Dark Shadows

The recipe for Dark Shadows appeared to be as follows: a pinch of Beetlejuice, a dash of Edward Scissorhands, and a reckless amount of excrement. The film was made without any care or consideration for the loyal fans who expected a decent film. Dark Shadows conjured up images of meadow muffins. Evil meadow muffins. You see, meadow muffins don’t sound half bad when you hear the name. But once you are within viewing and smelling distance the awful truth of what they are comes out to assault your senses. And Dark Shadows did not take long to show its true colors as a big mound of poop.

Sure, my expectations were high. It was not only a Tim Burton film starring Johnny Depp, but it was also a film based on a beloved gothic soap opera. I am not convinced Burton had a clear idea of what this Dark Shadows film was supposed to be...other than an excuse to work with his buddies Depp, Helena Bonham Carter, and Michelle Pfeiffer. Fun for Burton, bad for the audience. If it was meant to be a spoof then it was a failure. It lacked both intelligence and humor. The dialogue had more cringe-worthy moments then I could count. The plot development seemed haphazard and uncomfortable. And the acting was painfully below average. The most well executed part of the film was the clear and undeniable advertisement for McDonald’s. Did I go out and pick up some McDonald’s on my way home from the movie? No. I did not. Would I recommend this film to anyone that I like? No. I would not.

The Pirates! Band of Misfits

aka The Pirates! In an Adventure with Scientists!

I am unclear on the reasoning behind changing the title of a movie based on a book called ‘The Pirates! In an Adventure with Scientists!’ to ‘The Pirates! Band of Misfits’ for US and Australian audiences but I don’t hold that against this movie itself. I did before seeing the film. But after seeing it, I can safely say that ‘The Pirates! Band of Misfits’ is not a horrible title. The film is about 75% pirate-y and 25% scientist-y. And the pirates truly are a bunch of misfits, which is a big part of their appeal.

The clay figure characters, the sets, and the humor in this film are so well thought out and executed that it almost doesn’t matter that the plot ended up being the weakest part of the film. The characters are unmistakably Aardman. They have crazy little teeth and express more emotion than any number of human performers ever could. The sets used in the film are intricate and stunning to look at. The film is laced with an overwhelming amount of wit and whimsy. There is something to giggle at, snicker at, or just plain laugh at in almost every minute of The Pirates! The plot ends up being something of a let-down because while it is never entirely unimaginative, it is quite conventional.

The film is a pirate caper set in 1837, which centers on The Pirate Captain (Hugh Grant) and his quest to finally be voted Pirate of the Year. I think it is safe to say that The Pirate Captain is not well suited to be a pirate, or a captain, let alone Pirate of the Year. He’s not a great pillager and his plundering skills are lacking. Nevertheless, his small and tremendously loyal crew is willing to help him with almost every silly, misplaced step along the way. During their pursuit toward the ultimate pirating prize, The Pirate Captain and his crew meet a young Charles Darwin (David Tennant), his brilliant ‘manpanzee’, and an evil Queen Victoria (Imelda Staunton). The main scientist of the film, Darwin, informs the crew that The Pirate Captain’s plump parrot Polly is not really a parrot, but in fact, a dodo. Polly may just be the key to the Pirate Captain finally getting the recognition that he so desperately desires.  But one of the many things I learned from this film is that nothing in a pirate’s life comes without some sort of cost. After all, what respectable children’s movie doesn’t come loaded with a whole lot of knowledge nuggets?

I left this film with three things that I did not have before:
1. A greater appreciation for the actor who plays the second in command, The Pirate with the Scarf , Martin Freeman. (It made me more interested in seeing how he will do in The Hobbit.)
2. A more solidified belief that 3D is unnecessary. (I did not see it in 3D.)
3. A hankering for some ham. (That’s right. Ham.)

Beginners

Beginners seemed like an interesting enough film in its own right, but knowing that Christopher Plummer picked up several awards, including an Oscar, for his supporting role in the film it became a nagging sort of necessity that I see it. Since it was his first Oscar win, I had to see how good of a performance he actually gave. After all, as many of us know, he was robbed of a nomination, let alone a win, for his role in Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country. But let’s not dwell on that...

Beginners was a sentimental, depressing, and complex film. The story was set in three different time periods in the life of an American graphic designer, Oliver (Ewan McGregor). In the ‘present’ part of the film Oliver was dealing with life after the death of his father Hal (Christopher Plummer). He was also dealing with a new romantic relationship with Anna (Mélanie Laurent) and having a new roommate Arthur (Cosmo), his late father’s Jack Russell terrier/scene stealer. In the ‘recent past’ part of the film Oliver was dealing with the passing of his mother, the news that his father was coming out of the closet AND the news that his father had also been diagnosed with the terminal cancer. Finally, in the ‘not-so-recent past’ part of the film Oliver was dealing with being a kid who had a great relationship with his melancholy-yet-loving mother a less than great/almost non-existent relationship with his busy hard-working father. There was a lot going on in the film and it was all handled in an honest and charming way. However, even with three plot lines going on, there were still a fair amount of lulls in flow of the film.

Thankfully, there were no lulls in the chemistry between the four lead characters. I thoroughly enjoyed the interactions between them. The strongest character, in my opinion, was Arthur. He was a little ray of sunshine in an otherwise depressing film. Arthur is, of course, a dog but writer/director Mike Mills made him a hopeful and uplifting character in a very clever way. He did this by expressing Arthur’s thoughts in the form of subtitles. I understand this could very well be considered too ‘cutesy’ for some, but for me, I loved it. In fact, Cosmo would have been a better supporting actor nominee than Plummer based on this film. Cosmo played his role subtly and playfully. He was a dog full of soul and intrigue. I’m not completely blinded by Cosmo’s performance though. Plummer did do a fantastic job. He played an old man with ease, but considering his age and film career, I would expect nothing less.

Jeff, Who Lives at Home

I love the idea of a film about average looking actors playing average joe types living out one slightly above average day, so I was looking forward to Jeff, Who Lives at Home. I guess I should have known that the film was not destined to be a cinematic masterpiece, but I didn’t expect to be so disappointed by it. Don’t get me wrong, it was not an altogether awful film. There was something to like about it, specifically the cast, and even more specifically, Jason Segel. He clearly has a knack for portraying a chubby pothead man-child with a heart of gold. His character, Jeff, was not a far leap from his character on Freaks and Geeks, which is probably why he was so likeable. In Jeff, however, his actions were less guided by hormones and more guided by the drive to find a meaning in his life. Ed Helms was well-suited for the part of Jeff’s brother Pat. He wasn’t nearly as likeable as Jeff, but that was the point of his character. He played the contemptible Pat with anger management issues like it was second nature. And Susan Sarandon shined. She added a level of strength and talent to the film that was both necessary and fun.

The directors/writers Mark and Jay Duplass lucked out with their cast. And they made clever use of the ideas and storyline references of M. Night Shyamalan’s 2002 film Signs. But they missed the mark in a few important places. They take it too far over the top to manipulate the audience into tears. I don’t mind when a film aims to pull at the heart strings but I prefer when the emotional manipulation in a film is more difficult to detect. And then there was the music. It was distracting and annoying. The music stood out to the point that occasionally I mistook it for an inconsiderate audience member’s ring tone rather than a part of the film. And the biggest let down of all was the end of the film. I don’t intend to give the end away, but I will say that it brought to mind two words: polished turd.

Oscar Predictions 2012

This is my first year to make any sort of formal Oscar predictions.  But with Gary Oldman finally being nominated for best actor, I decided that the Oscars were worth some serious consideration. Will Gary Oldman actually win an Oscar? No, probably not. Should he win an Oscar? Yeah, totally.

Oh and it may be important for me to note that I have not seen all of the nominated films. And chances are I will never see all of the nominated films. Okay, that being said and without any further ado, here are my guesses/preferences/wants/hopes for this year's Academy Award winners:

BEST PICTURE
Will win: THE ARTIST
Should win: THE ARTIST

**Should have been nominated: TINKER TAILOR SOLDIER SPY & ATTACK THE BLOCK

BEST DIRECTOR
Will win: Michel Hazanavicius,THE ARTIST
Should win: Michel Hazanavicius, THE ARTIST

**Should have been nominated: Tomas Alfredson, TINKER TAILOR SOLDIER SPY & John Cornish, ATTACK THE BLOCK

BEST ACTOR
Will win: Jean Dujardin, THE ARTIST
(Possible upset winner: George Clooney, THE DESCENDANTS)
SHOULD win: Gary Oldman, TINKER TAILOR SOLDIER SPY

**Should have been nominated: Michael Fassbender, SHAME

BEST ACTRESS
Will win: Viola Davis, THE HELP
(Possible surprise winner: Meryl Streep, THE IRON LADY)

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR
Will win: Christopher Plummer, BEGINNERS

**Should have been nominated: Alan Rickman, HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS PART 2

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Will win: Octavia Spencer, THE HELP
Should win: Berenice Bejo, THE ARTIST

**Should have been nominated: Angelica Huston, 50/50

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE FILM
Will win: RANGO
Should win: CHICO & RITA (simply for its title alone)

BEST FOREIGN FILM
Will win: A SEPARATION, Iran

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY
Will win: MIDNIGHT IN PARIS
Should win: MIDNIGHT IN PARIS

**Should have been nominated: ATTACK THE BLOCK

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY
Will win: THE DESCENDANTS
SHOULD win: TINKER TAILOR SOLDER SPY

BEST ART DIRECTION
Will win: HUGO

BEST COSTUME DESIGN
Will win: THE ARTIST
(Possibly surprise winner: JANE EYRE)

**Should have been nominated: TINKER TAILOR SOLDIER SPY

BEST ORIGINAL SONG
Duh: ‘Man or Muppet’ from THE MUPPETS

BEST ORIGINAL SCORE
Will win: THE ARTIST

BEST DOCUMENTARY
Will win: PARADISE LOST 3: PURGATORY
(Possible surprise winner: UNDEFEATED)

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY
Will win: THE TREE OF LIFE
(Possible surprise winner: HUGO)

BEST FILM EDITING
Will win: THE ARTIST

BEST MAKEUP
Will win: THE IRON LADY
(Possible surprise winner: HARRY POTTER AND THE DEATHLY HALLOWS PART 2)

BEST SOUND EDITING
Will win: HUGO
Should win: THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO

BEST SOUND MIXING
Will win: HUGO
Should win: THE GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO

BEST VISUAL EFFECTS
Will win: RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES

BEST DOCUMENTARY (SHORT)
Will win: GOD IS THE BIGGER ELVIS
(Another possible winner: INCIDENT IN NEW BAGHDAD)

BEST SHORT FILM (ANIMATED)
Will win: LA LUNA
(Another possible winner: THE FANTASTIC FLYING BOOK OF MR. MORRIS LESSMORE)

BEST SHORT FILM (LIVE ACTION)
Will win: TIME FREAK

BEST HAIR (not a real category)
Will win: Gary Oldman, TINKER TAILOR SOLDIER SPY
Should win: Gary Oldman, TINKER TAILOR SOLDIER SPY

© 2011 Focus Features by Jack English, Gary Oldman

The only thing that I am absolutely certain of after all this is that Gary Oldman's hair is pretty great.

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

I am not sure what I could possible say to give Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy the justice it deserves, but I feel the need to say at least something...

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is a damn impressive film. It is based on John le Carre’s first book in the Karla Trilogy and has been adapted and dramatized before by the BBC. Clearly the tale has some appeal. I mean, I like it. That is why I am surprised to say that while watching this 2011 version, I wasn’t overwhelmingly engrossed with the story. I was more bewitched by its ambiance. The atmosphere that I found myself falling in love with is probably the same thing that will bore the crap out of many viewers. The film has dark and wonderful cinematography and a slow but steady moving plot line. There is a smoky heavy feel to every slow moving minute. And it is topped off with perfectly chosen music which adds to the overall mystery and intrigue.

There is something quite captivating about all of the characters, or as I like to call them the tinkery-tailory-soldiery spies. The cast is a made up of Gary Oldman, Colin Firth, John Hurt, Toby Jones, Benedict Cumberbatch, Mark Strong, and Tom Hardy. Everyone in the film is pretty much known for being great at what they do and in this film everyone lives to their reputation. I have no complaints. Their mannerisms and appearances are almost hypnotizing. I was distracted by and jealous of Oldman’s perfect hair. Seriously, his hair is amazing. And his clothing, all of the clothing in fact, is flawless. The suits and overcoats are not only physically well-fitted on each of the actors, there are also well-fitted to the time period. Even more mesmerizing than Oldman’s hair and clothing was Tom Hardy’s 70s porn star hair and clothes. He seemed out of place next to all of the other key characters, but out of place in a good way.

It is clear that Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy will never be a mainstream blockbuster. It is too intricate and slow moving. But I’m glad that this film was made. It shows that Tomas Alfredson has some serious directing skills in any language. And it is an excellent example of how Gary Oldman is one of the best actors around.

We Bought a Zoo

We Bought a Zoo lacked much of anything to blow the audience away. The characters were stereotypical and the performances were adequate. Matt Damon played the single father taking care of two children and dealing with the loss of his wife. He was charming and not too depressing. Scarlett Johansson played the zoo keeper as a fairly asexual person for the majority of the film. So, that was good. Thomas Haden Church was the comic relief and concerned brother. He has a knack for making even the most predictable scripts seem better than what they are. And let’s not forget the animals. The animals were all convincing in their parts. Sadly for a movie about the purchase of a zoo, animals were not a huge focus. It is more of a people movie than an animal movie. Of course, there was one tiger that got highlighted and one Capuchin monkey that made her way into a whole lot of scenes on Patrick Fugit’s shoulder.

The most surprising thing about this straightforward film is that the moody teenage son was not required to do any chores on a broken down zoo that needed as much help as it could get. I mean, the adorable scene stealing daughter was willing to make sandwiches and label them PB and J (with a backwards J for added cuteness), but the boy was allowed to sit around all day drawing pictures. It is hard to believe, but as far as family films go that is nothing new. We Bought a Zoo would fit in great on the Lifetime Movie Network. It is a simple film designed to pull at your heart strings.