Oscar Watch: "The Descendants"

"The Descendants"
Starring: George Clooney, Shailene Woodley
Director: Alexander Payne



"The Descendants" is a film about loss, truth, and ultimately, forgiveness. It runs the gamut of human emotion, through the eyes of a family who's matriarch is comatose, and who's past hides a secret. Clooney portrays the husband, Matt King, who's wife, Elizabth, was traumatically injured in a boating accident. As he tries to bring his family and lead them during this troubles time, he finds out a disturbing secret about his wife. After anger, he finally learns to forgive.

This film's strength was on the emotions of its characters. Matt had the most emotional journey, from regret to anger to forgiveness, and then acceptance. Elizabeth's father was portrayed as a hard, unaccepting man, but in the end was just a father who truly loved his daughter. Elizabeth's older daughter somewhat mirrored clooney's journey in terms of forgiveness. And her boyfriend was first there for comic relief, but we later see that there is a certain maturity behind him.

Was this a good movie? Sure. Fantastic enough to be oscar-worthy? Not in my opinion. Clooney's acting was good and solid, but not something overally impressive. This movie doesn't reinvent the wheel. Sure, most films repeat themes and plot structures and so on. But this film did not feel particularly special. Not like "The Artist," which was based on older silent films, but original for this day and age.

I do not think "The Descendants" is a particularly stellar film. It's a well made film worth watching, but there are other films out there more worthy of oscar love. I talk about "rise of the planet of the apes" a lot, but that film was so well-made, filled with deep themes, and warnings as well, i hope it will get some significant oscar attention.

In conclusion, "The Descendants" has a solid cast, and a sad story about the emotional journey of losing a loved one. Worth watching, but maybe not worth a smorgasbord of oscar nominations.

Oscar Watch: "Hugo"

"Hugo"
Starring: Ben Kingsley, Sacha Baron Cohen, Asa Butterfield
Director: Martin Scorcese

"Hugo" is an homage to the era of silent films, but different in style to the other silent era tribute, "The Artist." It's the story of a boy, Hugo (Butterfield), who lives alone in a train station managing the clocks, while stealing parts in his spare time for a secret project. We later discover that said project is a automaton, a robot that can perform complex tasks. This robot could draw pictures. Complicating things is Papa Georges (Kingsley), who owns a small toy shop, and is opposed to Hugo after he catches him stealing. However, Hugo befriends Georges's goddaughter, and after finding that she owns the key to activate the automaton, they turn it on. And it draws pictures. The film deals with the repercussion of those pictures, and Georges is revealed to be a silent film director in the past, and is actually based on a real film director, Georges Méliès.

The film itself was decent, but not captivating enough for me, not even in 3D. I didn't get the sense that there was any significant emotional weight to what was going on. Sure, Georges is upset because he lost his film studio, and it's nice to see him happy at the end. But unless one is a fan of his films or of the silent film era, which I am not, I think it's not as meaningful. The acting was fine, nothing overtly stellar, but nothing bad either. The 3D itself was a nice touch, but nothing more.

Overall, "Hugo" just did not do it for me. "The Artist" was a much better homage to that era, because it made you feel like you were there, watching a silent film back in the 1920s. "Hugo" got a lot of critical acclaim, and it was a decent film, but to someone who's not a huge fan of the silent film era, it wasn't anything special.

Oscar Watch: "The Artist"

"The Artist"
Director: Michel Hazanavicius
Starring: Jean Dujardin, Bérénice Bejo



There are times when you see a movie, and the whole experience, from ticket purchasing to the audience to the journey there, becomes a part of the wonder of filmmaking. I have had few recollections of that in my life. I remember loving certain films in theaters, but only few can I recall that spontaneously stick out as a memorable life experience. "Toy Story 3," "Watchmen," and "Iron Man" are examples of films that I loved in theaters, but recalling the journey there, what the day was like, and so on, would be pointless. Others, like the "Star Wars" films, are etched in my memory, but they were so important to me when I was young, it was a structured, hyped movie experience. Ditto with "The Dark Knight." The few spontaneous experiences I had include "Rise of the Planet of the Apes" and "Casino Royale." My reason for explaining this is because I think I have a new one to add to the list: "The Artist."

I went to see this film as part of my oscar run, as it is getting a large amount of the oscar buzz. I had to work the morning of December 25th, and afterwards, I definitely wanted to do something before going home. So, I decided to finally see "The Artist," but I had to make a 1pm showing so as to make prayer in time afterwards. So, I went to a place called Kew Gardens, which had such a quaint, small-town feeling, I felt I was in a different place altogether. The theater itself was more artsy and independent, and I was shocked to find a really long line to get in. A line comprised almost entirely of older couples. When I finally got my ticket to the film, I went into the theater, which was small, but was shocked to find it almost packed! I found a seat on the right edge of the theater, and waited for the movie to start.

I knew there was a silent film aspect to the movie, but I totally did not realize the entire film was silent (almost). Yet, it led to a somewhat surreal movie exprience. I felt I was in some other time, watching a movie with just music. All of the acting had to be conveyed through facial expressions and body language, something I find very enticing in films, like "WALL-E" and "Rise of the Planet of the Apes."

When we reached the first scene with sound effects, George's dream, it felt rather odd. Hearing the dog bark, the glass hitting the table, it felt so.... different. And the end, where we finally heard everyone speak, was a nice way to end. It could have gone either way; I probably would have opted for keeping the entire film silent.

The acting was excellent. Dujardin, as the popular silent film actor turned has-been, was fantastic. The facial expressions he conveyed expressed emotions ranging from pride to sadness, glee to anger, despair to depression. Bejo, the beautiful female lead, was an actress who made her way to stardom at the rise of the talkie era. She was the most genuine, caring character in the film. Both of them had fantastic facial expressions, and it goes to show how much more outward emotion acting required back in the day. Wooden actors, like Hayden Christensen in the PT, James Franco in many films, and so on, likely would not have been able to handle that type of expression, in my opinion.

This movie was also displayed a wonderful use of music to highlight the emotion of certain scenes. I especially like the last song, which was an uplifting end after the sad events that immediately preceded it.

Overall, this was a beautiful film, innovative and courageous for making a silent film in the modern era of sequels and prequels, explosions and blockbusters. I don't know what film are nominated for best picture this year, but I wouldn't be surprised if this film wins it all, and deservedly so. What a fantastic theatrical experience.

Review: "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo"

"The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo"
Directed by: David Fincher
Starring: Daniel Craig, Rooney Mara



Fincher's take on Steig Larson's novel "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo" comes only a couple of years after the swedish version. The movie had probably the most memorable trailer of recent memory, with rapid fire scenes from the film edited well to a cover of Led Zeppelin's "Immigrant Song." And after a short prologue, the film began with the same song, set to a crazy array of images including iPod cables, birds of fire, computer keyboards, and people made out of what looks like wax. It was reminiscent of a modern Bond credit sequence.

Unfortunately, the movie was only decent after that, for one who has read the book. I don't think TGWTDT translates into an overly interesting film. As a book, the mystery unfolds well, and Lisbeth's character is written so well, she ties the book together. Lisbeth remains the strongest aspect of this film, with Mara playing her just as she seemed in the book, to me at least. It's not much different that how Noomi Rapace played her in the swedish version.

The book, and hence the movie, doesn't have any key iconic scenes that you look particularly forward to seeing, aside from the scenes early on with Lisbeth being a victim of Bjurmann, and her revenge on him. I didn't like how certain things were changed from the novel, namely how Harriet Vanger is actually Anita Vanger in London, not living in Australia. And also, how Blomkvist didn't write the detailed novel on the mafia banker, but simple released an article. I felt that last part of the movie was glossed over pretty fast.

Otherwise, the story is just rather boring once you know what happens and everything. For someone who hasn't read the book, I guess it could be intriguing. But to me, it's a good one time viewing. Aside from that intro, which I can't wait to see again.

Retrospective: "Rise of the Planet of the Apes"

When I first saw "Rise of the Planet of the Apes," it was late at night, after work, at a theater in Long Island. I was planning to go with my roommate, but he was unable to be reached at the time. I think I tried to go twice; the first time, when he was unreachable, I stayed home. The second time, it was a rainy day, and I planned to go for a relatively late showing (around 10pm maybe), and again he was unreachable. But I wanted to really see the film, so I went anyway. I remember reading some Qur'an in the car before going inside, and then they showed some scary movie trailer beforehand, like "Paranormal Activity 3." There were only a handful of people in the theater. For me, going to movies are a memorable, special event (depending on the film). For some reason, this film experience was memorable.

The movie itself at the time was fantastic. Looking back now, and on blu-ray, I continue to be impressed. The amount of time the story spends on Caesar's upbringing, and his reason for rebelling against society, comprises maybe 75% of the film. And that's what makes the action scenes at the end so much more meaningful. I understand Caesar's point, and I completely sympathized. Not as much time was spent on the virus storyline, and they reached the sweet spot; just enough time to develop it to explain the apes' increased intelligence and the downfall of humanity, but not too much as to take away from Caesar's story.

Like "WALL-E," this film conveyed so much through facial expressions and body language. Seeing how Andy Serkis really conveyed these actions in real life was amazing; he truly deserves recognition, I think, for this type of acting.

A beautiful movie, and I can't wait for the sequel!