KILLING THEM SOFTLY

KILLING THEM SOFTLY
Written and Directed by Andrew Dominick
Starring Brad Pitt, Ray Liotta, Richard Jenkins and James Gandolfini

Jackie: You ever kill someone? It can get touchy-feely. I like to kill them softly, from a distance.

Judging from how many cuts there are in the first few minutes of KILLING THEM SOFTLY, I would say writer/director, Andrew Dominick, took the criticism that his last effort, THE ASSASSINATION OF JESSE JAMES BY THE COWARD ROBERT FORD, was a little too slow, very seriously. His latest, and second go round with Brad Pitt, is jarring, and aggressively so, from the very start. As a notable campaign speech by then senator, Barack Obama, can be heard echoing through the empty, trash ridden streets of whatever decimated American city this is, it becomes clear that Dominick is less interested in setting an actual scene and much more keen on criticizing the government.

If there is any legitimate business happening in this city, Dominick isn’t interested in it. Instead we spend all of our time with the underbelly of society, mobsters, hitmen, petty thieves looking to trade up. A few of the these thieves decide at one point to hold up a mob run poker game because if they don’t pull off a big score, they will never make it to the next playing level. This particular card game had already been held up but that was an inside job, so the thieves just figure everyone will assume it is again this time around. After the card game gets hit, the criminal economy collapses upon itself while the organization scrambles to restore order. All the while, footage or soundbites from the 2008 American election campaign and financial collapse that was happening simultaneously at that time, are incessantly thrown at the viewer to remind us when exactly this all takes place.

The insinuation of course is that the actual 2008 economic collapse, that so many people have not quite recovered from yet, mirrors this criminal model in many ways. Those that were in control of the money on Wall Street were getting greedy and were essentially robbing from each other, all made possible through loopholes and regulation. The smaller players aren’t even at the table, just like the disappearing middle class and ever increasing lower class, and the only way they can contend is by doing it by force. And of course the American government itself also seemed to run amuck trying to figure out how to rectify the situation. KILLING THEM SOFTLY thus not so subtly spends the majority of its time accusing the government of killing its people from a distance and not nearly enough time developing a satisfying plot.

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 2011: Results

5. John Hawkes in Martha Marcy May Marlene- Hawkes combines effortlessly a charming and threatening personality in his portrayal of a cult leader.

4. Viggo Mortensen in A Dangerous Method- Mortensen gives a strong performance as Sigmund Freud succeeding well in creating the charismatic and persuasive personality of the man.

3. Bryan Cranston in Drive- Cranston even with his limited screen time creates both an enthusiastic as well as tragic presence in his film.

2. Brad Pitt in The Tree of Life- Pitt gives an astonishing performance and fully realizes his character despite limitations created by the direction of the film.

1. Mart Strong in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy- Strong wins this year for me, even with Brooks who on re-watch I still love, and give a 5, but he is no longer my favorite of the year. That goes to Strong even though it is close very close among the top three. Strong is my favorite though who gives an absolutely masterful performance, there is not a wasted moment or even a single facial gesture in his portrayal.

Overall Rank:

1. Mark Strong in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
2. Albert Brooks in Drive
3. Brad Pitt in The Tree of Life
4. Bryan Cranston in Drive
5. Tom Hardy in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy 
6. Viggo Mortensen in A Dangerous Method
7. John Hurt in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy 
8. John Hawkes in Martha Marcy May Marlene
9. Don Cheadle in The Guard
10. Benedict Cumberbatch in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
11. Ben Kingsley in Hugo
12. Colin Firth in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
13. Kenneth Branagh in My Week With Marilyn
14. Max Von Sydow in Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close 
15. Corey Stoll in Midnight in Paris
16. Toby Jones in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
17. Christopher Plummer in The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo
18. David Dencik in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
19. Alan Rickman in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows Part II
20. Liam Cunningham in The Guard
21. Kevin Bacon in X-Men First Class
22. James Cromwell in The Artist
23. Mark Strong in The Guard
24. Paul Giamatti in The Ides of March
25. Stellan Skarsgard in The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo
26. Ron Perlman in Drive 
27. Laurence Fishburne in Contagion 
28. Philip Seymour Hoffman in The Ides of March
29. Robert Forster in The Descendants
30. Oscar Isaac in Drive
31. Chris Cooper in The Muppets
32. Matt Damon in Contagion 
33. Christopher Plummer in Beginners
34. Matthew Lewis in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows Part II
35. Ciaran Hinds in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy
36. Jeffrey Wright in Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close
37. George Clooney in Ides of March
38. Yorick van Wageningen in The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo
39. Nick Nolte in Warrior
40. David Wilmot in The Guard 
41. Sacha Baron Cohen in Hugo
42. Vincent Cassel in A Dangerous Method
43. Tom Hiddleston in War Horse 
44. Sean Penn in The Tree of Life
45. Matthew Lillard in The Descendants 
46. Jonah Hill in Moneyball
47. Jude Law in Contagion
48. Tom Hiddleston in Midnight in Paris
49. Philip Seymour Hoffman in Moneyball
50. John Goodman in The Artist
51. Beau Bridges in The Descendants
52. Ralph Fiennes in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hollows Part II
53. Toby Jones in Captain America
54. Josh Lucas in J. Edgar
55. Michael Sheen in Midnight in Paris
56. Tom Hanks in Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close
57. Tommy Lee Jones in Captain American
58. Nicholas Hoult in X-Men First Class
59. Armie Hammer in J. Edgar 
60. Dominic Cooper in Captain America
61. Hugo Weaving in Captain America
62. Hugh Dancy in Martha Marcy May Marlene
63. Peter Mullan in War Horse
64. David Thewlis in War Horse
65. Jim Broadbent in The Iron Lady
66. James Badge Dale in Shame
67. Joaquín Cosio in A Better Life
68. Niels Arestrup in War Horse
69. Nick Krause in The Descendants 
70. Goran Visnjic in Beginners 
71. Matt Milne in War Horse 

Next Year: 1947 Supporting (I might do this year differently) 

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 2011: Brad Pitt in The Tree of Life

Brad Pitt did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Mr. O'Brien in The Tree of Life.

The Tree of Life certainly is a film that you either go along with the indulgences of Terrence Malick or you do not. I do not.

What is really the best part of the film really is the character of Mr. O'Brien as portrayed by Pitt, even though the film's treatment of the character does not quite work all that well. I mostly refer to the fact that at times it treats him like he is the worst father who ever lived, particularly in the scene with the son contemplates killing him. That actually just made me want to slap the kid because although he is not father of the year material by any measure, he certainly should not die because the son seems to hate even the slightest bit of strictness.

I think perhaps a problem in the depiction of Mr. O'Brien is that maybe Pitt gives too much of a complex performance for the way the film wants to represent the character. It is actually quite extraordinary that Pitt manages to give the performance that he gives considering the limitations brought on by the way Malick directs the film. It is always far more interested in scenery and spectacle of the world rather than the people in it, as the camera commonly drifts off faces, or to some angle that really would not be ideal for any actor in any film. This is probably contributes to why some actors, like Christopher Plummer, have a problem with Malick's methods.

To the absolute credit of Pitt though he manages to make Mr. O'Brien the most compelling character in the film even when the film commonly drifts from him, or even sometimes drifts away from him within a frame of a single shot. Pitt makes a stamp on the film whether or not the camera seems to want him to do so. He creates Mr. O'Brien into a father of the 50's in the manner he carries himself, and acts around the children. He is very much head of the household, and Pitt holds a command over the proceedings in any scene where Mr. O'Brien is with his family. 

Even though the film gives Mr. O'Brien a ridiculously hard time for being human Pitt never once leaves Mr. Mr. O'Brien as just a one dimensional being for his sons to hate. What is so important about his portrayal is the warmth he does put into his performance. Pitt always makes it abundantly clear that he does love his sons very much in the way he interacts with them, and as well grieves over another one. It is a very moving portrait of a father who tries to do what is best for his sons despite the way his sons my view some of his behavior.

In the scenes like the one where Mr. O'Brien teaches the boys fight, or disciplines them in some way, Pitt never portrays any of this as random abuse. In his face, and his manner towards the boys particularly the way he really is always very encouraging, Pitt shows that Mr. O'Brien is trying to teach the boys valuable lessons, not just to punish them. Pitt always shows these as the lessons of a father who cares, whether he is right or wrong, the passion that Pitt puts into the part makes the character of Mr. O'Brien far more interesting because in reality he is not trying to be abusive in any way.

The big attack against Mr. O'Brien by his son is that he is hypocritical, and does many of the things he tells his son not to do. Pitt actually plays it well because in the way he portray Mr. O'Brien, he is actually aware of that. Pitt portrays a genuine sadness subtly in short but important moments over his own flaws and lost potential. Pitt makes it so it is not that Mr. O'Brien really is being contradictory, but rather Pitt shows that he honestly wants his sons to be better men than he was. He wants them to be able to reach places that he himself never could.

What is wrong with the academy when it comes to Pitt, I have not gotten to 1995 yet, but in both this year and 2008 they failed to nominate his superior supporting work in favor of his lesser leading work. This is once again a strange occurrence considering The Tree of Life was nominated for Best Picture, and the actual nominees were a sorry sort. It is a shame they missed this incredible performance by Pitt, that I think honestly went far above with the part. I really only wanted more of Pitt's Mr. O'Brien in the film, and it is truly astonishing how much he manged to do with this character despite the limitations set by Malick's directorial style.

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 2011

And the Nominees Were Not:

Viggo Mortensen in A Dangerous Method

Bryan Cranston in Drive

Brad Pitt in The Tree of Life

Mark Strong in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy

John Hawkes in Martha Marcy May Marlene

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 2008: Results

5. Eddie Marsan in Happy-Go-Lucky- Marsan a good supporting performance through the film, and even helps Hawkins's performance come alive more in their scenes through the extreme differences of their characters.

4. Aaron Eckhart in The Dark Knight- I would not quite put his performance quite up there with Ledger and Oldman, but on his own he creates his character's journey effectively and gives a strong performance throughout the film.

3. Brad Pitt in Burn After Reading- This is a great performance from Pitt, and  it could not be a better comedic portrayal of an idiot.

2. Gary Oldman in The Dark Knight- Oldman gives a moving performance creating Commissioner Gordon into a fully fledged three dimensional character.

1. Ralph Fiennes in In Bruges- Good Predictions Lezlie and Michael Patison, feel free to name a year and a performance. Fiennes easily wins this year, and I must say I really did consider giving him the overall. I love every aspect of this performance every one of his scenes are amazing as he is both an imposing villain but as well an always hilarious character.

Overall Rank:

1. Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight
2. Ralph Fiennes in In Bruges
3. Gary Oldman in The Dark Knight
4. Robert Downey Jr. in Tropic Thunder
5. Brad Pitt in Burn After Reading
6. Josh Brolin in Milk
7. Aaron Eckhart in The Dark Knight
8. Jason Butler Harner in Changeling 
9. Eddie Marsan in Happy-Go-Lucky
10. Liev Schrieber in Defiance 
11. Tom Cruise in Tropic Thunder
12. John Malkovich in Burn After Reading
13. Anthony Mackie in The Hurt Locker
14. Ralph Fiennes in The Duchess 
15. Richard Jenkins in Burn After Reading
16. Liam Cunningham in Hunger
17. Giancarlo Giannini in Quantum of Solace
18. Viggo Mortensen in Appaloosa
19. Bill Irwin in Rachel Getting Married
20. J.K. Simmons in Burn After Reading 
21. Kevin Bacon in Frost/Nixon
22. Anil Kapoor in Slumdog Millionaire
23. Jeff Bridges in Iron Man 
24. Matthew McConaughey in Tropic Thunder
25. Mark Strong in Body of Lies
26. Michael Shannon in Revolutionary Road
27. Jordan Prentice in In Bruges
28. Michael Caine in The Dark Knight
29. Nick Nolte in Tropic Thunder
30. Morgan Freeman in The Dark Knight 
31. Chin Han in The Dark Knight
32. Ralph Fiennes in The Reader
33. Jeffrey Wright in Quantum of Solace
34. Russell Crowe in Body of Lies
35. Haaz Sleiman in The Visitor
36. Brian Geraghty in The Hurt Locker
37. Eric Roberts in The Dark Knight 
38. William Hurt in The Incredible Hulk
39. Mathieu Amalric in Quantum of Solace
40. Jack Black in Tropic Thunder
41. Jay Baruchel in Tropic Thunder
42. Jamie Bell in Defiance
43. David Harbour in Revolutionary Road 
44. Danny Mcbride in Tropic Thunder
45. James Franco in Milk
46. Tim Roth in The Incredible Hulk
47. Sam Rockwell in Frost/Nixon
48. John Malkovich in Changeling
49. Oliver Platt in Frost/Nixon
50. Jeremy Irons in Appaloosa  
51. Greg Kinnear in Ghost Town
52. Terrence Howard in Iron Man
53. Jeffrey Donovan in Changeling
54. Brandon T. Jackson in Tropic Thunder
55. Emile Hirsch in Milk
56. Ray Winstone in Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
57. Bee Vang in Gran Torino
58. Chris Messina in Vicky Christina Barcelona
59. John Hurt in  Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (How dare this movie cause a bad John Hurt performance)
60. Diego Luna in Milk
61. Shia Laboeuf in Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

I should note I only listed supporting performances that I at least remembered in some way.

Next Year: 1985 Supporting

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 2008: Brad Pitt in Burn After Reading

Brad Pitt did not receive an Oscar nomination for portraying Chad Feldheimer in Burn After Reading.

Burn After Reading is an okay comedy about a whole group of double crossing idiots, who have some sort of relation to the CIA.

Brad Pitt was in contention for two performances in 2008 this one, and the greater Oscar success The Curious Case of Benjamin. Both characters could possibly be described as a blank slate. Benjamin Button because Pitt's portrays him so dully that there does not seem to be even a though in his head. Chad well he also does not seem to have too many thoughts in his head either, but that is just find because there undoubtedly is plenty of meat perhaps. Anyway the point is Chad is an idiot quite possibly the dumbest character in the film.

Although one could argue almost everyone in the film is some sort of idiot, but Pitt's performance is the one that most revels in it to the greatest effect. Pitt makes no excuses and never winks in his performance with Chad and goes all the way into portraying Chad just the way he should be. Chad just is not very bright as he does his job as a gym trainer, and only seems qualified to do that. He does not understand much else, certainly not how to try to black mail a former CIA analyst Osbourne Cox (John Malkovich) with his worthless memoirs who he and his fellow Hard Bodies employee Linda (Frances McDormand).

All I can say with this performance is that although there is not much depth with this performance, there really should not be, there really is only two points to this performance. One is to be a proper idiot, and the other two be an extremely hilarious idiot. Really being a great idiot is a better art form than one might give credit for. After all one will find that such people as Adam Sandler, or Rob Schneider constantly fail at making an idiot funny. Pitt thought follows everything that one must do to be a hilarious idiot the way one needs to be.

Firstly his idiocy is pure Pitt shows wonderfully well that the only thing Chad knows about is the gym that's it, anything else is quite a jump for him and it requires extra effort. Importantly Pitt puts the fact that Chad although knows about the gym is not exactly smart there even acting still like a big dummy even when commenting about something he knows about.This particularly as when he becomes humorously frustrated when not finding a drink to suit him after having to run so far and can't even fully function until he has proper hydration, or his absolutely hilarious line of laughing proudly but in a still dimwitted when fashion when Malkovich's character thinks his bike is a Schwinn.

Secondly and very necessary is that Pitt makes Chad extremely likable. He has such a charm in the role, and he never feels annoying. This is for two reasons Pitt's makes the stupidity feel entirely natural as he never does stop being stupid, but as well he always makes Chad a doofus with a very good nature. Pitt never shows an malice in Chad's mischief, and there is always sense of great fun in his performance. One scene in particular is just one moment of laughter after another brought on by Pitt which is when he meets Malkovich, Pitt's portrayal of Chad is just brilliant as he so ineptly tries to be cool and mysterious and is anything but in the moment.

It is insanely funny how someone like Pitt who usually is portrayed as the coolest man around in his films, can be so amusingly lame. His faces as he tries to act like a tough blackmailer is just gold, and his hangdog expression after being punched in the face could not be better. Every moment Chad is on screen Pitt is doing something funny with this slow witted fellow. Even the act of watching a house for activity Pitt makes the most out of with his enjoyably simple gestures to his music while noticing something more important to him, but Pitt shows that no matter what Chad will keep listening to his music no matter what.

I would say my only problem with this performance is that it ends. I would say for the film's sake too soon as Pitt is by far the best part of the film, and I really say it is only an okay comedy because as soon as Pitt exits the film loses a lot of its entertainment value. I will say that Pitt could not go out better though in his quick almost blink and you miss it, but absolutely priceless reaction. It pretty much sums up Chad in the final moments of a man who even facing the worst will still stare forward with just a giant smirk on his face. This is a great performance from Pitt, and  it could not be a better comedic portrayal of an idiot.

Alternate Best Supporting Actor 2008

And The Nominees Were Not:

Aaron Eckhart in The Dark Knight

Gary Oldman in The Dark Knight

Ralph Fiennes in In Bruges

Brad Pitt in Burn After Reading

Eddie Marsan in Happy Go Lucky

THE FALL 2012 FILM PREVIEW (part one)

Ive been up for a couple of hours now and it has only just now dawned on me that it is September 1. Summer isn't technically over but it's hard to argue with its inevitable finality once September rolls around. All is not lost though. With the fall comes some very impressive films and Black Sheep is here to help you sift through them ...

SEPTEMBER

For me, September means the Toronto International Film Festival. And as I plan on previewing the 40 or so titles I will be seeing during this year's festival later this week, I will limit my choices today to films that will only be coming to a theatre near you.

TROUBLE WITH THE CURVE
Let's begin with the man everyone is talking about this week, Clint Eastwood. With all his directing as of late, he hasn't acted for another director for almost 20 years. (1993's IN THE LINE OF FIRE would be the last time, in case you were curious.) Personally, I can barely handle the man. His films are so bogged down with his old, white man idealism that they never resonate with me emotionally. Perhaps relinquishing his directorial duties will make him more enjoyable for me, but seeing as how his baseball scout character in this Robert Lorenz film seems like just as much of a curmudgeon as everyone else he plays, my hopes are not high. At least Amy Adams and Justin Timberlake are along to lighten the load.

HOUSE AT THE END OF THE STREET
Yes, this does look just like your typical fright flick, but how can it be with Jennifer Lawrence in the lead role? After earning an Oscar nomination for her brilliant work is WINTER'S BONE and dominating her star making turn as the girl on fire in one of the year's biggest hits, THE HUNGER GAMES, she certainly doesn't have to take a role like this. So unless this was shot before she stepped into the role of Katniss (which is possible but I could not find the shooting dates), this horror film has to be a cut above the rest. Lawrence herself is reason enough to find out though. Elizabeth Shue and Max Theriot co-star.

Other September highlights include Bradley Cooper plagiarizing Jeremy Irons in THE WORDS; Viola Davis and Maggie Gyllenhaal take over a broken down public school in WON'T BACK DOWN; Kirsten Dunst hopes her group of gal pals can repeat the BRIDESMAIDS success with BACHELORETTE; and although I can hardly believe it, they are still making RESIDENT EVIL movies. RETRIBUTION, the fifth in the series, hits September 14.

OCTOBER

FRANKENWEENIE
Many people accuse Tim Burton of having sold out a long time ago, of being washed up and tired now. I am actually often amongst those people but I am very excited for his newest stop-motion animation, FRANKENWEENIE. Based on his 1984 short film, which got him ousted from the Disney junior animator job he had at the time, the expansion is pretty much exactly what you would expect - young boy's dog is brought back to life and the townspeople are not very open to this freak of nature. Yes, there is the potential the feature length will bring with it many schmaltzy and unnecessary moments but if Burton does it right, it could be a new creepy cult classic.

KILLING THEM SOFTLY
Brad Pitt reteams with the director of THE ASSASSINATION OF JESSE JAMES BY THE COWARD ROBERT FORD, Andrew Dominik, for this new thriller. Pitt plays a hit man hired to tail two less than sharp thieves who rob a mob-run poker game. The premise sounds almost funny but the trailer looks like the final product will be less than amusing. One thing is for sure though; with a 97 minute runtime, this one will surely be faster paced paced than their last collaboration. Also, Richard Jenkins and James Gandolfini co-star.

TAKEN 2
Given the success of the first TAKEN film, it is no real shock to see a sequel for the film hitting theatres now. After all, that film solidified Liam Neeson as a bonafide action star internationally. After watching the preview for the sequel, I am sure fans of the first film will not be disappointed with the follow-up. I, however, was not a huge fan of the first film and have very little interest in this instalment. This time around, his wife and daughter appear to be taken as revenge for the havoc he wreaked last time out. And I'm supposed to take this seriously?

Also coming in October ... Helen Hunt plays sexual surrogate to John Hawkes in Oscar-buzzy, THE SESSIONS; Jennifer Garner comes dangerously close to losing her cool as a champion butter sculptor in BUTTER; Robert De Niro and Diane Keaton play a long-divorced couple trying to play nice for their son's wedding in THE BIG WEDDING, which sounds like it could have been directed by Nancy Meyers (it is not); and apparently there is a never-ending stash of found ghost footage somewhere in a Hollywood basement just waiting to be turned into a PARANORMAL ACTIVITY movies. The fourth film in the series hits October 19 (and will be gone by November 1, most likely).

Check back tomorrow for Part Two of Black Sheep's 2012 Fall Film Preview, which will feature November and December.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, 2008
Directed by David Fincher
Nominated for 13 Oscars, Won 3
Lost BP To: Slumdog Millionaire

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is loosely based on the short story by F. Scott Fitzgerald. It tells the story of Benjamin, who was born as old man, and who ages in reverse. That is, to say, he gets younger instead of getting older. In this film version, directed by David Fincher, Benjamin was born the day the Great War ended. His mother died in child birth, and his father was horrified by the sight of him. He was born with cataracts, wrinkled skin, and arthirits. His father contemplated throwing him in the river but leaves him on the doorstep of a home (whether random or not, we're not sure). A young black woman named Queenie, who helps run a seniors home, takes him in and cares for him. Thinking he doesn't have long left anyway, Queenie keeps him. And he begins to get younger.

This story is told by the way of a young woman, reading Benjamin's diary to her dying mother, who is in the hospital during, what we think is, the beginnings of Hurricane Katrina. The old woman's name is Daisy. The love of Benjamin's life. Benjamin meets Daisy when he's very young (or still very old), and she's around 6 or 7. Her grandmother lives in the seniors home, and they are kindred spirits and become pals- in the way little girls and old men do.

The movie is Benjamin's entire life. Him getting younger, leaving home, living on a tugboat in Russia, having an affair with a married woman, working the tugboat in WWII, being attacked by submarine there, falling in love with Daisy, being apart from Daisy, being with Daisy, and getting younger.

The idea for this film had been floating around for a long time. The rights to the story was bought back in the 70s, Jack Nicholson originally slated to star. Other buyers of the rights included Steven Spielburg (in the 90's, with a Tom Cruise slated as Benjamin) but went on to direct Jurassic Park and Schindlers List. Kathleen Kennedy and Frank Marshall were sold the rights. Several different directors and stars were slated. Ron Howard (starring John Travolta), Spike Jonze, Gary Ross, and finally David Fincher, with several, several screenplays having been written. But finally, Brad Pitt was cast as Benjamin, Cate Blanchett was Daisy, and filming began in November 2006.

The film clocks in at 2 hours, and 46 minutes. The film spans Benjamin's entire life, from birth to death. The first time I watched this movie with my family, we complained it was so long, and so boring, and who cares. But then, as I've had before, I had the urging to rewatch it. So I did, and it's become a favourite film (just missing my top 10- taking the 11th spot). Many others have shared in my initial complaints that it was long and dull, and some have even compared it to Forrest Gump, being the story of a man born with defects that he eventually overcomes. He falls in love with a young girl while their both young, are companions, and aren't together for a long time (she rejects him), and eventually come together for a short time, shorter than they would've liked, lived on a boat, went to war, and had mother's who gave them quotes about not knowing what to expect of life. Eric Roth, penned the screenplays for both films and many have compared them, though they are incredibly different, even if they sound similar.

This is one of those movies that makes me feel an enormous range of feelings. Seeing Benjamin travel the world, making the most of his life, falling in love, and then, not being able to stay with Daisy makes me feel a lot of things. Its the movie that makes me feel the most.

Brad Pitt is, in my opinion, fantastic as Benjamin. He plays the subtleties just right, and acts the old man and the young man just right, making distinctions between both, all while having this wiseness beyond his years (ironically or not). Cate Blanchett is also lovely, playing both the teenage/young adult Daisy, the ballerina, and the dying woman we see in the beginning, who is unrecognizable. Other fun apprearances include Tilda Swinton, as Benjamin's first grown up love, in Murmansk, Russia and Taraji P. Henson as Queenie.

While this movie was nominated for 13 Oscars, the leading movie of the year, it only won 3. And the ones it won were truly, truly deserved. The Visual Effects, for the things like the "old man" baby, and the old Brad Pitt. In an interview with VFX Supervisor, Eric Barbra, he explains how the first 52 minutes of the film, is a 3D head. They made 3 head casts of Brad Pitt, aged 80s, 70s and 60s, then scanned into a computer, 3D. Brad would perform the facial expressions of a scene, as it was being digitzed, filmed from 4 different angles, and were matched to a scene/moment. Body actors were used on set, and essentially, Brad every facial movement and emotion was mixed with the digitized headcast (whichever age), and then photoshopped on top of the body actor. After the first 52 minutes, Brad does a full body performance, with makeup now deaging him, until he becomes a child and then a baby, when child actors are used. In the end, this gives me so much more appreciation for Brad's work on this film. Every facial expression was thought out, recorded without doing the action, only watching the body actors performance. It's incredibly complex, and the capturing of the facial expressions was the first of it's kind. (for more info on this all, see interview and the official Benjamin Button VFX Website). And how Brad Pitt doesn't have an Oscar yet is beyond me. Especially after this and Tree of Life.

In the end, I have a lot of respect for this movie, for how well it was performed, the technical and visual aspects, as well as the directing. And while it deserved the 3 Awards it won (VFX, Makeup, Art Direction), it deserved that and more. This should've been Alexandre Desplat's year for winning Original Score, in which his themes for Benjamin and Daisy was played forward, and then backwards (a technique used frequently in the film). He was truly, truly robbed. It's one of my favourite film scores ever.

However, I love this movie, understand why not everyone does, but I love it anyway. Forgive me for this long, technical review.

8.5/10

Moneyball

The life and times of a baseball manager, Moneyball is not a new story. It's a real life inspired story, but the disjointed team coming together because of a new coach/manager/team member and winning or almost winning a championship has been done many times. Moneyball is also very American, which is obvious since baseball is primarily an American sport.

Brad Pitt gives a very strong performance as Oakland A's manager Billy Beane who with the help of Peter Brand (played by Jonah Hill) goes about restructuring his team in a very unorthodox manner using computer analysis skipping over the roles of scouts. The film scores well because besides the whole underdog story, it also looks at the politics of the game and more so at the perceptions people make after the team’s victory or defeat.

Although I have always been an equal opportunity sports person when it comes to films, I found Moneyball too technical and thus a tad boring at times. Had it not been for the performance by Brad Pitt, I would have lost interest in the movie right at the start. I understand that the changes that were brought about by Billy Beane were revolutionary for baseball, but for once I felt personally they didn't mean much, to me, and thus the diminishing interest in the story of the movie.  

Surprisingly enough I also found a lot of similarities between The Damned United and Moneyball. Both the movies somewhat show a similar father-child relationship. Both managers don't watch the games their teams are playing. Both films have the manager's assistant as the real brainchild behind good team selections. The Damned United had more spunk to it, more panache, and better characterization, and thus is a much more interesting film.      

I also was very unimpressed with the fact that Jonah Hill got an Oscar nomination for his role in this film. Yes! He has come a long way from his Superbad days and it was a more mature and good performance, but it failed to leave a strong impact, certainly one that would or should lead to a nomination.

Which brings me to the most annoying factor of the movie; the misuse of Phillip Seymour Hoffman. To have someone of his acting caliber and give him a part that has very little screen time (I am aware greatness can shine in even few minutes, but still) and just not enough meat in the character was truly disheartening.     

Moneyball is a well made film and a film that seemed very sport specific. I did not dislike the film, but it lacked a certain intensity and a worldwide appeal that might have made it more interesting for people who don't follow the game of baseball.

Rating 3/5  

Winner Breakdown: Best Actor

Oscar Predictions

Best Actor
- Demian Bichir (A Better Life)
- George Clooney (The Descendants)
-Jean Dujardin (The Artist)
- Gary Oldman (Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy)
- Brad Pitt (Moneyball)

And here we are, with another big showdown. This time, Jean Dujardin vs George Clooney. Jean Dujardin is a star over in France, having worked with Artist director Michel Hazanavicius many times. But this year is his "American" debut (really worldwide). He stars as the silent film star being left behind while talking pictures are on the rise, and he truly gives the most charming performance of this year. He has such an expressive face, which is so essential to silent films. He is extraordinarily charming, but also gives a very moving performance, in the latter half of the film, dealing with his fall from fame, and loss of fortune. The second to last scene (spoiler: the potential suicide scene) is really amazing. Spoiler: the scene with the gun in his mouth is just so perfect, and so well done. End spoiler. On the other hand we have George Clooney. George has been around for sometime, has 3 (now 4) Acting Nominations, 2 writing nominations and a directing nomination. He won for his first acting nomination, Supporting Actor in Syriana back in 2006. This year's The Descendants brings a much subtler piece for Clooney. He plays a clueless father who needs to look after and get to know his children after their mother is in a coma and will be taken off life support, but also discovers his wife was cheating on him. Clooney was quite brilliant in this role too. It was a much subtler role than Dujardin's was, but he played it so well. We have comedic moments where he shines (when Matt King confronts his wife's lover), and emotional moments where he is his best (saying goodbye to his wife). And I'd say George and Jean are pretty neck in neck. George won the Critics Choice, The Golden Globe (Drama), National Board of Review, while Jean won the BAFTA, The Cannes Best Actor, Golden Globe (Comedy), and the SAG. Dujardin has recently been picking up steam, having won 2 awards in a row (BAFTA and SAG). But either of them could really win it. I'm going to predict Jean Dujardin for the win right now. He's a big newcomer, and isn't likely to return to the Oscar race next year, while Clooney might. Clooney already has 1 statute, and very few Frenchman have won this award. Dujardin's role was also in the Artist, which is the frontrunner, giving him an edge over Clooney. So Dujardin it is. And really, I'm happy either either winning. They both had great performances, and both deserve awards. I'm happy either way!

Will Win: Jean Dujardin
Could Win: George Clooney
Dark Horse: Brad Pitt
Who I Want to Win: George Clooney/Jean Dujardin

The Tree of Life

The Tree of Life, 2011
Directed by Terrence Malik
Nominations Inlcude: Best Picture, Best Director, Best Cinematography


Yes, I've finally watched this movie. I find it a little ironic that the very first BP nominee to be released was this film, way back in May. And it was the very last nominee I needed to watch. 


I had heard so many different things about this film. Going on the iTunes page for renting it, you either had people saying it was very boring, and wishing they could give it 0 stars, and those who loved it, and gave it 4 or 5 stars. I was under the impression that regular movie-goers didn't like it, and film buffs loved it. Therefore I wasn't too sure what to think. I knew there wasn't a whole lot of "plot" (I got this from the very vague synopsis I read on iTunes and IMDB), and from hearing about the long creation scenes, I figured I was settling in for a movie that was more art than story. 


I'm glad I went in with the mindset I did, because had I been expecting plot, and character development, and dialogue, I'd be extremely disappointed. But even from the trailers that came out around this time last year, I didn't really expect an ordinary movie. And that's definitely not what this was. 


This movie revolves around a young boy named Jack, and the idea of the way of nature and the way of grace. The way of nature, Mrs. O'Brien explains via voice-over in the beginning, is self-seeking and only willing to please itself, which is what society teaches us. But the way of grace, is the way of God, loving those around us, and looking to please others before pleasing yourself. While Jack starts off as an innocent child, we see him lose his innocence in a number of ways. Through seeing his friend drown at the local swimming pool, to dealing with his father, who reigns their family with an iron fist, and, fro Jack's view, doesn't seem to love his children. Jack is trying to choose between the ways of grace, and the ways of nature, his parents both embodying one (his mother, grace, his father, nature). 


What I found interesting was there was very little dialogue in the film. A lot of it was whispered voice-overs, through montage scenes. We get some perspective from each character in the film, and learn what they are really thinking. 


The film gets off to a little bit of a bumpy start, jumping back and forth between scenes, time periods, and character views. But the things that gets the ball really moving is the 25-minute creation sequence. We see everything from shots of the universe (dust clouds), to the collision of 2 planets creating Earth, molten Earth, cell formation and dinosaurs, all while hearing sparse whispered prayers from Mrs. O'Brien (Chastain). It isn't exactly clear why this is included, but reinforces the fact that we are but a very small speck in the span of space and time. We live a hundred years (if that), while the Universe has existed for thousands (or millions) of years, and will continue to exist long after we are gone. And how small and insignificant our lives are compared to the vastness of the Universe. Very impressionistic. 


After this, we focus on the lives of the O'Briens'. We see the parents in love, the birth of their children, playing wit their children, teaching them lessons about their lives, and just their general lives, the insignificant things, like going to bed at night, or eating dinner, or playing ball on the street. Jack, the eldest son, is innocent of the evils of the world. 


But as Jack is getting older, he starts realizing more and more things. He see's a friend drown at the local pool, and another friend has their house burn down, his friend suffering burns. He's learning that his parents are 2 very different people, his mother kind and loving, while his father is strong and ruling with an iron fist, and is starting to realize he's more like his father than his mother, which he isn't happy about. And he questions how he can get back what his brother's have. Their innocence. 


This film was incredibly well acted, and I'm surprised it didn't get any nominations. Hunter McCracken, who played young Jack, was so magnificient in his debut film. He expressed everything with such ease, I felt like Malik was almost filming him, playing with his brothers and parents, with hidden cameras, it was so natural. He really held the film on his shoulders, and supported it with surprising ease. He conveyed all the emotions so well, and his whispered voice-overs were haunting. 


Brad Pitt, also was so good. He was so subtle, but plays his best roles when he plays a parent (Moneyball, and this). He has such good fatherly instincts in his acting, and connects so well with these boys. He is utterly convincing as the rigid father who has a temper. 


But Jessica Chastain is the one who truly, truly shines. This is only the second film I've seen her in of the many that were released in 2011. She gave such a beautiful performance, embodying the 'way of grace'. She was graceful and loving always. Just the way she walked, and talked was grace embodied, 100%. She was just so lovely, and so different from her portrayal of Celia Foote in the Help. I felt this performance was far superior to hers in the Help, but love that she is getting recognition, though she won't win. Jessica Chastain has proved how versatile she really is, and this performance was utter perfection. 


And I retract my comment that if War Horse doesn't win Best Cinematography I might throw a hissy fit. The Tree of Life completely owned War Horse. It was a subtle cinematography at most times, simply following characters around, not having characters stay within the frames. And then there were the lovely shots of creation (does those count as cinematography, or visual effects?), and the shots of those on that beach in the last scene. And just everytime Jessica Chastain walked, it was beautifully shot. It's definitely a deserving winner, though i still have so much love for War Horse's cinematography. 


Overall, I found myself insanely interested, though there wasn't a whole lot of plot or dialogue. I was interested and invested in this family, and I found I cared about all 3 sons, and the parents, and their relationships. I found them interesting, even though they showed me the mudane things about their life. While I felt it went on a little too long (my interest starting slowing around an hour and 45 minutes), it was an interesting film. It wasn't my favourite film of their year, but it was certainly an impressive film, that gives us things to think about. I can understand why a lot of people didn't like it, however. It's not a movie that's everyone's taste, and I understand that. With films like Transformers, which is all action and 'plot' and dialogue, I can see why this film would get pushed to the wayside, though it is an incredibly impressive film, should you choose to be patient, and understand it's different from regular films. Will it win Best Picture? No, it will not, but I still thought it was a mighty interesting film. 


7.5/10 

Winners Breakdown: Sound Mixing & Editing

I'm going to start breaking down each category (or 2 at a time) and let you know my thoughts on who I want to win, and who I think will win. Starting it off with the Sound Categories! 


Sound Editing:
-Drive
- The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
- Hugo
- Transformers: Dark of the Moon
- War Horse

Now, I'm no expert on Sound Editing. I know it's the creation of Sound Effects, but that's really about it. But when it comes to Sound Effects, and just general sound recording in films, I'd say Hugo and War Horse will be the biggest competitors, and I'm leaning more towards Hugo because of how many nominations it's received it'll most likely sweep in the Technical Awards. But don't count out the others. The real underdog here is Drive. This being it's only nomination, I wouldn't be surprised to see it win in this category.

Will Win: Hugo
Could Win: War Horse
Dark Horse: Drive
Who I Want to Win: War Horse


Sound Mixing:
-The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo
- Hugo
- Moneyball
- Transformers: Dark of the Moon
- War horse


Sound mixing I know a teeny bit more about. It's the mixing of levels of the already created sound, dialogue and music. Again, I'd probably say War Horse and Hugo are the big names here, but I particularly enjoyed the mixing in Moneyball- I actually noticed it. I'm betting for War Horse for this one (since it's either that or Hugo for both I figured it'd bet both on different categories, getting, likely, one right). Here I'd like to see Moneyball win. We'll see about that. 

Will Win:War Horse
Could Win: Hugo
Dark Horse:Moneyball
Who I Want to Win: Moneyball

Best Supporting Actor 1995: Results

5. Ed Harris in Apollo 13- Ed Harris gives a very standard performance that never turns into anything special.

4. Brad Pitt in 12 Monkeys- Pitt's performance is somewhat interesting in his first few scenes even if over the top in his craziness, but as he continues to appear his performance just become repetitive.

3. Tim Roth in Rob Roy- Tim Roth gives an appropriately flashy villainous performance with a certain slimy charm, but in the end he just isn't that memorable.

2. James Cromwell in Babe- James Cromwell gives a wonderful performance that is genuinely moving and heart warming. It is a unique performance that finds just the right tone, and creates the right presence throughout the film.

1. Kevin Spacey in The Usual Suspects- Good prediction Dinasztie. Kevin Spacey gives a great performance that perfectly conveys the right sort of mystery with his character without ever giving away too much or too little through the course of the film.

Deserving Performances:
Patrick McGoohan in Braveheart
Kevin Spacey in Se7en

Best Supporting Actor 1995: Brad Pitt in 12 Monkeys

Brad Pitt received his first Oscar nomination for portraying Jeffrey Goines in 12 Monkeys.

12 Monkeys depicts a time traveler James Cole (Bruce Willis) from the  post apocalyptic future who tries to find out about the apocalypse virus in the past.

Brad Pitt portrays the deranged Jeffrey Goines who Cole first meets Goines in a mental institution where he even has a cartoon sound effect for when his head pops out of his shirt letting us now from the very first instance that this is not going to be a subtle performance from Brad Pitt. Although to be fair Pitt's performance only seems to fit the film sometimes rather insane style. Also Pitt is suppose to be portraying a totally insane character, so for him to go rather over the top is rather understandable.

The only problem is there is portraying crazy with the utmost realism, and than there is portraying crazy like you are just obviously "ACTING" with all the capital letters being needed. Pitt's performance work s sort of at first with me as he goes on his long rants at the mental hospital, about his insane idea and theories. Though Pitt never really feels like he is really a mental patient, and it does always feel like a performer performing. Pitt does manage to bring a manic energy to his part in these early scenes which is fairly effective to help set the mood.

Later on though Pitt's whole shtick just seems to get old pretty fast it works in those first scenes where he is a effective, later on though it just starts to become tiresome. Every time he shows up he does his same exact insane thing that really never develops to anything especially considering what happens with his character in the end. He never tries anything else with Goines just keeps with same insane act for the whole film, that almost feels to become even more actory as the film goes on.

Pitt performance ends up not being particularly special past his first scenes which are fine, but a little of him goes a long way. Frankly I would have just liked his performance if we never saw him again past the insane asylum, but the way he is used in the film his performance just becomes strangely sort of dull because we know exactly what to expect from his. He simply becomes less and less intense, and interesting as he continues to reappear.

Best Actor 2011: Results

5. George Clooney in The Descendants- Clooney as usual for him fails to find conviction in his performance. He has a strange lack of consistency and has some very bad moments that are suppose to be his money scenes.

4. Brad Pitt in Moneyball- Brad Pitt gives a fine leading performance here that is effectively charming and entertaining.

3. Demian Bichir in A Better Life- Demain Bichir gives a heartfelt and incredibly moving performance that only ever relies on bringing out genuine emotions in every moment of his film.

2. Jean Dujardin in The Artist- Jean Dujardin gives simply a wonderful performance that is a unique achievement to behold. He never fails to entertain as well as create a powerful portrait despair as well it is truly great work.

1. Gary Oldman in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy- Gary Oldman has the greatest of challenges with his almost emotionless part, yet he makes a compelling and very convincing characterization. His performance improves for me each time I have watched it. A very difficult decision to be sure and I certainly thought between these top two for quite a while. Both give superb performances, and again I have no real reason for picking Oldman over Dujardin, I think they are equally good in their challenging roles, but I am forced to pick one.

Deserving Performances
Ryan Gosling in Drive
Brendan Gleeson in The Guard

Best Actor 2011: Brad Pitt in Moneyball

Brad Pitt received his third Oscar nomination for portraying Billy Beane in Moneyball.

Moneyball is a descent enough film which depicts Billy Beane general manager of the Oakland A's attempt to use only statistics to create a winning baseball team.

Brad Pitt portrays Billy Beane the general manager who use to be a baseball player himself who never reached what many seemed to be his potential. Pitt portrays his the part in a fairly standard approach. He does not seek to make Billy Beane any sort of genius, or incredible man, just pretty much a normal guy trying to make his under financed team compete with the rich teams. Pitt's performance really for the most part is a standard leading man performance, he never really tries for anything more than that, which is technically fine since Billy Beane is not suppose to be anyone overly special.

Pitt though does have a sort of commanding presence in the film as Beane who wants to bring his team up using completely unorthodox methods. Pitt does have just the right dynamic between domination and relaxation actually, since after all Beane is doing these business maneuvers in baseball not something bigger. Pitt always displays a certain seriousness in Beane, in that he does take his business seriously enough, but he never goes that far with showing that Beane also is indeed aware of what kind of business he is in which makes him naturally a more relaxed fellow.

Pitt finds the right sort of determination, and passion within the part to be convincing as Billy Beane. He does not present his new ideas as something that is because he is some sort courageous visionary, but in many ways as just a man desperate for a new way or answer. Pitt creates just the right amount of desperation within Beane's whole sage. It not a self pitying desperation though Pitt portrays rather as something that is actually a motivating factor for Beane rather than a restrictive aspect of him.

Pitt is quite good and charismatic in the role. I do wish though that there was perhaps a little more time granted to Pitt actually reflection on Beane past. There are a few moments and Pitt is fine in showing some degree of regret, but these scenes a very very short, and never long enough or fully written enough for Pitt to turn them into anything especially amazing. Which is a shame since I do think Pitt shows promise in his short moments, but there is just not enough there.

I won't say this is a perfect performance by Pitt simply because there are a couple of scenes where his line readings have a little bit of a rehearsed quality to them, nor will I say this is the most complex performance Pitt has ever given, but I will say this is a good performance. It is a solid leading man turn from Pitt that realizes most of the potential of a part, giving a charming and entertaining performance, which allows the audience easily to follow Beane through his exploits.