Posted by Allen on July 19, 2008 under Movie Reviews, Movies | 
If Batman Begins represented a step or several forward from the superhero movies that came before, so does The Dark Knight represent another leap. The Dark Knight retains all that I loved about its predecessor – note-perfect acting[1], solid writing, gorgeous cinematography and art direction – and adds several new flavors to its casserole of excellence, most notably a deepening complexity and thoughtfulness. The Dark Knight isn’t a superhero action movie. It’s an ethical treatise with punching.
(Perhaps very mild spoilers to follow, but likely spoilers only to those who’ve never paid any attention whatsoever to Batman and his rogues gallery.)
Heath Ledger as The Joker
What does it mean to say someone is a “hero?” How far would you go to save the ones you love from danger? How about people you don’t even know? How far can you be pushed without losing yourself to madness? The Dark Knight asks these questions and turns them over and over, examining them from numerous points of view, presenting several ideas but never providing answers – The Dark Knight is an action movie that wants to engage your brain as much as, if not more than, your adrenal glands. Most of the major characters faces down at least one of these ethical quandaries (except for the force-of-nature Joker, who clearly gave himself over to madness long before this story starts) and each makes choices true to character. That a movie about a man dressed as a flying rodent and a psychotic clown dares ask these questions at all is astonishing; that The Dark Knight does so with such force, daring and reflection is almost beyond belief.
Director Christoper Nolan and his co-screenwriter/brother Jonathan Nolan get what makes these characters so fascinating and so iconic. They understand what those of us who read comics have understood for decades: that there are depths to be plumbed there, that the easy identification of Batman as silly spandex hero[2] isn’t the true measure of the character. The Nolans understand the deep-seated near-schizophrenic split between Bruce Wayne and Batman, and they understand that while the Joker will always be Batman’s most notable enemy, his truest mirror is Two-Face.
While I still have trouble imagining any superhero movie ever receiving a Best Picture nomination, I’ve never seen one that deserves it more than The Dark Knight – this movie’s not so different thematically from 2006 Best Picture winner The Departed, which considered similar ethical questions. And those predictions that Heath Ledger will receive a posthumous Best Supporting Actor nomination could well likely prove to be spot on: Ledger really was that creepy, that riveting, that good as the Joker. Ledger’s Joker should wipe all memories of Jack Nicholson’s wacky clown from the cultural consciousness – his Joker now surely must be considered definitive. Ledger even manages to find the humor in this most decidedly unfunny clown. His gait, his voice, his manner all contribute to create one of the most engrossing and engaging movie villains in a long, long time. I never before considered myself a fan of Heath Ledger; I am now, and I wish I had more of his work to look forward to.
Most of the other actors have much more grounded, less showy parts to play (of course), but they do so with as much skill and grace as Ledger. Christian Bale one again proves to be an excellent Bruce Wayne; while these movies don’t play up Batman’s supposed role as “World’s Greatest Detective,” we certainly do get a sense that Bale’s Wayne/Batman (much like Robert Downey Jr.’s Tony Stark in Iron Man) thinks about what he’s doing and the weight he’s chosen to carry on his shoulders. Gary Oldman’s James Gordon, one of the only honest cops in Gotham, gets far more screen time than he did in Batman Begins, and Oldman nails Gordon’s solid nobility in the face of chaos and madness. Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman are, well, Michael Caine and Morgan Freeman; neither’s role is large, and more screen time for either would have been welcome. Maggie Gyllenhaal brings sass, charm and intelligence (three qualities which Katie Holmes entirely failed to bring to the same character in Batman Begins) to her Rachel Dawes, the only significant female character in the movie; more screen time for her also would have been a good thing. But The Dark Knight runs two-and-a-half-hours as is, and the movie devotes so much of its energies to dissecting the characters of its three leads that some of the minor characters had to stay pretty minor.
Strangely, Batman himself is almost a supporting character in The Dark Knight – perhaps one reason why the word “Batman” isn’t in the title. There’s even some ambiguity as to whom, exactly, the title of “dark knight” could be referring – Batman or the film’s true protagonist, Gotham District Attorney Harvey Dent. (Yes, Batman is the “dark knight” as countered by Dent’s “white knight,” but Dent ultimately goes to some pretty dark places.) The Dark Knight is Dent’s story, the telling of his evolution from moral crusader in pursuit of justice to agent of chaos in pursuit of fairness, most certainly not the same thing. Eckhart’s Harvey Dent exudes a fire and passion for his crusade, and the distorted reflection in the mirror he holds up to Batman provides the most gripping character exploration ever seen in a summer blockbuster superhero movie[3].
The Dark Knight is dark and disturbing and one of the tensest movies I’ve seen in a long while; it’s also fantastically smart and daring and complex, and it ultimately suggests a fundamental belief in human nature’s capacity for goodness. That dichotomy, as much as anything else in Christoper Nolan’s masterpiece, represents the core appeal of Batman himself, and that appeal is why these characters endure. Nolan has just assured that his vision of them will endure a lot longer. Grade: A.
[1] The major exception to that “note-perfect” acting was from the mannequin-like Katie Holmes; her replacement by actual actress Maggie Gyllenhaal was a significant upgrade.
[2] Please note that I have plenty of love for silly spandex heroes, too, but that interpretation has long since proven not to work out so well in movie form (ref. Batman and Robin, 1997).
[3] I don’t mean to damn with faint praise; I do realize that “gripping character exploration” isn’t normally a hallmark of big-budget summer action flicks.
Posted by Allen on June 30, 2008 under Movie Reviews, Movies, Pixar |
For all of the usual Pixar brand of amazing technical virtuosity on display in WALL-E (and believe me, there’s plenty of it), it’s the wonderful characterization which makes the movie such a joy to watch. That director Andrew Stanton and his wizards at Pixar were able to draw such well-developed characters with such little dialogue is testament to the skill of their animation and story departments. I have trouble imagining a more human movie about robots.
If you’ve seen director Stanton’s previous masterpiece, Finding Nemo — and really, if you haven’t by now, you really should — that depth of character won’t surprise you in the least. WALL-E himself shows himself to be one of the more appealing leads of any of the Pixar films; on retrospect, this big-hearted, curious, noble, romantic little waste-collection robot is probably the most likable lead Pixar’s ever created. All of the film’s robot characters have distinct, well-crafted personalities, and almost none of them have much dialogue to speak of (pun intended). I think WALL-E and Eve spoke ten different words between them, yet there was never any problem communicating with each other or with the audience.
During the early parts of the movie, the audience is expected to piece together for themselves what happened to Earth, but once the setting changes, the Kid Gloves of Subtlety come off in favor of the Brass Knuckles of In Your Face. That’s not necessarily a bad thing; the less-subtle bits also provided a good deal of the movie’s comic relief. WALL-E might be a love story between two robots, but it also falls cleanly in the Science Fiction Film With a Message mold. The same segments of the population which allowed themselves to get lathered up about the environmental message in Happy Feet will be thoroughly pissed off by WALL-E, which amplifies the green message and throws in several helpings of condemnation of our consumerist society to boot. The two other main themes I took from the movie — Open Your Eyes to the World Around You and Follow Your Own Directive — likely won’t go over any better with the crowd who’d be upset with the Take Care of the Planet one. But I think all of these points are valid ones to teach our kids (and adults). More than valid, really. Essential.
Anyway , it’s nice to see that Pixar has next year’s Best Animated Feature Oscar wrapped up early. One critic mentioned that he thought WALL-E could be up for Best Picture, but now that the Academy Awards have a separate animation category, I’m not sure any animated flick will ever get a Best Picture nomination again. I’ll be curious to see if it gets a Best Original Screenplay nomination for Andrew Stanton, especially given the paucity of dialogue; my suspicion is not, though my hope is yes. I guess we’ll find out in February.
Grade: A.
(Related side note: the short feature before the movie is one of the best they’ve done yet. Hysterical, and also dialogue-free, as most of their shorts are. Do not arrive to the movie late.)
Posted by Allen on February 27, 2008 under Movies |
(Please pretend like I’m not lame and you’re reading this sometime Monday instead of sometime Wednesday or whenever you’re actually reading it. I meant to write it Monday, I swear. But Guitar Hero demanded more of my attention that I had anticipated.)
This year, there was no doubt: I’m a genius, me. Last year, I went 6-for-9, but felt particularly idiotic for missing Best Picture; this year, of the nine categories for which I provided predictions, I nailed seven of them, including the “stunning upset” in the Best Actress race. It should’ve been eight-of-nine, but I talked myself out of what would have been a right call. The details:
Best Picture: What I said: No Country for Old Men. What won: No Country. Once the Coen Brothers picked up their Best Adapted Screenplay award, it became pretty clear it was going to be a big night for them. Now the Academy can safely ignore them again until 2020. Genius.
Best Actor: What I said: Daniel Day-Lewis, There Will Be Blood. Who won: Lewis. As I noted with Helen Mirren’s win last year, it’s not particularly genius of me to go with the mortal lock. However, it’s also certainly not idiotic of me, so genius it is.
Best Actress: What I said: Marion Cotillard, La vie en rose. Who won: Cotillard. Here’s where my astounding genius truly shone most brightly. No other actress had as much near-universal praise for their performance this year as did Cotillard, so I was having trouble understanding why no one thought she would win. It’s rare, yes, but not unprecedented, to bestow one of the acting awards on a foreign-language performance, and I figured that if the Academy had done it before they’d do it again for a performance that acclaimed. And they did. Genius.
Best Supporting Actor: What I said: Javier Bardem, No Country for Old Men. Who won: Bardem. Yay me, going with the prohibitive favorite. Genius.
Best Supporting Actress: What I said: Ruby Dee, American Gangster. Who won: Tilda Swinton, Michael Clayton. Yup, I blew this one, though I’m glad to have been wrong — Swinton’s a deserving winner both for what was supposed to be a fantastic performance in Clayton and for years’ worth of quality work. Plus, she seems to be my kind of weird, and anyone who mentions nipple-suited Batman in their acceptance speech gets a big thumbs up from me. I like her now even more than I did before she won. Idiot, but happily so.
Best Director: What I said: Ethan Coen and Joel Coen, No Country for Old Men. Who won: The Coens. It was fun watching Paul Thomas Anderson’s head almost explode as the Coens took all these prizes, wasn’t it? Genius.
Best Original Screenplay: What I said: Diablo Cody, Juno. Who won: Cody. This one was, to me, almost a lock since I knew Juno wasn’t going to get any of the other major awards. (Don’t worry, those of you who feel Ellen Page got shafted — she didn’t; winning lead acting awards for comedies might be even more rare than winning them for foreign-language films. And Page will have, I feel quite sure, many, many more opportunities to win one of these in the years to come.) Anyway: Genius.
Best Adapted Screenplay: What I said: Sarah Polley, Away From Her. Who won: Ethan and Joel Coen, No Country for Old Men. Here’s where my astounding genius was most obscured by the clouds of my idiocy. This one was the one I talked myself out of and shouldn’t have: the Academy’s fondness for gifting Oscars to actors who branch out into other areas was trumped this year by their fondness for gifting Oscars to the Coen Brothers, and really I can’t much blame them for that. Idiot.
Best Animated Feature: What I said: Ratatouille. What won: Ratatouille. Yay me for predicting that one of the best-reviewed movies of the year — animated or not — would win the Best Animated flick. Genius.
So there you have it… 7-2. Pretty damn genius of me, overall. Please tune in next year when I follow up this year’s genius outing by idiotically missing three of the four acting awards and Best Picture!
Posted by Allen on February 23, 2008 under Movies |
When I wrote up my predictions for the Oscars last year, I noted that I’d seen very, very few of the films nominated for any of the major awards. This year has proven to be even lamer for me, movie-wise: I’ve seen none of the movies nominated for any of the major prizes. That’s right… none. The only nominated movies I’ve seen even for the mid-level awards are Ratatouille and Enchanted. (Hmm, I’m noticing a little bit of a commonality there.)
What’s worse, this year I really, really want to see four out of the five movies nominated for Best Picture. I want to watch Juno for the tremendous cast and screenplay — any comedy that well respected by Oscar should be just fantastic; No Country for Old Men is by the Coen Brothers, which is all the recommendation I need, even without all of the critical buzz; There Will Be Blood was written and directed by one of my favorite directors, Paul Thomas Anderson (the brains behind Magnolia, one of my top ten flicks); and Michael Clayton was named after one of the wide receivers on the Tampa Bay Buccaneers, so that’s a must-see for me, too. Only Atonement leaves me cold at the thought of watching it.
My regular Oscar-predicting disclaimer applies: what follows are not the movies or performances I think should win, but rather those I think will win. Given the fact that I ain’t seen nuthin’ this year, I clearly have no basis to say what I think should win. Away we go…
Best Picture: No Country for Old Men. It’s been more than a decade since the Coen Brothers have gotten major Oscar love and Sunday night will be the night for righting that wrong, culminating in No Country’s Best Picture win. Though I’ll admit that I won’t be totally shocked if There Will Be Blood takes it — I’ve heard much more talk about Blood being a “modern masterpiece” than No Country.
Best Actor: Daniel Day-Lewis, There Will Be Blood. This one’s the no-chance-for-an-upset category this year. I hope Day-Lewis has been rehearsing his acceptance speech.
Best Actress: Marion Cotillard, La vie en rose. The presumptive favorite for this award is Julie Christie, but I haven’t heard as much praise for Christie’s performance as I have for Cotillard’s, whose only knock against her seems to be that the movie is from France. But Roberto Begnini won the Best Actor award in 1999 for the Italian Life Is Beautiful, so I don’t think that’s as big a stumbling block as many may think — if her performance truly is the best, she should win regardless of where the movie comes from. I’m going with the upset here.
Best Supporting Actor: Javier Bardem, No Country for Old Men. See the notes for Daniel Day-Lewis above; Bardem’s only slightly less of a lock for this prize. I’m sure there will be some sentimental vote for 82-year-old first-time nominee Hal Holbrook, but Ruby Dee will be taking home the Geezer Memorial Award this year (see next category).
Best Supporting Actress: Ruby Dee, American Gangster. This category seems to be the most wide-open. I’m not sure there even is a favorite here. But I’m going with Dee because she’s really, really old and this might be the last time Academy voters can honor her.
Best Director: Ethan Coen and Joel Coen, No Country for Old Men. I’m glad that the Director’s Guild amended their “movies can only have one director” rule so that the Coens could give up the credit trick of pretending that one of them (Joel) directs their films and the other (Ethan) produces them when it’s long been known that they split both duties (as well as the screenwriting). How awkward would it have been for Joel to win the Best Director Oscar for Fargo when they both acted as director? Anyway, that’s no longer an issue and the two of them will be able to share this award just like they did the Best Original Screenplay award for Fargo in 1996.
Best Original Screenplay: Diablo Cody, Juno. Last year, I said the following about Little Miss Sunshine: “I believe this will be the only major award Sunshine gets; it seems like when the Academy falls in love with a little indie of this sort and lavishes it with bunches of nominations, they usually wind up giving it one award as a pat on the head, and frequently that award is for its screenplay. (Lost In Translation, anyone?)” So this award will just have to do.” Substitute “Juno” for “Little Miss Sunshine” and it still applies. (Not to imply that Cody’s screenplay wouldn’t be deserving; it is, from just about everything I’ve heard, an absolutely fantastic piece of writing.)
Best Adapted Screenplay: Sarah Polley, Away From Her. Since I’m predicting Julie Christie doesn’t win Best Actress for this movie, I’m giving the Adapted Screenplay award to Polley to make up for it. The Academy loves to bestow honors on actors who branch out into other fields and do it well — hell, Ben Affleck has an Oscar, remember?
Best Animated Feature: Rataouille. I mean, c’mon.
Coming Monday: The Second Annual Oscar Prediction “Genius or Idiot?” Wrapup!
Posted by Allen on December 12, 2007 under Movies |
A few nights ago, we TiVoed Dr. Seuss’ How The Grinch Stole Christmas for the girls. Not the old Chuck Jones animated version — which is, of course, awesome merely because of the direction of Mr. Jones himself — but the “live action” (and I use the term somewhat loosely) version from 2000 starring Jim Carrey.
And not to sound all Grinchy myself, but… by all that is holy, why did no one tell us how utterly, utterly wretched that movie is?
For someone who fancies himself something of an amateur movie critic, I’m really not all that critical of most movies. If filmmakers accomplish what they’re setting out to do, regardless of whether that’s trying to make “art” or a popcorn-munching blockbuster, I’ll follow along and judge the movie on that basis [1]. Filmmakers don’t have to do all that much to get in my good graces; be reasonably competent and reasonably entertaining or reasonably thought-provoking, and I’ll tend to react somewhat favorably.
Dr. Seuss’ How the Grinch Stole Christmas was neither competent, entertaining, nor thought-provoking, except perhaps for making me think “How the hell do I get the last hour-and-a-half of my life back?”
How could a movie with a budget this ginormous (an estimated $123 million), a big-name lead at the peak of his career and an (eventual) Oscar-winning director turn out so, so badly? Say what you will about Ron Howard, but he’s directed enough movies, including a couple of really good ones, to have a better idea what he’s doing than this movie indicates. And Jim Carrey can be funny, occasionally — this movie, though, features the Carrey that tends to be much more obnoxious and irritating than enjoyable. The Grinch costume — by Rick Baker, no less, one of the best makeup artists Hollywood’s ever known — looks ludicrous (yet, interestingly, won an Oscar. I’m not sure what kind of Christmas snow the Academy voters were snorting that year). The writing was just deplorable. The art direction, which should have been a slam dunk with a movie based on a Dr. Seuss book, looks cheap and, honestly, kind of creepy. The whole thing just looked like a bad TV movie (though I’m sure watching it on TV contributed to that perception).
I actually do have an idea as to just how this travesty came to be: Grinch has the chubby fingerprints of studio interference all over it.
On big-budget studio pictures, of which Grinch is a prime example, the suits tend to give “notes” to the creatives outlining their suggestions for how, in their stuffed-wallet opinion, the movie can be made better. And because those stuffed wallets are the ones paying for the movie, the creatives usually must either A) implement the suggestions or B) quit. (Remember that at Oscar time it’s the producers who actually receive the Best Picture awards; whoever’s got the money gets to make the rules. (That’s three Academy Award references in this article, and that’s three too many in any article about this movie.))
I picture the conversation as follows:
STUDIO SUIT: Y’know, Ron, we like what you’re doing here, but we think the movie’s feeling a little bit too… well, childish. We’ve got to have some stuff in there to keep the adults entertained — they’re the ones spending the money, and we’d like to get that repeat business in there, right?
RON HOWARD: OK, sure… what did you have in mind?
STUDIO SUIT: Well, since you asked… I went to this key party last weekend, right? Everybody seemed to really dig it. I know I sure did — you would not believe how good [BIG-TIME HOLLYWOOD AGENT'S NAME REDACTED]’s wife is with the oral sex. I haven’t been blown like that since that time I tried going surfing during a hurricane. So anyway, I was thinking we could have some of the characters throw a key party, right? The adults in the audience’ll dig it, and it’ll go right over the kids’ heads so we can keep that PG rating. Brilliant, right?
RON HOWARD: Umm…
STUDIO SUIT: And I think you should have the Grinch bury his face in some lady’s tits. That’d be hot, right?
RON HOWARD: [head turns as red as what's left of his hair]
STUDIO SUIT: I’ll add an extra two million to the budget if you can make that happen for me. We got a deal, Opie?
Oh, and by the way: this wretched, wretched excuse for a movie grossed $260 million in the U.S. alone and was the top-grossing movie of 2000. So just maybe the suits are actually on to something…right?
[1] Yes, I know this statement opens a huge can of worms regarding authorial intent, which I believe ultimately to be knowable only by the authors/filmmakers, but I’m speaking in large-scale generalities here: we can safely assume
Atonement clearly isn’t going for the same kind of audience, emotion or spectacle as, say,
Transformers.
Posted by Allen on November 7, 2007 under Movies, TV |
I have decided that in a show of support for the striking members of the Writers Guild of America, I shall not be writing any material either for television productions or motion pictures for the duration of the strike, as much as it pains me not to do so. But I ain’t no scab.
(Want to know more about what’s going on with the strike and just what the writers are trying to accomplish? Go read John Rogers and/or Brian K. Vaughan,amongmany,manyothers, for the skinny.)
Posted by Allen on April 16, 2007 under Comic Books, Movies, Pop Culture |
Edward Norton has been cast as Bruce Banner in The Incredible Hulk, the quasi-sequel to 2003’s near-disastrous Hulk. (I say quasi-sequel in that I believe they’ll be skipping over all of the origin hoo-hah and such, acknowledging that we’ve already seen those bits without referencing the first movie at all.) Norton’s actually an excellent choice to play Banner — Banner’s supposed to be a world-class scientific intellect, and Norton, one of my favorite actors, is one of the best of his generation at playing smart. [1] Plus, scared and/or angry and/or conflicted Banner? Norton will be all over that.
The Incredible Hulk will be directed by Louis Leterrier, director of the Transporter movies, so we know we’ll be getting far more of Angry Action Hulk than Angsty Emo Hulk, which suits me just fine. As much as I respect Ang Lee and what he wanted to do with Hulk, it just didn’t work well. Knowing that the next movie will have Edward Norton and much more in the way of “Hulk smash?” Oh yeah, I’m there.
Unfortunately, this new configuration means I’m doubting we’ll get any Jennifer Connelly in the next movie, and that saddens me, but it’s a tradeoff I can live with.
[1] Jessica Alba as a genetic engineer in Fantastic Four? Not so much. Now if they’d cast Leelee Sobieski… her I could’ve bought as a big-brain scientist.
Posted by Allen on April 12, 2007 under Comic Books, Links, Movies, Pop Culture, TV |
- I’m willing to grant everyone involved with the production of the kinda stinky Ocean’s 12 an Official Do-Over and pretend like Ocean’s 13 is the direct sequel to Ocean’s 11. The trailer for O13 sure makes it look like it’s going to have all of the same qualities which made the first one so much fun — qualities which Soderbergh, et al. apparently left in their other pants when making O12. This one’s now gone toward the top of my Most Anticipated Movies of Summer 2007. (Hmm, what’s that smell? *snf snf* Oh, yeah, I think that’s the smell of another blog post coming up!)
- Hey, fans of Firefly: Yahoo! TV has a four-minute video preview of Drive, the new show from Nathan Fillion and Tim Minear. (The video’s on the right-hand side of the page.) I was planning on watching this anyway just because of the presence of Fillion and Minear, but after watching the preview I’m actually interested in seeing Drive on its own merits. OK, yeah, what little bit we saw of the battered wife was pretty cliche, but the scene with Fillion was intriguing. Time to TiVo up!
- Lee Iacocca has had enough from the current administration. Yes, legendary industrialist Lee Iacocca expresses his outrage at the Republican White House — kinda says something, doesn’t it? Iacocca rightly points out that the guys in office right now might be in charge, but they’re not showing a damn bit of leadership. Big difference there.
- At long, long last, the final issue of The Ultimates 2 has gone to the printer, and Marvel was kind enough to celebrate by offering a preview of Bryan Hitch’s stunning eight-page foldout spread from that issue. I’m not sure that any comic has ever needed an interior eight-page foldout spread in it before, but I’d imagine this one does, and that Hitch artwork is simply jaw-dropping. Personally, I’m just glad this comic’s finally coming out since that gets us that much closer to a hardcover collection, which means I can get that to go with my hardcover of the first Ultimates series.
- The Inbox of Nardo Pace, The Empire’s Worst Engineer.
Posted by Allen on March 28, 2007 under Comic Books, Movies, Music, Pop Culture |
Time now to play a fun little game I call “Going Through My Referrer Logs To See Which Search Engine Phrases Brought Users To My Site In The Last Week.” Honestly, though? I think I need to come up with a better name for the game than that. I like to feel that I’m doing a public service here, providing answers to those questions that Google seems to think I’m uniquely capable of answering. It’s a responsibility I take very seriously, and I’ll do my best to help soothe the mental anguish and sleepless nights these answerless questions must be causing to the questioners.
opening band for adrenalize tour
This one came to me in several different forms, all from former metalheads like myself desperately yearning to know which band or bands opened up for Def Leppard on their Adrenalize tour in 1992. Well, Google led you people to the right place. I’m gonna give you the answer right now. You ready, my fellow headbangers? Here goes:
No one. That’s why you’re having such trouble finding the answer. Def Leppard didn’t have an opening act that time out…they played a three-plus hour set without any supporting bands on the bill. You shelled out all of that money hard-earned by busing tables and selling pot for a 100%-all-damn-Lep set, bay-bee. Did you wanna get rocked, the Lep asked you? Oh yes, you answered. You wanted your asses rocked into near cataonia by a three-hour syringe full of pure grade-A Leppard.
(This was the case for the American portions of their tour, anyway; it’s possible the answer’s different in other parts of the world.)
A Love Song for Bobby Long spoiler
You want a spoiler for the mostly-wretched movie A Love Song for Bobby Long? OK, here goes: John Travolta sucked mightily in it. How’s that do you? OK, fine, here’s a bonus spoiler for you: yes, it’s true you do get a nice side-shot of Scarlett Johansson’s boob.
give me a warm enema daddy
Um. Sorry, can’t help you there.
“inflated boy” superhero
My best guess here is that someone was trying to find out some more information about Chuck “Bouncing Boy” Taine, storied member of the Legion of Super-Heroes (and nowadays featured on the cartoon about said futuristic teens) and role model for fat kids the world over. Well, unknown person, now that you know his actual name (though I honestly don’t think “Inflated Boy” is any less ridiculous than “Bouncing Boy”), you can read up on his heroic legacy at the Wikipedia. Always remember: Chuck might have been the fat kid in the Legion, but he still ended up with a smokin’ hot wife…two of ‘em, technically.
layer cake+what is his name
Another one which came to me in a number of permutations, all of which wanted to know the name of Daniel Craig’s character in the excellent film Layer Cake. I don’t think this is a spoiler, so I’m going to give you the answer: we don’t know. And not only don’t we know, we’re not supposed to know. The character himself said as much: “If you knew my name, you’d be as clever as me.” Whatever the character’s real name was (he’s referred to in the credits only as “XXXX”), it wasn’t revealed within the movie itself or the novel on which the movie was based. Any site which tries to tell you his name, unless it comes directly from J.J. Connelly, the novel’s author, is lying to you. This particular bit of information is one you’re going to have to get used to not knowing.
fuzzy storytelling guy
Yup, that’s me! (Though I hope the “fuzzy” refers more to my propensity for hirsuteness than to my storytelling techniques, else I’ve got a problem.)
actress who did not wear panties to the oscar
Can’t help you there, either, though I must admit I’m more than a little curious to know the answer myself.
im into fuzzy rabbits. kind of smart i have a big
Ladies and gentlemen, this week’s winner for the Search Keyword Which Causes Me The Most Mental Discomfort Award!
Posted by Allen on February 26, 2007 under Movies, Pop Culture |
Oscars 07 are now officially in the books, and during last nights telecast we saw (to take a cue from Lifetime Achievement winner Ennio Morricone) the Good (awards to deserving veterans like Helen Mirren, Alan Arkin and Forest Whitaker), the Bad (Celine Dions overwrought and occasionally off-key histrionics) and the Ugly (a shaven-headed Jack Nicholson).
But now that we know who all got to go home with tiny bald men, I know theres one key question you still need answered: how did Allen do with his Oscar predictions?
The answer: Overall pretty well, I think, though I certainly dont like the fact that I blew both Best Picture winners. (Or I guessed them incorrectly, anyway.) Lets look back at what I said on Friday and play a little game Im going to call Genius or Idiot.
Best Picture. What I said: Babel. What won: The Departed. I did say that I was hoping Babel wouldnt win, though I was hoping if it didnt Little Miss Sunshine would. I also said I couldnt see The Departed, a really high-end crime thriller, winning this one. Clearly, the ruling on this one is Idiot.
Best Actor: What I said: Forest Whitaker, The Last King of Scotland. Who won: Whitaker. Congratulations to me for going with the prohibitive favorite. Genius.
Best Actress: What I said: Helen Mirren, The Queen. Who won: Mirren. Congratulations to me for going with one of the biggest locks in recent Oscar history. Genius.
Best Supporting Actor: What I said: Jackie Earle Haley, Little Children. Who won: Alan Arkin, Little Miss Sunshine. Even though I was wrong in my pick, Im still going to be kind to myself and give myself a Genius award for this one since I had the principle correct. I predicted this category was the one most likely to see an upset (cause theres always one) and thought Haleys comeback performance would score it for him. However, while Oscar voters did exactly what I predicted, they didnt do it how I predicted; it would appear that they thought Arkins 38-year absence from Oscar ballots trumped Haleys former-child-star-made-good story.
Best Supporting Actress: What I said: Jennifer Hudson, Dreamgirls. Who won: Hudson. Congratulations to me for going with the prohibitive favorite. Genius.
Best Director: What I said: Martin Scorcese, The Departed. Who won: Scorcese.
Yes, Marty was the favorite here, but hes been the favorite before and never won, so this one wasnt quite as much a gimme as one might have assumed. Still: Genius.
Best Original Screenplay: What I said: Michael Arndt, Little Miss Sunshine. Who won: Arndt. I was partially right in thinking this would be the big reward for Sunshine since comedies dont win Best Picture; I underestimated the voters love for this movie, what with them giving Arkin his first Oscar, too. Genius.
Best Adapted Screenplay: What I said: William Monahan, The Departed. Who won: Monahan. This award was the source of one of my biggest sources of joy and my biggest predictive embarrassment. The joy: I had no idea that I looked just friggin like Monahan (cept hes a little beefier, I think). Seeing him stand on that stage receiving his Oscar made it very, very easy for me to picture myself doing the same thing someday. The embarrassment? I quote myself:
Ill tell you this right now: while youre watching the awards telecast, if you see The Departed win this award and Scorcese wins for Best Director and youve got money riding on it winning Best Picture go change your bets fast if you still can. No way does it win all three.
Yeah, well. According to recent Oscar history, that should have been true, though as the ever-astute Tim P. pointed out, thats not true historically movies which are deemed good enough to win Best Screenplay and Best Director usually go on to win Best Picture as well. Maybe I shouldve thought about this one more in the larger context, but I didnt. If Im going to give myself a Genius for getting one wrong above, I think its only fair to give myself an Idiot for this one even though I got it right. (For future reference, any time you ever see me reference betting with regards to a prediction of mine, thats a good sign you should go the other way with whatever I say.)
Best Animated Feature: What I said: Cars. What won: Happy Feet. I did say I wouldnt be surprised if Happy Feet won, especially given that it was, yknow, a better movie. Still: Idiot.
So the final tally for this year is 6-3 Genius. I think thats certainly respectable. Join me again next February as I continue my quest to someday pick every one of the major categories correctly. As long as I stay away from making any comments about wagers, I think its possible.
