. That’s a process that has a lot of “honour and value” for the people involved, but questionably so for everyone else.

I guess what I mean is, even if you’re right, the “honour and value” of the process is not something that’s necessarily worth preserving. Maybe the new process will turn out to be a disastrous, and the same problems that exist now will continue, only doubled. But I think there’s at least the possibility that by opening things up, we’ll get a wider range of nominations that’s more representative of the year in cinema, not to mention the chances for a movie actually winning that would have never had a prayer otherwise. If that happens, it will make them more meaningful instead of less, just not necessarily to the current stakeholders.

Remains to be seen.

But that raises another question? Did the Oscars ever honestly hold any true cache?

(I love writing that word knowing Mr. Webb’s hatred for what I think is one of mine and Brian’s favorite films.)

Which leads me to thinking what would’ve occurred had this been around 20-30 years ago. I’m pretty certain that someone like Woody Allen would’ve been an enormous beneficiary out of it. The Academy have given his films lots of nominations over the years although I don’t think not that many for Best Picture. Under this system, I’m sure he would’ve had 5-6 extra nominations in that category (e.g. Radio Days).

I can see both sides of the arguement over the expanded nominees. It does make it more interesting as to what could be more nominated; in recent years it’s been seemingly predictable that 6-7 films obviously geared towards the Oscars are released in late December and get 4 of the spots.

But on the other hand it does cheapen the honour and value of getting a nomination, so in the long term I don’t think it will be a good thing.

The truth is, Marco, with the expansion to ten nominees I have no idea what’s going to happen. I would say IB has a slightly less than fifty percent chance of getting a nomination, as I would imagine it will seem too cartoonish and crass to a certain element of the Academy.

I am still convinced, all these years later, that so many people went to Blair Witch because they couldn’t figure out why they didn’t see what so much of the ‘hype’ told them they should.

This has to be one of your most counterintuitive statements ever – people went to a movie because they didn’t buy the hype. Um … really?

JS can probably best answer this as he follows the Oscar history and formguides closely and saw the film: what are its chances of getting one? Considering it was overall a critical hit and the public responded to it very well (according to IMDB users it’s the 45th best film of all time!), it seems like a real chance to get one for mine.

And the ending? If the malevolent spirit really had a problem with the young woman, why would it do what it does at the end? The ending means it wasn’t malevolent, it was just a ‘gang-staahhh.’ It’s a completely different movie its last ten minutes.

And having the people who come in do what they did and end it the way they did and then not have the malevolent spirit be the antagonist of the moment just makes me…and I’m bored just talking about this much of it again…

The Astro-Boy trailers really look pretty good…

Terminator 2 felt of-a-place and of a time…set in an environment you would expect to see these events happening.

All of the events felt really disconnected and…strangely…disconnected from where they were happening.

I would’ve chose D.C. Much more believable.

Boston is too small, too blue collar and too…not on the map to think this would have taken place there.

Next stop will be a well-paying television gig, I guess.

My only problem with it is that the white in the middle (and under his foot) looks like glare from a flashbulb, as if I had taken a photo of it myself.

“Our sandwiches now have 20% more rye!” Which is what I thought you were going for…

The Wry Humor Man!

(sorry)

Don’t worry filmman, it all balances out when I swoon over your hatred of ‘Lawrence of Arabia’ and love of ‘Captain EO.’ And boy do I swoon.

Nerds.

And my two cents on the subject is that the 3D rarely adds anything to the film. It did work well in Up and in Coraline, but those are the only two I’ve seen where it felt like a natural part of the film. I think the “fad” will last a bit longer this time than it has in the past, but it will eventually settle down into being used for kid’s features only. They’re the only true market for 3D as they never tire of the effect, and they’re also an easy mark for the increased ticket price which is the real reason studios are thrilled at the technology.

his statement about no one ever watching a movie in 2D thinks about how much beter it would be in 3D made me wonder if I have ever thought the same thing in reverse….

I thought that with both The Nightmare before Christmas and some lame James Cameron documentary I saw in 3-D. They caused me headaches and I couldn’t wait to exit the theater.

I do wear glasses as well.

Ebert has a fine rant, but his statement about no one ever watching a movie in 2D thinks about how much beter it would be in 3D made me wonder if I have ever thought the same thing in reverse…. and I haven’t. Sure, if you’ve seen UP in 2D then going to see it in 3D is probably going to be a distraction, but I have only seen it in 3D and it was wonderful. I had no need to rush elsewhere to see it in 2D because I had a perfectly pleasant experience the first time around.

Lastly, I wear glasses and have never had a problem fitting the RealD, IMAX 3d, or amusement park ride 3D glasses over my own. They have all worked fine for me.

In that recent article, Cameron said the 3D cameras were so big, the stuntmen had to run half-speed so the camera could keep up.

the worst kind of asshole – the kind that is easily able to convince the world that he’s a deeply decent fellow, even while looking someone in the eye and stabbing them in the chest.

Well said; dealing with that right now.

I am curious though about how 3D works for kids. I know some theaters charge for 1 and up. But how is a 1 year old going to keep the 3D glasses on, not to mention the fact that they don’t come in different sizes.

I don’t know what I had because I never went to the doctor. (And I do have health insurance!) I’ve actually never had the flu before to my recollection, and I don’t get flu vaccinations either. I’m no fool, the government won’t be using me for a lab rat! Kidding. I don’t actually listen to conservative talk radio. But I do watch Bill Mahar’s show…

Thanks Slim! I’m still around, and I’ve been poking my head in periodically to see what’s going on here at GE. Work is keeping me busy and I’ve actually been pretty sick for the past couple of weeks… I caught something my last few days in Austin that only now has finished dribbling out of my system.

Fantastic Fest was very cool, saw some great movies as well as some terrible ones, met some interesting people, had a blast (before I got sick).

And filmman, I’d send you emails too if you lived anywhere near me. You’ll have to enjoy the screenings by way of Joe’s comments and reviews.

It would be close to the worst film I’ve seen by an Oscar-winning director.

Hmm, now that’s an interesting topic…

I’ve never seen Shandling’s TV work either, even though his 1990s show had a cult following here in Australia. As co-writer and star he has to take prime blame for this; you can see at times what type of film he’s trying to make but clearly he’s struggled with the different requirements film has over TV and is in way over his head. As a few reviewers noted, co-star Greg Kinnear would’ve been a much better choice for the lead role.

As for Mike Nichols, notwithstanding his patchy career, it is amazing how badly this is directed. It would be close to the worst film I’ve seen by an Oscar-winning director.

Knowing of its bad rep I had very low expectations but remarkably, it couldn’t even reach those. Apart from one or two funny moments, this is a complete disaster; unfunny, idiotic, and full of baffling character behaviour just so that it can reach it’s predictable denouement. It’s probably the most technially and structually inept mainstream Hollywood I’ve seen released this decade.

One of the film’s biggest problems is Shandling, who is totally out of depth here and it’s easy to see why his film career ground to a halt after this. Annette Bening does well to come out of his unscathed as the love interest while an excellent cast is largely wasted.

If the 2000 Year in Review thread was done now, this would be in a battle with ‘Scary Movie’ for the worst of its year.

Never mind those who are willing to endure (enjoy?) 12 straight hours of it.

Side note: posted this topic via WordPress’ iPhone app today. I know I’ve said it before, but it never fails to amaze me how much easier it is to post using my freaking phone than it is a browser. I really wish it was possible to use the drop-dead simple mobile interface in Firefox or IE.

In other news, Joseph Wiseman, who played Dr. No, has passed away. He was 91.

Theaters are playing all 6 Saw movies back to back in a marathon with the 6th (new) movie playing at midnight. Basically, it equates to 12 hours in a movie theater with a few minutes for a break between movies.

I can’t imagine liking the series enough to sit in a theater for 12 hours. (I should note I haven’t seen any of the Saw movies). Are there really that many Saw fans out there who actually do these marathons?

Good to know it’s mobile so I can read stuff on the train. Only makes me want an iPhone more now, though.

Telling thing in this article:

Cameron now says: “It’s the most complicated stuff anyone’s ever done.”
That’s a distinctly different tone to: “You’ve never seen anything like this”…yeah?

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/10/26/091026fa_fact_goodyear

While there was only the occasional witty line, it was agreeable enough to keep me interested and there were one or two nice moments of insight. The performances were generally good, especially Wood who did very well considering the character she was stuck with.

But while this was clearly better than ‘Anything Else’, it was still pretty average stuff and way, way off Allen’s best work. The film’s biggest problem is the central character played by David. Not because of his obnoxiousness but that he was totally unbelievable as a ‘genius’ physicist. At no stage does he display any signs of deep thought and insight behind his worldview. He just comes across as a boring whiner who could happen to be be a waiter, a salesman, an assistant manager at a shopping centre etc… And David doesn’t have the skills as an actor to try and camoflague this.

And in anycase, his misanthropic attitude doesn’t even seem that convincing; there’s no real feeling of genuine rage or anger beneath the surface. He just feels like one of those characters (like Jack Nicholson in ‘As Good As It Gets’) who spouts out all this bile early on the film but you know he’ll soften by the end. It’s a far cry from Max Von Sydow’s character in ‘Hannah And Her Sisters’.

As I said earlier, Evan Rachel Wood is a real standout giving a really enjoyable performance of a character that – as JS said – is basically a litany of Southern cliches. Without the sincerety of her performance the whole film would’ve sunk.

I guess the film’s biggest overall problem is what seems to have blighted Allen’s work for the past decade or so – that he has nothing new to say and is rehashing stuff from his earlier, better films; especially in this case ‘Hannah And Her Sisters’ as David’s character reminded me a lot of Allen’s character from that film.

As it was this was a passable time-filler… but don’t expect this to be a part of a future DVD box set containing Allen’s best work.

“Oh, nooo….Moops. It says Moops.”

It’s sad given how much I used to respect and enjoy his opinion.

How much the ‘ten best picture’ candidates is just a bald attempt to pull in a larger audience for the awards by allowing films that shouldn’t be near Oscar to be nominated.
Wells can’t find even five other films released this year that deserve Oscar’s attention, other than Pelham?

How about smaller films? How about smaller films that don’t have the marketing budget but deserve the recognition? Perhaps like ‘Moon’?

Even bringing up Pelham for a best picture is absolutely ludicrous.

Notwithstanding that ‘The Manchurian Candidate’ remake was pretty decent imo, I think it can be safely said that all these remakes will be quickly forgotten (and the first 3 probably already have been) while the original lives on.

I would go back in a heartbeat.

I remember Saturday mornings and roller derby. It’s wrestling for people who like roller skating. The fights were fake, the action choregraphed. I really enjoyed it as a kid.

There was a couple in the theater who thought this was some kind of Mystery Science Theater 3000 thing. They were making jokes throughout the film, but they were at least whispering so it didn’t bother me too much.

I saw Shadow of the Vampire when it was new, but I don’t really remember it at all. I can’t even remember if I had seen Nosferatu before I saw SotV.

If IMDb is to be believed, Schreck is actually only on screen for 9 minutes (I’m not sure if that’s including his shadow). I think really those are the best parts of the film. I actually woke up in the middle of the night last night after dreaming about Nosferatu. I wasn’t kidding about feeling like my neck was exposed.

I haven’t seen the film so can’t really specifically comment. However, considering it was less than enthusiastically received critically, wasn’t even embraced by the public and for all intents and purposes looks like another pointless assembly-line Hollywood remake, it seems an amazing suggestion to make (notwithstanding there are 10 spots for Best Pic this year).

It reminds me of what someone here said about Wells when he was raving about the Poseidon film a few years back (another pointless, soon forgotten remake); for all his raging against Hollywood, he’s a pushover for big-budget mainstream Hollywood productions.

I’d agree with JS’s comment that this felt like an extended Twilight Zone episode; I thought the story could easily have been told in 60-70 minutes. At this length I found it tedious – even boring – at times.

I did respect it though from a technical point and that it was quite unusual in many ways. Rockwell’s efforts were impressive and it did generate a lot of debate amongst my friends after the film, which is always a good sign.

But not a film that I got much pleasure or satisfaction from.

I did see Whip It, a review should be posted tomorrow.

The only time I saw this was at a screening while I was in college. There was no live accompaniment, and the atmosphere was one of frivolity, with a lot of talking back to the screen, etc. (there are some pretty silly scenes, such as when the Count bolts out of his coffin standing straight up).

Have you seen The Shadow of the Vampire, from about ten years ago, with Willem Dafoe as Schreck? (Schreck is the Yiddish word for ‘fear’). So-so movie, more interesting than entertaining.

It’s far from a perfect film, but it’s lean, mean, and pretty inventive. O’Quinn is terrific in it.

I double-checked and I am not finding any e-mails from Rob. When was it?

Think it was the week before last. I’ll send you an email right now.

It’s my next movie.

What is Nation’s Young Blood? Is this some Facebook thing I’m left out in the cold on?

Did Nick finish playing The Sims or whatever lame early 00’s game he was fooling around with?

My son goes wild for the Wild Things trailer every single time it’s on, which makes me want to see it succeed.

except for perhaps Fatih Akin, whose movies I’ve never seen.

Unfortunate travesty.

And no, I haven’t seen Nair’s other movies. She’s certainly the most accomplished of the directors involved, though, except for perhaps Fatih Akin, whose movies I’ve never seen.