The 2010 Oscar Hangover

Well the Academy Award hangover is over and now its time to sit back, and think about what happened. Think about the winners, and the losers, and those that weren’t even nominated. Time to think about how the show went about and why oh why it went on half an hour longer than its proposed running time. The bottom line is this: the award show did indeed run way too long, but for the first time in a while, it ran with some drama. Not a single movie was actually running away with all the awards, and most of the winners were definitely worthy. Nonetheless, my Best Picture winner did not win. Up didn’t win Best Picture, and I was pushing for this since the moment the nominations were mentioned:

“Call me a Disney fanatic all you want, I don’t care. Give the Best Picture award to Up. Yes, I did see Avatar, and I don’t think it was even a Top 10 of 2009 film. In a year with the likes of District 9, Inglorious Basterds, and 500 Days of Summer, Avatar shouldn’t even get a Best Picture nomination. It was a weak story covered in pretty packaging. Back to the worthy picture. Up is the best film of last year by far. The opening 10 minutes (now becoming a staple in animation history) are some of the most intense footage ever seen in a family movie. Very few movies can drive me to near-tears (yea I’ll admit it), but Up fires and hits on all sentimental cylinders. But let’s not forget the beautiful story full of memorable characters, memorable moments, hilarious scenes, and plenty of peril. Let’s also point out the 98% fresh tomato rating on Rotten Tomatoes (Avatar: 82%).”

I wrote that back in February, and the opinion still stands. And I saw The Hurt Locker. The Hurt Locker could have been film of the year, if it weren’t for the third act smacking a few clichés and the ending hitting sooner than expected. While 2009 did not contain a movie that I deemed 5-star worthy, Up was extremely close. But what’s even more upsetting is that not a single movie studio other than the producers of The Hurt Locker (and to an extent, Oprah) even tried to shoot for the main win. The Hurt Locker’s massive campaign to defeat Avatar not only was news-worthy, but even got a producer kicked out of the Academys.

In the meantime, the World of Disney doesn’t even contain a soundtrack for Up, and the freakin’ thing won Best Musical Score!! Why are there two albums for Alice in Wonderland, two albums for Cars, a Los Lobos album, but noting for Up? Not only that, but there’s literally no merchandise to promote the movie anymore. Two Academy Award wins, a Best Picture nomination, $723 million worldwide, and eventually the 35th highest-grossing movie of all-time and it still can’t get its own little section in the largest Disney merchandise shop in the world? This might be me overreacting over the lack of attention, but in all honesty, it looks like Disney never even attempted for the main prize like they sort-of-sort-of did for Wall-E. Come on Disney, Up really did have a chance. Avatar may have had the money, but its poor writing hit a sore spot with the Academy. Not to mention they should have realized that not a single sci-fi movie has ever won Best Picture.

The Hurt Locker wasn’t the only big surprise. Inglorious Basterds, the best script I saw last year, didn’t win Screenplay, and that went to a good movie with a ho-hum script. The Hurt Locker’s specialty was the direction and acting, not the writing. How can you top a World War 2 film that literally rewrites history? Precious winning Adapted Screenplay contributed to Up in the Air’s incredibly disappointing Oscar performance (not a single win). But I will not forgive the Academy for failing to nominate The Hangover and (500) Days of Summer and instead nominating The Messenger and a Serious Man. Monique’s win was a total surprise to me, as Precious winning anything at all was unexpected. Anyone else think that Tyler Perry secretly was upset that none of HIS films had been nominated for anything, while an Oprah-run production nearly hits Best Picture? I think the biggest surprise is Cinematography going to a movie that’s nearly entirely motion-capture and computer-generated.

The show itself needs to change format though in order to avoid a longer running time. And it needs to be run by Neil Patrick Harris, who provided the greatest opening sequence in any Oscar show in a very, very, very, very long time. Personally, I think the awards should be run beginning from awards concerning its inception and opening ideas (screenplay, art direction, costume design) and run up to the on-the-set awards (cinematography, makeup), then go through the post-filming process (music, sound mixing, sound editing, editing) and then give out all the non-Best Picture best picture awards (short film, documentary, animated shorts, animated feature film, foreign film). Lastly, we get the acting awards, and then Best Picture.

That’s for structure, now for timing purposes, there should be some awards that shouldn’t even mention the nominations, but mention the winners and then give them about 2 minutes of fame by discussing the procedure and why it wins. The awards that should be handed out without mentioning the nominees include: Documentary, Short Film, Short Animated Film, Makeup, Sound Editing, Sound Mixing, Costume Design). Give these winners 1-2 minutes and you’ll save at least 10-15 minutes of unnecessary Oscar time. Not diminishing these awards, but I actually think the audience would pay more attention if all the focus is on the winner. Kind of like what happened to Best Picture, minus the Tom Hanks rushing.

Bottom Line: The Oscars were good, plenty of drama, plenty of worthy winners, but the show itself needs to be shorter, and needs more Neil Patrick Harris. Honestly, in the Emmys he was the best host since Conan O’Brian a couple years earlier. As for Disney, I honestly am disappointed in the way you handled your movies last year, and Up was the best example (2nd place: Princess and the Frog). Last but not least, where is (500) Days of Summer?????

Here are the DIAC Oscar Picks (Much more important than what the Academy thinks):
Best Picture: Up
Best Actor: Jeff Bridges
Best Actress: Meryl Streep (She is due another Oscar, despite being nominated so much)
Best Supporting Actor: Christoph Waltz
Best Supporting Actress: Maggie Gyllenhall
Best Directing: Spike Jonze (Where the Wild Things Are)
Best Screenplay (Original): Inglorious Basterds
Best Adapted Screenplay: District 9
Best Cinematography: Where the Wild Things Are
Best Editing: Up
Best Art Direction: Sherlock Holmes
Best Makeup: District 9
Best Music: Up
Best Original Song: Down in New Orleans (Princess and the Frog)
Best Sound Mixing: Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen
Best Sound Editing: The Hurt Locker
Best Visual Effects: Avatar
Best Animated Picture: Up
Ciao.

Alice in Wonderland (2010): 5/10

The characters in the movie were right, this isn't the real Alice.., 5 March 2010

Whenever there is a dark or whimsical movie script floating around Hollywood, you know that Tim Burton is close behind. Then we have Disney tapping into the Hot Topic-like culture that hit full blast with Nightmare Before Christmas. Place the two together and we have a high-budget version of Alice in Wonderland, one of the most whimsical yet essentially pointless pieces of literature this side of Shakespeare. While Disney has dabbed with the story before back in 1951, it was met with massive criticism from major fans of the book. Nonetheless (and rather ironically) that version is not only the best one, but is easily the most well-known. To add some oomph to the accomplishment, there are at least 15 versions of the book that had been released at one point or another.

Which brings us to the biggest issue of the 2010 Alice in Wonderland: it has some major shoes to fill. If imitating Walt Disney's majesty with animation back in the day was so easy, we would have much heavier competition against Pixar. The 1951 version may not be 100% accurate, but it has a lot of classic scenes, a lot of classic characters, and has the crazy random tone of the book. Tim Burton, using a script that mixes both Alice books and provides us with a version that has a bit more adventure, a bit more peril, but at the same time makes little references to Disney's previous version.

Sadly though, it doesn't have the whimsical majestical tone and mood of the book. While the special effects were nice, the acting was good and the music was Danny Elfmanny, this Alice is a pretty picture painted on an empty canvas. The movie won't test your imagination, it doesn't really provide as much laughter and insanity as it should, and towards the end it becomes a retread of nearly every single fantasy flick within the last decade. Why there is a battle that resembles that of Narnia, I'll never know. This isn't the Alice we know. It may look like Alice, it may behave like Alice, but it still just isn't Alice. It is more accurate in content than the other Alices, but it isn't more accurate in tone.

We know the tale, and this movie takes most of the events from the two books and mixes them together into one grand adventure. However the events happening before entering the rabbit hole is much more extensive than usual. We see Alice (Mia Wasikowska) pretty much getting forced to be married when clearly she isn't ready. Upon running away at the altar, she follows the white rabbit and we all know where it goes from there. A major plot difference though is that the characters in Wonderland constantly believe that she isn't the real Alice for one reason or another. Along the way she meets up with talking flowers, a smoking caterpillar (Alan Rickman), a mean queen (Helena Bonham Carter), the Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp) among others.

Let's at least praise a few things before thrashing the movie into disappointment level. The acting is superb, especially that of Anne Hathaway believe it or not. Johnny Depp is always deep into the role he plays, but unlike other works (Edward Scissorhands, Pirates of the Caribbean, Ed Wood) he isn't given much material to work with. Helena Bonham Carter is a hoot as the Red Queen. As for our Alice, Mia Wasikowska looks the part and plays the part well. The special effects, while they surprisingly weren't utilized that much for setting, definitely enhanced the visual experience. The Cheshire cat is one example of an improvement over the 1951 version.

And now, the criticism. Alice in Wonderland starts off decently, but once she enters the world of Wonderland, its one that isn't full of curious characters and circumstances, but instead is a dangerous world that throws Alice into a quest. Alice in Wonderland was never intent on being a quest, it was a trip through a totally different environment. In the 1951 version, Alice never had a goal in mind, she spent the entire movie dwelling deeper and deeper into an insane world. In here, we see Alice having to fulfill some sort of destiny for reasons not totally explained. The Mad Hatter isn't as mad as in the book (Or..well, you know by now). The Red Queen isn't as cynical or stupidly cruel as…the other installment.

Last but not least, the movie just doesn't have the trippy look or feel as the book portrayed. Tim Burton is a one-trick visual pony: he rarely ever dwells away from dark and gloomy atmospheres. Instead of looking more like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory, it resembled that of Sleepy Hollow. Then we have the third act, which mimics that of Narnia, Golden Compass, Lord of the Rings, and the other fantasy flicks that propels the viewer into one final battle. Like previously stated, Alice in Wonderland isn't a tale about a quest, it's a trippy tale about a trippy trip into a trippy place.

Bottom Line: The actors were good, the special effects were good, the music was good, but this version of the literary classic just doesn't feel like it should. The movie paces like a fantasy epic, when it should dwell far from it. Part of the charm of the book (and the 1951 version, which by now you should realize I find superior) is that it was so unique, so different, and so defiant of the normality in literature, entertainment, and storytelling. This Alice feels like another movie we've seen before, and with that statement alone, it fails as a remake, retread, or re-telling of the book. Sorry but I won't follow the white rabbit into this rabbit hole again.

The Hurt Locker: 8/10

The Hurt Locker: War Movie + Quality + Tension + Excellent Direction - Accuracy, 5 March 2010

Good war movies are hard to come by. Whether it's the political agenda, the abundance of clichés, or just the overkill of violence without consequence, its very hard to truly feel for a war movie. Saving Private Ryan didn't help either by raising the bar to a level that has yet to be even challenged. Spielberg's amazing masterpiece combines uncut violence with heart-thrashing tension, groundbreaking cinematography, and an intense amount of heart and undeniable evidence that war is absolute hell. Since 1998, there hasn't been a single war movie to come even close in terms of quality. However, in 2009 we were dangerously close.

The Hurt Locker was a quiet wartime film that swept away the hearts of critics and quietly became the Oscar favorite in the summertime. Instead of World War 2, the setting was the Iraqi war, which has its share of film clunkers. Instead of focusing on the battlefield, The Hurt Locker focused instead of a group of soldiers hired to prevent bombs from going off and killing innocent civilians. What we have is a decent script, nearly flawlessly directed by an underrated director, with a superb cast of actors involved. While the movie misses the masterpiece ranks by not digging deeper into the human psyche and providing clichés it had avoided in the first two acts, it's a great film that mixes suspense, action, and unbearable tension.

This movie, like previously stated, focuses on a small group of soldiers who are part of the bomb squad. They are in charge of making sure no civilians get hurt with any of the bombs that are sprinkled throughout the country. While the accuracy of the content within the film has been heavily contested and criticized, the movie focuses much less towards the big picture (The war itself) and instead focuses on several smaller incidents that are usually little blurbs in American newspapers everywhere. While you loosely read about a suicide bombing, The Hurt Locker throws you right in the middle of the scenario at hand. This Mark Boal script is a page-turner because of the immense suspense and tension involved, and because it allows you to see just how violence and death affects your average soldier. Boal obviously didn't have experience in the battlefield, but knows how to tell a good story.

Accuracy takes a sidetrip, because this film's strong point is the quiet, unnerving action that slowly ruins the psyche of everyone involved, even if they rise victorious. The acting and directing allows the anxiety to spew its way into the viewers. Jeremy Renner provides an Oscar-worthy performance of a soldier that seems to show no fears of death, but at the same time show signs of pure panic. Renner behaves a certain way with a bomb involved, and behaves another way when in a situation that is not his usual calling. But Anthony Mackie is just as effective as a tough-as-nails soldier that shows his true colors when death stares right back. Oddity of this movie is that the bigger names took the smaller roles, including David Morse and Ralph Fieness.

Kathryn Bigelow's film career spans many decades, but had only one major hit with Point Break. In The Hurt Locker however, she directs her finest work by stretching many scenes far longer than most directors would dare, turning little situations into extended moments of emotional torture. The sniper scene is the most controversial amongst the critics because of its length and spaghetti western-like pacing. But this scene (like the other troublesome scene involving the main character seeking vengeance) perfectly describes the feelings of the soldiers involved and remains constant with the harsh theme attached: you cannot trust anyone. Every situation has the soldiers pitted in an environment they don't fully know, containing people they know nothing about, as they desperately try to figure out who is a bystander and who is a potential terrorist. The directing is what propels this movie into such high acclaim. If there is someone to thank for the Best Picture nomination, its Bigelow.

Sadly, The Hurt Locker misses the mark because of the final act. The final act has a few of the clichés that it had avoided for so long. If the movie had run a bit less, than it would be amongst the great war classics like Saving Private Ryan, Platoon, and Full Metal Jacket. While mentioning which ones specifically would lead to potential spoilers, just know that it throws the film off and leads to a rather quick ending. The writing was great, but one would have hoped for a deeper analysis into the minds of the emotionally drained men.

Bottom Line: Don't let that bring you down though, because The Hurt Locker is a superb film with great writing and even better directing. Becoming the second-most tense movie of 2009 (Inglorious Basterds takes the cake) The Hurt Locker combines thrills, emotional chills, and enough suspense to make Hitchcock and Spielberg very proud. It dwells away from the average wartime movie by giving us a look into another type of wartime combat, the one that involves bomb detonating and trying to see who is on your side and who isn't. This is the best war movie since Saving Private Ryan, and is one of the best flicks of 2009.