Review: Oldboy

by Trevor Kirkendall

★

I was going to pretend that Spike Lee’s “Oldboy” was not a remake of one of the best films of the last decade. I was going to sit there and watch “Oldboy” as if I didn’t know what was going to happen. I was not going to write my review for “Oldboy” and not compare it to the classic film from Chan-wook Park. Then I saw Spike Lee’s “Oldboy”. And now I just can’t help myself.

Josh Brolin helps butcher a classic film

It’s October 1993 as the movie opens. Joe Doucett (Josh Brolin) works in a New York ad agency. To put it politely, Joe is not a very nice person. He’s a raging alcoholic who is only interested in looking out for himself and his business. He doesn’t even want to attend his daughter’s third birthday because he has an important client to meet for dinner. After making a fool of himself at said dinner, Joe wanders aimlessly drunk through Chinatown until he passes out.

When he wakes, he’s in a dingy motel room, but there isn’t anyway out. He’s been kidnapped and is being held prisoner. All he has is a bed, a toilet, a shower, a TV and a copy of the Bible. On the TV, he finds out that his wife has been brutally murdered and the he is the prime suspect. He also learns through a true crime show that his daughter has been given up for adoption. Time passes and after 20 years, he is set free. He’s given a stack of 100 dollar bills, some sunglasses and an iPhone 5.

Enlisting the help of his old friend Chucky (Michael Imperioli) and an assistant at a mobile medical unit named Marie Sebastian (Elizabeth Olsen), Joe sets out to find out who kidnapped him. He keeps receiving calls on his iPhone from a blocked number. The voice on the other end (Sharlto Copley) tells him he has his daughter and he’ll kill her if he doesn’t play the game. Joe needs to figure out who this man is and why he kidnapped him. Otherwise, it’s lights out for the daughter he really wants to know.  

Min-sik Choi and Hye-jeong Kang in the vastly superior
2003 version of "Oldboy"

I fully intended on judging this film as a stand-alone movie and not a remake of one of the best films to ever come from the Korean peninsula. Halfway through the film, however, I couldn’t help but wonder why this film was deemed necessary to be remade. I suppose there are plenty of people who were never privileged to see the original Chan-wook Park masterpiece. The vast majority of the movie going public is probably very unfamiliar with this story. If you’re going to remake something, you might as well make one that most of the people haven’t seen.

But you also need to bring something new to the table. I’m not suggesting that Spike Lee’s “Oldboy” is a shot-for-shot remake of Park’s “Oldboy” but there isn’t any new substance, depth or complexities to the story or the characters that weren’t in the original. This version does not find Lee at his finest form. Far from it. What we have here is a film that seems to scare Lee. He seems timid in his approach to remaking such an acclaimed classic, even if the cinephiles were the only ones in the United States to have seen it.

Lee tries to incorporate too much of a Korean homage to his film. Korean films have their own very distinct voice. It’s much different than what American audiences are used to seeing. Someone could look at a Korean film and think some of the action, pacing, editing, photography and dialogue are on the campy side. While Lee keeps the vast majority of the film feeling very much like an American film, his occasional homages feel largely out of place. One scene in particular involves Brolin fighting a gang of people. It doesn’t quite fit the tone that’s trying to be achieved and comes across looking very out of place.

Furthermore, Lee included Samuel L. Jackson in a minor role. Jackson is typical Jackson: loud speech and plenty of profanity. He’s also dressed in some equally loud costumes too. His costumes scream Asian cinema. His character, however, is distinctly American.

Brolin doesn’t ever come across as the hero he’s meant to be. I found myself easily able to root for Min-sik Choi in the original. Brolin just seems like some arrogant guy that I wouldn’t even be interested in striking up a random conversation with at a bar. You can’t root for someone who isn’t likeable. The screenplay from “Thor” scribe Mark Protosevich gives him absolutely nothing to work with.

The one bright spot in this entire disaster is Elizabeth Olsen who plays Brolin’s investigative counterpart. She’s already carved out quite a career for herself in only a few years. She has easily escaped what could have been an extremely large shadow cast over her by her former megastar sisters. While Protosevich also gives her very little in the script, Olsen has been able to build the character up all on her own. We’re given very little backstory, but she seems much more relatable and much more empathetic. Olsen saves this movie from being completely forgettable, but she alone doesn’t make this a worthwhile venture.

“Oldboy” should have been off limits from Hollywood. If we do have to have remakes, then I think that looking at small foreign films is the route to go instead of remaking overplayed Hollywood films everyone knows. But internationally acclaimed classics such as Park’s “Oldboy” need to be left alone. For those who haven’t seen the original, I recommend you get on that right away. It is available on Netflix’s instant streaming service.

The only catch is the film is dubbed instead of subtitled. That’s a cardinal sin for foreign language films. Rather than reading it, you have to listen to some guy who got paid SAG minimum to sit in a recording booth and mumble his way through a script. And then the final product looks awful because the dialogue doesn’t even match the movement of the actor’s lips (cue jokes about old “Godzilla” movies). While dubbing this classic film’s soundtrack is an extremely disrespectful move, it comes nowhere near the blasphemy of its remake.

Review: Homefront

by Trevor Kirkendall

★★

I wouldn’t mind seeing the stacks of screenplays Jason Statham must have on his desk at home. They’re probably all full of the most generic tough guy stuff anyone can dream up in an afternoon. I then have to wonder how he chooses his roles or if someone chooses them for him. Or maybe he owes his friend Sylvester Stallone a favor. I’m not really sure what drew his attention to “Homefront” other than a desire to try something a little more dramatic.

Jason Statham attempting the flex his dramatic muscles.

Phil Broker (Statham) is an undercover DEA agent looking to take down a biker run crystal meth operation somewhere in Louisiana. The leader of this drug outfit is a guy named Danny T (Chuck Zito). Danny’s son is gunned down and killed by the DEA agents during the takedown, and of course he holds Broker personally responsible for it.

Two years later, Broker has left the force and has moved to a very small town with his soon-to-be 10 year old daughter Maddy (Izabela Vidovic). One day at school, a bully named Teddy (Austin Craig) tries to pick on Maddy but she ends up taking him down with two hits. Her dad is Jason Statham after all, so of course she knows how to do this. Teddy’s mom Cassie (Kate Bosworth), who is high on meth most of the time, holds Broker personally responsible (sensing the pattern yet?). She tries to get her husband Jimmy (Marcus Hester) to stand up for them, but Broker easily takes him down. Oh, it’s on now.

Feeling nothing more than disrespect, Cassie turns to her brother Gator Bodine (James Franco) to get back at Broker and his daughter. Gator runs his own meth kitchen as well. He pays off the town sheriff (Clancy Brown) to look the other way so he can cook and sell without being caught. Gator sends out a couple goons to take down Broker, but Broker takes them down first (typical Statham). Gator breaks into Broker’s home to see what he’s up against and discovers Broker’s DEA past. He sees the connection to Danny T and enlists the help of a meth groupie (yes, they have those apparently) Sheryl Mott (Winona Ryder) to offer up Broker to Danny T’s people. In exchange he wants distribution of his own meth statewide.

“Homefront” fires and misses on just about every level. It’s not a total disaster, especially if you like tough guy-Statham. This is a pretty typical role for him, but the only difference is that “Homefront” plays more like a drama rather than the explosive action movies he usual makes. The action sequences are few in numbers, but do play really well when they’re on screen. Credit that to director Gary Fleder. He’s done well with the drama/thriller genre before with films like “Kiss the Girls” and “Runaway Jury” but this is his first foray into the action genre. For his first time out, he pulls that off nicely.  

Outside of that, “Homefront” is miserable bore. That blame falls squarely on screenwriter Sylvester Stallone who adapted this from a novel by Chuck Logan. Stallone leaves a lot to be desired with the story. The entire driving force behind the conflict here is disrespect. They want Statham dead because he disrespected a man in public. The voices of reason in town (they're the only people in town without Southern accents, so you can be sure which character isn’t a white trash redneck) chalk it up to typical southern feuds (i.e. Hatfield and McCoy). They don’t take too kindly to folks who ain’t from around these here parts.

So our villains are feuding rednecks from Deep South Louisiana going up against Statham. It’s not a very solid foundation upon which to build a story. There’s nothing to differentiate the characters from one another. Bosworth plays a tweeked out redneck while Franco plays her brother: a tweeked out redneck, except he has a bit of a brain on him. Furthermore, Franco’s character isn’t someone I understand either. He seems to be doing pretty well for himself in this town especially since he’s got the sheriff in his back pocket. Suddenly he turns greedy and will stop at nothing to see Statham go down. All because his brother-in-law, a man he doesn’t even like, is disrespected in front of teachers. There’s nothing to grasp here.

Franco isn’t believable as a villain either. I know I probably shouldn’t say this, but I think it’s going to be very hard for me to take him seriously again after this past summer’s “This is the End”. And then there was his parody of the Kanye West video that was released this week where he once again acts like a goof with movie star BFF Seth Rogen. I know he can act because he’s been solid in dramatic roles before. Since his “Homefront” character is about as flat and clichéd as just about everything else, I can’t help by laugh at him. And he’s got a horrible Southern accent too.

Statham is Statham. You either like him or you don’t. He brings nothing new to his performance in “Homefront”. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but if he has any desire to try some more dramatic roles like this he’s going to need practice. Vidovic, who plays his daughter, is also somewhat of a letdown. After a commanding first scene, I thought she would be the show stealer. Her character is never really allowed to develop. They’ll throw little bits of dialogue in there that try to draw sympathy from the audience, but overall she comes across as annoying. That’s not necessarily her fault. That’s more on Stallone for giving her nothing to work with.

“Homefront” is fairly decent when it’s trying to be an action film, but it falls flat on its face when it turns into a drama. If tough guy-Statham is something you like, there are a lot of things you might find worthwhile here. You’re going to have to sit through a lot of exposition just to get there though. With a better screenplay and better performances, this might have been enjoyable. Instead, it’s a frustrating experience that will soon be relegated to a truck stop DVD buy-one-get-one bin and lost forever.  

2014 Independent Spirt Award Nominations

The nominees for the 2014 Independent Spirt Awards were announced today, kicking off the annual movie awards season. The awards honor independent films produced outside of the Hollywood studio system. Here is the complete list of nominees:

Best Feature:
12 YEARS A SLAVE
ALL IS LOST
FRANCES HA
INSIDE LLEWYN DAVIS
NEBRASKA

Best Director:
Shane Carruth – UPSTREAM COLOR
J.C. Chandor – ALL IS LOST
Steve McQueen – 12 YEARS A SLAVE
Jeff Nichols – MUD
Alexander Payne – NEBRASKA

Best First Feature:
BLUE CAPRICE
CONCUSSION
FRUITVALE STATION
UNA NOCH
WADJDA

Best Male Lead:
Bruce Dern – NEBRASKA
Chiwetel Ejiofor – 12 YEARS A SLAVE
Oscar Isaac – INSIDE LLEWYN DAVIS
Michael B. Jordan – FRUITVALE STATION
Matthew McConaughey – DALLAS BUYERS CLUB
Robert Redford – ALL IS LOST

Best Female Lead:
Cate Blanchett – BLUE JASMINE
Julie Delpy – BEFORE MIDNIGHT
Gaby Hoffman – CRYSTAL FAIRY
Brie Larson – SHORT TERM 12
Shailene Woodley – THE SPECTACULAR NOW

Best Supporting Male:
Michael Fassbender – 12 YEARS A SLAVE
Will Forte – NEBRASKA
James Gandolfini – ENOUGH SAID
Jared Leto – DALLAS BUYERS CLUB
Keith Stanfield – SHORT TERM 12

Best Supporting Female:
Melonie Diaz – FRUITVALE STATION
Sally Hawkins – BLUE JASMINE
Lupita Nyong’o – 12 YEARS A SLAVE
Yolonda Ross – GO FOR SISTERS
June Squibb – NEBRASKA

Best Screenplay:
Woody Allen – BLUE JASMINE
Julie Delpy, Ethan Hawke & Richard Linklater – BEFORE MIDNIGHT
Nichole Holofcener – ENOUGH SAID
Scott Neustadter & Michael H. Weber – THE SPECTACULAR NOW
John Ridley – 12 YEARS A SLAVE

Best First Screenplay:
Lake Bell – IN A WORLD
Joseph Gordon-Levitt – DON JON
Bob Nelson – NEBRASKA
Jill Soloway – AFTERNOON DELIGHT
Michael Starrbury – THE INEVITABLE DEFEAT OF MISTER AND PETE

John Cassavetes Award:
COMPUTER CHESS
CRYSTAL FAIRY
MUSEUM HOURS
PIT STOP
THIS IS MARTIN BONNER

Best Documentary:
20 FEET FROM STARDOM
AFTER TILLER
GIDEON’S ARMY
THE ACT OF KILLING
MICHAEL UWEMEDIMO
THE SQUARE

Best International Film:
A TOUCH OF SIN – China
BLUE IS THE WARMEST COLOR – France
GLORIA – Chile
THE GREAT BEAUTY – Italy
THE HUNT – Denmark

Best Cinematography:
12 YEARS A SLAVE
SPRING BREAKERS
INSIDE LLEWYN DAVIS
ALL IS LOST
COMPUTER CHESS

Best Editing:
UPSTREAM COLOR
MUSEUM HOURS
FRANCIS HA
UNA NOCHE
SHORT TERM 12

Review: Dallas Buyers Club

by Trevor Kirkendall

★★★

“Dallas Buyers Club” is a true story that discusses how bureaucracy interferes with expediting the FDA’s drug approval process. It’s not a film built on political motivations. It doesn’t take one side or another. What it does do is personify exactly who this approval process hurts. But that’s not the only story behind “Dallas Buyers Club”. This film features two of the finest acting performances you will see in any movie this year.

Matthew McConaughey stars as Rob Woodroof, a rodeo bull rider and electrician in Dallas, TX in 1985. The AIDS epidemic is a very hot topic in the news. At that time, the vast majority of cases are coming from homosexual men. Woodruff is a womanizer so contracting AIDS is not something that’s high on his mind. He engages in unprotected sexual relations with many different women. He’s homophobic to a fault, not wanting to be anywhere near a gay man. On top of that, he’s also an alcoholic and a regular cocaine user.

An accident at work one day lands him in the hospital. A blood test reveals he has HIV. Woodroof doesn’t believe it since he’s not gay. The doctors, Dr. Sevard (Denis O’Hare) and Dr. Eve Saks (Jennifer Garner), tell him he only has 30 days left to live. Woodroof hears about a clinical trial being done in the hospital for a drug called AZT and wants in on the tests. Dr. Saks tells him he can’t be a part of the study, but Woodroof is able to get some drugs anyway thanks to an orderly. He takes the drugs in high doses thinking that will kill the virus, but it’s very toxic at that level which almost kills him.

At the suggestion of the orderly, Woodroof travels to Mexico where a doctor gets him off the AZT and starts him on some more non-toxic drugs and proteins to help treat his illness. Woodroof can’t believe that these drugs aren’t available in the United States, but the FDA won’t allow them. Woodroof wants to buy up a lot of the medication and bring it back to the US in order to sell. With the help of a transvestite with AIDS he met in the hospital named Rayon (Jared Leto), Woodroof opens up what’s called a “buyers club” where they give the drugs away for free as long as they pay a $400 a month membership.

“Dallas Buyers Club” is a film built on a story foundation that can be seen in just about every movie you watch. That doesn’t make it unoriginal, it just means it’s following a formula that’s proven and works. Screenwriters Craig Borten and Melisa Wallack haven’t broken any new ground here, but their script is very solid. There’s nothing in here that shouldn’t be, the dialogue is well written and it’s well paced. There’s just no new ground being broken here.

Director Jean-Marc Vallée has a good grasp on the subject matter here and seems to understand what the focal point of this film needs to be. The movie is a critique on the FDA’s approval methods and how a pharmaceutical company can influence what drugs get to the market first. “Dallas Buyers Club” has outstanding performances, but those don’t need any additional attention. Vallée allows his actors to shine all on their own while keeping his attention turned on getting the subject matter to the forefront. He is successful in this regard.

While the subject matter is very important, the movie is also a showcase of great performances. Both McConaughey and Leto are entrancing on screen together. Both are virtually unrecognizable in their roles. The each lost an enormous amount of weight in order to play these parts. McConaughey sports a hairstyle that rivals that of Javier Bardem’s mop in “No Country For Old Men” while Leto does the entire role in heavy makeup and women’s clothes.

Their roles are written to be completely different from one another. McConaughey’s Woodroof is homophobic who continually throws out slurs to slander people like Leto’s Rayon. There’s no reason for these two would ever have been friends under any normal circumstance. They need each other in order to prolong their lives and to make money off of other people’s issues too.

Leto is a revelation in this role. He doesn’t do a whole lot of movies recently as he prefers to spend more time with his band. As an actor, he’s never been someone I ever thought was a stunningly good. He was great in “Requiem for a Dream” but he hasn’t done much since then. And then he reappears out of nowhere after taking a break from acting for four year with a role like this. His role in “Dallas Buyers Club” is humorous, heartbreaking and everything in between. He works great alongside McConaughey.

As for McConaughey, he’s never been better. He’s already shown his true acting potential with “Mud” earlier this year, but carries it even further with his role as Woodroof. Not only does he completely embody this character in every aspect of his performance, he’s also physically transformed to look more like the real Ron Woodroof. McConaughey shed his usual rugged good looks in favor of a skinny, gaunt and sickly apperance. There are many times when watching him that I forgot it was McConaughey in that role. This is the best performance of his career and one of the year’s best performances all around.

“Dallas Buyers Club” sheds some light on the backwards inner-workings of the FDA and how much government bureaucracy interferes with treating sick people. It doesn’t make any kind of political stances even though it does vilify the government agency to an extent. It’s really well made and quite entertainment even though it really brings nothing new to the cinematic table. McConaughey and Leto’s performances are the best reasons to check this one out. I can’t say it enough: they are absolutely sensational.

Review: All is Lost

by Trevor Kirkendall

★★★½

Every time a survival film comes along, I have to wonder how realistic it portrays the solitude. It’s fun and humorous even to see Tom Hanks dancing around a campfire in “Cast Away”, but is the reaction we should expect from someone who has just figured our their utterly lost? “All is Lost” is the latest to take on the survival story, but it addresses the solitude idea a little differently: this is a film with next to no dialogue and only one character.

Robert Redford is credited in “All is Lost” as Our Man. He is the only person in this entire movie. The film opens with a voice over courtesy of Redford that sounds like a goodbye note to someone, which eerily sets up the events that follow. Eight days earlier, we see our man waking up on his sailboat in the middle of the Indian Ocean. A shipping container floating in the water has damaged his boat.

He repairs the boat, but his radio equipment had been flooded leaving him with no one to call for help. And if things couldn’t get any worse, a storm pops up which tosses his boat throughout the waves. His boat is badly damaged, so much that he had to abandon it in favor of a life raft.

On the surface, “All is Lost” appears to be overly simplistic. There is only one person in the entire film, Redford, and there is very little dialogue. Outside of the opening voiceover, Redford probably only has two lines of dialogue. With so little going on, the film has a lot of potential to be a very boring 106 minute movie.

But it’s not boring at all. The film is paced so well that it feels much shorter than it is. The screenplay, written by director J.C. Chandor, relies solely on situational elements to keep the pace alive. And each of these situations creates moments of genuine intensity. Chandor doesn’t utilize typical scare tactics to levitate you from your seat. He’s able to dial up the intensity simply by putting Redford into one life-or-death situation after another.

I did have a hard time feeling for this character at first. As someone who would never be in this situation, I can’t feel sorry for him. He’s in the middle of the Indian Ocean on a sailboat that shouldn’t be that far out to sea. Not to mention, he didn’t really seem to know what he was doing. And since the movie just begins with no real setup, I didn’t know who I was supposed to be rooting for.

But then I realized that’s the point. Without any backstory, Chandor has allowed the audience to come up with their ideas of who this man is or where he comes from. For example, I noticed that he seemed a little in over his head at times. Perhaps he’s the cocky guy in the yacht club who thought he knew everything there is to know about boats. The more experienced sailors probably tried to talk him out of this excursion, but he didn’t listen.

There are so many questions that you can ask about this man and it’s entirely up to you to come up with the answers. What prompted him to take this trip? Why’s he in the Indian Ocean and not something a little more close to America (when he does speak, he speaks with an American accent so we know he’s from the USA at least)? What type of family does he have? Is he married? He’s wearing a ring on his left hand but it doesn’t really look like a wedding ring, does it?

Credit the costume and art departments for bringing out those questions. There a little things hiding out in the background that elude to who exactly this man might be in his everyday life. Chandor doesn’t dwell on any of it, but its up to the watchful eye of the audience to catch them.

Redford is sensational in this role. This is essentially a silent film for him. He speaks very little, only to himself or into a radio. And with no backstory built into the script, it was all up to Redford to create all the history and motivations on his own. I can’t imagine how much of a challenge that must be for an actor. Redford never seems to disappoint. Even if the movie he’s in is a bit of a misstep, Redford is always the one bright spot. He’s delivered many fine performances in his career and this one will go down as one of his best.

“All is Lost” won’t be for everybody. I can certainly see where some people might find the lack of dialogue a bit of a bore. But if you allow yourself to be creative as you watch it, there’s a lot you’ll be able to get out of it. Outside of that, it’s got a brilliant screenplay, its beautifully shot (both above and underwater) and its masterfully acted by its singular star. If you can accept this film as a silent film and let Redford’s performance coupled with whatever your imagination can concoct, there’s plenty to like here.

Review: Catching Fire

by William Hill
★★★½

From the ashes of the Twilight...thing (I refuse to call it a saga), comes The Hunger Games trilogy, the latest young adult fiction sensation which has been compared to Battle Royale, Lord of the Flies, and other subject matter far darker than the young adult label is purported to cover. I read the first volume of the trilogy when I got my Nook last year, since the freebie option was either this, or the aforementioned cheap anti-erotica novel, I opted for the book where teenagers kill each other. Considering the Stephanie Meyers blurb on the back cover, my blood was good and frosty when I opened the glorified HTML file that was siting in solitary on my new eReader, I was surprised to find the story of a strong young woman sticking it to a society of hedonists, while trying to survive a free-for-all battle before getting into a love triangle of what in the buggering hell is this nonsense?

Hardly indicative of the themes of nature of the film.

For those of you who are reading this and still questioning why people are into The Hunger Games franchise, allow me to assuage certain fears. No, this isn't about a love starved idiot who pines for two men while a far greater conflict gets shoved into the background. In fact, the entire love triangle thing was shoved into the first book/film. I'll wrap up my discussion of the first film by saying that it was a well told story with fine performances from most of the cast, and some of the most nauseating photography ever designed to conceal brutal violence. I was thrilled to hear that Gary Ross wasn't returning to shoot the follow-up, and that they were leaving the broken tripod back in the equipment truck. So how does the second act of Suzanne Collin's trilogy translate to film?

Well, I didn't get around to reading this book yet, so there will be no nitpicking.

Catching Fire picks up less than a year after the events of the first film, and Katniss Everdeen (Jennifer Lawrence) is still trying to recover from the grim happenings at the previous year's Hunger Games. Her relationship with Thor's brother, Gale (Liam Hemsworth) is a little bit icy after her claiming her love to Peeta (Josh Hutcherson), and rebellion is on the air. Do you see how long it took me to get to the rebellion part? Well, thankfully they dialed this back quite a bit for the sequel, and it doesn't take long before Katniss and Peeta are off to tour the districts and talk about their victory, and watch people get killed, riots break out, and how their actions in the games are spreading hope among the downtrodden people of the other districts. This doesn't sit well with President Snow (Donald Sutherland), who aims to use the popularity of Ms. Everdeen to silence the cries of revolution. What follows is a thrilling look at how people unite under symbols, and how the media is used to mask the dark world events happening right under our noses. It's smart stuff, however given the nature of the series popularity, I wonder if any of the concepts being introduced in the film are being noticed by the audience it is selling to. The score stirs and stings accordingly, and is decent enough to warrant mentioning. I'd like to have heard the mockingjay call used a melodic cue, but I didn't notice such touches of leitmotif upon my first viewing.

He just wouldn't stop asking them to play the music from Tron: Legacy...

Before I get philosophical, I have to celebrate how well Francis Lawrence has improved on what was done in the first film. The photography is far more competent, and doesn't shy away from the violence by quickly moving it from side to side. Sure, it's not packing Battle Royale levels of blood and gore, but it does a far better job of keeping the worst stuff from PG eyes. The visuals are usually impressive, though some of the CGI is less than attractive. When the Quarter Quell kicks off, and the action picks up, there is a scene with monkeys...it isn't as bad as Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, but it's definitely not a pretty sight compared to the bloom-lit beauty of glossy trains, 1% society, and some glorious landscapes. Extravagant costume design in the Capitol scenes continues to stand out, with some truly eye-catching scenes that are designed to remind us of the gap in the social strata, but still draw attention to the visual design of the film in a great way.

Catching Fire does give the world another reason to say how genuinely talented Jennifer Lawrence really is. While this isn't the meatiest content that she's dealt with (see Winter's Bone, and do it soon), she carries herself through every scene with aplomb. It's easy to relate to her troubles, be it the PTSD behaviors she delivers early in the film, or the stark middle-finger-raising rebelliousness which defines her character in the previous film, as well as the late second act of Catching Fire, she excels as Katniss. Supporting this luminary are decent performances from Hemsworth and Hutcherson. However, Woody Harrelson is still a lot of fun as Woody Harrelson, tumbling through the film as a brilliant raging alcoholic. Donald Sutherland is a fantastic villain, remaining intimidating throughout the film, providing a great specter to hover in the atmosphere.

Ummm...what?

I can't help but call the audience out in regards to the tonal content of the film. Let's start with this little oddity; I work at a drug store, and about two months ago, we received a shipper from Cover Girl marked Catching Fire, and I was more than sickened to find "District Twelve Look" makeup inside. It's blatant mass marketing using a popular brand to sell eyeliner when the source material is starkly anti-commercial. Let's pick this apart: both The Hunger Games and Catching Fire clearly illustrated that there was a deep chasm in the social strata between the districts and the Capitol, where people are starving while they go to work in the mines, but the rich are living extravagant lives of sheer hedonism, where they consume vast amounts of food, and then drink a small beverage that makes them sick so that they can continue to eat. When the distributor breaks out the marketing machine that allows you to buy the look of people who are starving and mining for coal, you begin to wonder what people are actually drawing from this series. Let's take it to the character. Katniss is a strong, independent teenager who would sneak out of the city to hunt so she could better feed her family. She put her name in the drawings for the games several times over to get more bread. I was already irritated that she was pushed into a love triangle in the second act of the book because it didn't make any damned sense. She becomes the icon of rebellion among the poor and downtrodden, because she is rebellious. She doesn't conform to what is expected of her by President Snow and the people of the Capitol. So tell me, how does this films fandom deal with putting on colorful Hunger Games branded eyeliner when thinking of this character as rebellious and anti-conformist?

The short answer? They don't. Despite the best efforts of the books and the film, which both depict the social strata of Panem, the idea of peoples as symbols for rebellion, and that this strong young woman could fight and survive against all odds, the thing I heard most people reacting to while the movie was going was the damned love story. Cynics who are unsure of why people bother with the young adult love story, allow me to tell you that Catching Fire is a strong film, with bold statements to make about cult of personality, how the media projects people, and how those personalities can be illusions. Francis Lawrence has made up for the sins of The Hunger Games, and delivered one hell of a second act in Catching Fire. Check out the first one if you haven't, and go see Catching Fire. It's a great theatrical experience, and a movie that you'll discover is a lot more than it's marketing suggests.

Baby, it ain't over til it's over.

Let's see how Mockingjay translates from the oft panned book to film when it comes out next year. In two parts. Because that's how we do the last part of equally sized books when we adapt them these days.

Oscarology: Vol. 2, pt. 2 - Best Actress nominees

Welcome to Oscarology, the study of the Hollywood awards season culminating with the presentation of the Academy Awards in March 2014. I am Trevor Kirkendall, your resident Oscarologist. I’ve been studying the tendencies of the Oscars since 1993 and have since earned my PhD in this study. The following series of articles will cover the landscape of the upcoming awards season from now until the nominations are announced on January 16, 2014.

Unlike Best Actor, the competition for Best Actress is not all that crowded. Of the major categories, it’s probably the least competitive. In the previous part of this volume (click here to read Vol. 2, pt. 1), I looked at 10 actors who all have a legitimate chance of earning a nomination. But with Best Actress, I'm hard pressed to find 10 actresses who could end up securing one of the five available slots. Where the competition will heat up is once the nominees are announced. Once we know that, I think that any one of the five could walk home with the Oscar statuette in early March. Let’s have a look at the possibilities.

1. Judi Dench - Philomena

Best Actress frontrunner Judi Dench with
Steve Coogan in PHILOMENA

Judi Dench has already won one Oscar for her very brief appearance in “Shakespeare in Love” in 1998. She continually wins over critics and audiences alike in nearly every role she plays. For her role in “Philomena”, Dench is already receiving critical acclaim from those who saw her performance at the Toronto International Film Festival. She plays a woman who gave up her son to adoption when she was younger (at that time and place, children born to women outside of marriage were forced to be given up). Years later, a journalist wishes to write about her story and the two embark on a journey to find her son. The trailer for the film makes this it look both humorous and deeply moving. There’s not a doubt in my mind that Dench will deliver an absolutely sensational performance. The story will probably resonate well with audiences who will be empathetic to her character’s situation. If Dench makes that connection, her second Oscar is a done deal.

2. Cate Blanchett – Blue Jasmine

Oscar winner Cate Blanchett in Woody Allen's BLUE
JASMINE

What can’t Cate Blanchett do? She’s already won an Oscar for her portrayal of Academy favorite Katherine Hepburn. She was even nominated for a Supporting Actress Oscar for playing a man (a fictional version of Bob Dylan in “I’m Not Here”). For “Blue Jasmine”, Blanchett teams up with story and character master Woody Allen. Allen has directed countless actors and actresses to Oscar nominations and wins, including Diane Keaton for “Annie Hall” and Penélope Cruz for “Vicky Christina Barcalona”. He writes real characters and gets the best out of his stars. An Oscar nomination for acting is as much of a victory for the film’s director as it is the star. I see no reason for Allen to not see another one of his stars receive yet another Oscar nod this year.

3. Sandra Bullock – Gravity

Sandra Bullock utterly alone in GRAVITY

In my opinion, Sandra Bullock’s role in “The Blind Side” was worthy of recognition, but not a win – mostly due to her competition that year. This year is a different story. Bullock’s performance in “Gravity” is spellbinding. She is responsible for carrying the vast majority of this film all on her own, no easy task for anyone. This was a very challenging role for her. Not just because of the character but also because of the stylized manner in which it was filmed. This was such an unorthodox way of filming a movie, thanks to the visionary prowess of Alfonso Cuarón. “Gravity” will be one of this year’s most nominated films and I firmly believe one of those many nominations will belong to the movie’s leading lady.

4. Meryl Streep – August: Osage County

Meryl Streep going for her eighteenth nomination in
AUGUST: OSAGE COUNTY

There are no lines to read in between here: the Academy loves Meryl Streep. Audiences love her. Critics love her. There are very few movies on her resume that one could consider bad. Even if the movie isn’t good, you can pretty much guarantee she’s going to be solid. She’s been nominated 17 times for either the best actress or best supporting actress categories. Her first nomination came in 1979 for “Kramer vs. Kramer” and her most recent nomination (and win) came last year for her portrayal of Margaret Thatcher in “The Iron Lady”. I know very little of her role in “August: Osage County” and I don’t really feel like I need to in order to make this prediction. Here’s what I know: Streep as the lead role in an adaptation of an award winning play surrounded by numerous stars which is being pushed by Harvey Weinstein as his studio’s top award contender. Trust me, she'll be nominated for the eighteenth time this year.

5. Emma Thompson – Saving Mr. Banks

Emma Thompson as P.L. Travers in SAVING MR. BANKS

There’s been a lot of talk about Tom Hanks playing Walt Disney in “Saving Mr. Banks” later this year. People are forgetting that his role in this film is a supporting role. The movie isn’t about Disney, but it’s more about Mary Poppins author P.L. Travers, played in the film by Oscar winner Emma Thompson. One thing to understand about the Academy is that they love to pat themselves on the back (as if that wasn’t obvious from the always expensive and vast ABC broadcast). They love movies about movies, and especially about old time Hollywood people. “Saving Mr. Banks” is getting pretty decent reviews from those who have seen it. Even if the film is only a mild critical and commercial success (it shouldn't have any problems appealing to the public) then I think it’ll have a good shot at several nominations. If that’s the case, there’s no way Thompson is left out.

6. Amy Adams – American Hustle

Amy Adams in David O. Russell's AMERICAN HUSTLE

Amy Adams is becoming another Oscar darling. Her first Oscar nomination came in 2006 for supporting actress in “Junebug”. Since then, she’s garnered three additional nominations, all for supporting actress. Should she be nominated for “American Hustle”, it would be her first nomination for actress in a leading role. One of her four nominations came from “The Fighter” in 2011. That film, directed by David O. Russell, won supporting actor and supporting actress awards for Christian Bale and Melissa Leo. Last year, Russell directed Jennifer Lawrence to an Oscar win for “Silver Linings Playbook”. Do you see the pattern here? Russell gets great performances out of his talent. In “American Hustle”, he’s enlisted the help of five lead performers who have a combined total of ten Oscar nominations between them. It isn’t a matter of if someone will be nominated for “American Hustle”, it’s a matter of who. Until reviews start coming out, I can only speculate. I think Adams has a shot, but more information about the film still needs to emerge.

7. Adèle Exarchopoulos – Blue is the Warmest Color

Adèle Exarchopoulos with Léa Seydoux in BLUE IS THE
WARMEST COLOR

Now here’s an interesting one to ponder. Last year, the Palme d’Or winner at Cannes, “Amour”, went on to earn five Oscar nominations including one for its lead actress Emmanuelle Riva. Riva’s performance was nothing short of spectacular and she was very deserving of her nomination. This year, “Blue is the Warmest Color” takes home the Palme d’Or. The film’s two leading actresses also collected honorary Palme d’Or’s from the jury in an unprecedented move. It was jury president Steven Spielberg’s way of saying the film’s success belongs to them just as much as it belongs to the filmmaker. Lead actress Adèle Exarchopoulos puts on one of the most flawless performances I have ever seen in a film. She’s on screen for every minute of its three hour run time. I think the film’s explicit sexual content could be something that keeps the film from earning many well deserved nominations. But Exarchopoulos is more than deserving of this honor. In all honesty she probably deserves to win. It might be too small to do any real damage (and its not even eligible for the Best Foreign Language Film), but it's no smaller than “Amour” so we’ll see what happens. I’d love for her to be singled out, but that will be a stretch.

8. Brie Larson – Short Term 12

Brie Larson with Kaitlyn Dever in SHORT TERM 12

“Short Term 12” is a movie not many – myself included, unfortunately – got a chance to see. The film made its premier at South By Southwest in the spring where it earned rave reviews for its star Brie Larson. Larson plays a supervisor at a foster care facility that looks after troubled kids. I’ve heard nothing but enthusiastic reviews about her performance. One tweet I came across after the film made its premier said that the viewer wished he could “throw every award on the planet” at Larson for this role. Granted, I haven’t seen the film so I can only go off the things I’ve heard. If the studio campaigns for her, perhaps she ends up as one of the five nominees. I think that’s a bit of a long shot.

9. Bérénice Bejo – The Past

Cannes Best Actress Bérénice Bejo in Asghar Farhadi's
THE PAST

This year’s winner of Best Actress at Cannes went to Bérénice Bejo for a film called “The Past” from Iranian filmmaker Asghar Farhadi. I know little about this film, but my only reason for including it in this list is because of Bejo’s win. She was also a Best Supporting Actress nominee in 2011 for her role in the eventual Best Picture winner “The Artist”. "The Past" will open in a limited run later in December so that it qualifies for this year’s Oscars. From what I understand, the film is powerful and so is Bejo’s performance. Judging from Farhadi’s previous film – “A Seperation” – and Bejo’s performance in “The Artist”, I would venture to guess these two probably work well together. I look forward to seeing this one when it opens. Bejo is probably a huge dark horse in this category, but I think she’s probably worth mentioning.

10. Julie Delpy – Before Midnight

Julie Delpy with Ethan Hawke in BEFORE MIDNIGHT

The last name on this list could go to any number of actresses from movies this year. Some performances I’ve seen, some I have not seen. The Best Actress category this year isn’t as competitive as some of the other acting categories, so I don’t really think it matters who I pick. Realistically, I think only the actresses listed at numbers one though seven have the best chances of securing a nomination. I would, however, love to see Julie Delpy come out of nowhere and secure a nomination for her performance in Richard Linklater’s “Before Midnight”. This film was the third film in Linklater’s ongoing series of films that takes us into the lives of two characters (Delpy and Ethan Hawke) every nine years. “Before Midnight” is a mesmerizing film thanks to the pitch perfect chemistry between Delpy and Hawke and their director. All three were nominated for Best Screenplay nine years ago for “Before Sunset” and I see another screenplay nomination in their future too. But the fan in me wants to see her nominated for Best Actress for this role. She’s been excellent in the two preceding films, and is absolutely sensational in “Before Midnight”.

In the next volume of Oscarology, we’ll have a look at the possible nominations for the supporting acting categories. There are plenty to choose from this year. Check back with us soon.