Get your LATimes personal at home Academy Award ballot here.
Mine’s blank. For two reasons. I’ve yet to see “Twelve Years A Slave,” “Philomena,” “Nebraska,” and “August: Osage County.” Of the other nominees, only a few seem worthy of special recognition. And many of the highly touted movies that I have seen made “Lincoln,” that I criticized last year, look a lot better by comparison. Interestingly enough, the major problem IMHO with “Lincoln” was repeated in many of the 2013 offerings. Only more so. Weak screenplays. Too thin, a lens too contemporary for the story, poor character development, too messy or disjointed, and/or simply poor story depiction. Movie making is very difficult and complex – probably a thousand ways to stumble – but a weak script is a huge impediment to crafting a good movie and a guarantee that a great movie will not emerge from it.
At opposite ends of the weak screenplay issue are “Gravity” and “The Wolf Of Wall Street.” The former is short (an hour and a half) and the latter is long (almost three hours). What “Gravity” lacks in the screenplay is somewhat made up for in the stunning visuals. Smart to keep it short as terrific imagery alone becomes boring at about ninety minutes. It’s a good ride – and probably better in 3-D for those with the stomach that can take it. Cut out all the unnecessary bits, including the repetitive soft porn crap and dialogue with seemingly endless expletives, and “Wolf” may have come in at a ninety minute mediocre movie instead of a three hour gross out. I’d forgive a three hour gross out if the protagonist were a major Wall Street crook – say a Jamie Dimon or Lloyd Blankfien or even Michael Milken – but not when it’s a minor pimp like XXX.
“Wolf” and “American Hustle” share a story telling device – both are narrated. A lot. That along with flashbacks and legends should be used only when absolutely necessary and then extremely sparingly. As Sid Fields was known to say, SHOW don’t tell. Or make a documentary. The narration (voice over) in “The Great Gatsby” was only slightly less obnoxious than it was in “Wolf” and “Hustle.” I didn’t much care for it in “The Book Thief” either, but at least in that movie, the voice was a character not seen and was limited to the beginning and end. Ron Howard demonstrated how to employ it when necessary in “Rush.” A shame the Academy didn’t nominate that well made movie.
Structurally, “Saving Mr. Banks” and “Blue Jasmine” are similar. Not unlike “The Notebook.” The backstory layered and interspersed with the the “current” story. Nicely done in “Notebook” by using the reading of the notebook as the link. Not done at all well in “Saving Mr. Banks.” Brilliantly done in “Blue Jasmine.” “Saving Mr. Banks” is a story that had the potential to be a very good movie. Had the screenplay been bolder and not reduced the backstory to what I call psychobabble and less treacly at the end. In a few scenes, it visually captured LA 1961 so perfectly that almost makes it worth seeing. What does make it worthwhile are the actors: Emma Thompson, Tom Hanks, Colin Farrell, Jason Schwartzman, Paul Giamatti, and Bradley Whitford. (Excepting Ruth Wilson – who was also in the other Disney 2013 big movie “The Lone Ranger” and equally boring in that one as well.)
Tom Hanks is also good in “Captain Phillips” and it’s easy to understand why he was disappointed not to get nominated for either this one or “Saving Mr. Banks.” All the movie elements of “Captain Phillips” are strong. Solid screenplay, well cast and acted, good cinematography, and pacing. The first half is interesting. The problems are that the outcome is known and there isn’t enough depth to the story and characters to make it a compelling movie. As an advert for the awesomeness of the US Navy it’s more pathetic than impressive.
After seeing a skinny and creepy (skin crawling creepy) McConaughey in “Magic Mike” and “Wolf, I wasn’t eager to see him as a dying AIDS victim and homophobe. But having subjected myself to the creepiness of Woody Harrelson’s and Willem Dafoe characters in “Out of the Furnace,” figured I might as well go for it. What a pleasant surprise. Credit must be given to the director, Jean-Marc Vallée, and writers, Craig Borten Melisa Wallack . They told the story without falling into cliches, sentimentality, or an impulse to make it bigger than it was. McConaughey is similarly reined in and delivers a fine, and not creepy, performance. And Jared Leto is wonderful. How had this relatively small story (and movie) managed to begin with a good screenplay in a year when so many larger pictures failed on this criteria? The answer was incredibly easy to find – right in Wikipedia:
Borten drafted 10 different scripts for what he believed would make a great movie and attempted to attract interest in making the film in the mid 1990s, …
Before beginning the writing process, the young and aspiring Borton met, interviewed and recorded Wood;s story of his Dallas Buyer’s Club. He knew his subject before adding the fictionalized bits necessary for the story to hold together on the screen. Still, it has a couple of weaknesses. Far too many legends are used as a cover for the lack of visual presentations of the passage of time. And while not heavy in tone and feel, it would have been strengthened with some humor.
Poor Forrest Whitaker whose fine performance was trapped in a movie that made all the mistakes that Xxx resisted in “The Dallas Buyer’s Club.” “Lee Daniel’s The Butler” lost the real theme and subject of the story. Going big and broad instead of focused and deft. It could have been a gem and amply rewarded as “The Queen” or “The King’s Speech” were.
At last. It’s small. Flawless. Mature film-making. Contrary to the forgoing, I’m only partial to quality and not the scale of a movie. By small, I mean the scope of a movie and not that it belongs on a small screen. “Inside Llewyn Davis” is a big screen movie. The actors are all wonderful. To say more would be an indulgent spoiler. (As with “Blue Jasmine,” I want to see this one again.)
[Update #1]
Second viewing of “Inside Llewyn Davis” – Wonderful.
I feel like I’m one of the only people who did not enjoy American Hustle. I just found it…boring? Jennifer Lawrence was the only thing I found enjoyable about the film. The acting from everyone else was fine, but she was hilarious. Still, I don’t understand the accolades.
I think you have a lot of company. It was a mess and failed at telling the story. Lawrence was good enough, but she was obviously too young for the character and her performance was too superficial. Bale only came alive in scenes with Lawrence and Jeremy Renner who I thought was good. After having seen two of his movies, don’t think I like this director or Bradley Cooper.
I should say that the people I saw it with also did not like it. But then I saw how many professional reviewers gave it two thumbs up, it’s winning awards left and right, and then a lot of social media (and political blogs I read who occasionally comment on movies/culture) raved.
Just felt dumbfounded. Yes, it was a mess. I think it had a lot of potential. I think the person who really f’ed up is the director, though.
Perhaps those reviewers just like the ensemble cast thing. They probably liked “Crash” a few years ago as well.
(David Russell directed and co-wrote “Hustle.”)
“Wolf” is getting lots of raves as well.
I didn’t see Wolf, partly because it was so long.
In fact, I wanted to see “Her,” but the showings didn’t line up. So it was between Wolf and Hustle…went with Hustle because it was much shorter, and had a much earlier showing.
“Hustle” felt longer to me than it was. Given a choice between “Hustle” and “Wolf,” IMHO, the former is easier to watch.
As for Dallas Buyer’s Club, I still need to see it — and I wanted to see it — but it’s definitely received a lot of criticism in the trans-community:
The Golden Globes gave Jared Leto an award for playing a trans woman because Hollywood is terrible
Pity Is Not The Same As Respect: A Critique Of `Dallas Buyers Club’
“Saving Mr. Banks” also got a lot of criticism because Disney was a racist and anti-semite. Very weird since it wasn’t a Disney bio-pic.
I’d heard that the LBGT community was unhappy with the portrayal of Woodroof as a homophobe and some believe he was bi-sexual. Tend to doubt that the writers and Hollywood could have gotten it that far wrong in 2013. Have to wonder if those critics bothered to see the movie. I’m going to skip reading the links you supplied because I don’t much critiques of a worthy effort from interest groups that have difficult shifting from victim mode.
The criticism is less about Woodroof’s homophobia and more “Why is Jared Leto playing a transwoman in the first place?” and the portrayal of Woodroof as hero to Rayon’s victim — Rayon a character who was a complete fiction so there’s no excuse to keep in line with “but it really happened this way!”
Both have seen it; the former is a feministing link, the latter a trans-blog. Anyway, I haven’t seen the movie myself.
Huh?
Because he’s an actor? Did anyone ask why Hilary Swank played a transman in “Boys Don’t Cry.”
Rayon, regardless of whether the character is a composite or completely fictional, is important to the way the story is told in the movie. Would have been no more true to life without this character but would have necessitated more screen time for the Woodroof character and it would have made for a more cliched and derivative movie.
Called one:
Another nomination snub was John Goodman in “Inside Llewyn Davis.” An interesting character and performance that makes a statement beyond the movie.
“Her” — have to question those that found this movie inventive and creative. It’s a mash-up of several stories and movies, and adds nothing new. It’s visually boring. More in style than anything specific, it reminded me of “Lost in Translation,” a movie I loathed. As with several 2013 movies, it showed too little and told too much of a story that is a superficially derivative of Pygmalion, Miss Lonelyhearts, HAL from 2001, and Pinocchio.
Not well imagined nor written. Given those two huge constraints, Spike Jonze is to be congratulated for having put together a movie that’s not dreadful. The gratuitous, simulated aural sex isn’t fun, funny, or interesting. Also used flashbacks in the worst possible way.
The award properly belongs to the stars of 20 Feet from Stardom. I could have watched and listened to them for at least another hour. They did to this poorly crafted documentary what they so often did to mediocre songs — made it good and sometimes great.