Pages

Powered by Blogger.
Showing posts with label Sandra Bullock. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sandra Bullock. Show all posts

180. Speed 2: Cruise Control

Thursday, August 30, 2012

180. (30 Aug) Speed 2: Cruise Control (1997, Jan de Bont) 24



A sinking ship if ever there was one, the most pleasurable thing about Speed 2: Cruise Control is seeing Sandra Bullock drown in her own lack of talent. She's screechy and incompetent, downright embarrassing when set against the virile, charismatic Jason Patric who's entirely credible as the film's leading man. Everything else is a failure. The action is non-stop, but always tedious. Attempts at humor uniformly fall flat. Willem Dafoe's villainous turn is inconsequential where it might've been at least fun in its hamminess. The digital effects are heinous. In a year where Titanic set the bar and The Lost World: Jurassic Park did a similar boat crash, this is especially shameful. Kudos to Keanu Reeves for not climbing on-board.

Crash

Thursday, May 10, 2012

Crash, 2004
Directed by Paul Haggis
Nominated for 6 Oscars, Won 3
Up Against: Brokeback Mountain, Goodnight and Good Luck, Munich, Capote

Crash tells the story of racism in LA. It tells 6 different stories, all of which don't seem to connect with each other at first, but as the story goes along, it does. I'd explain the intersecting stories, but I'd end up explaining the whole movie to you. The first storyline is about a middle-aged white couple, the man of whom is a dsitrict attorney and uses race as a political card in his career, and his wife who was recently car-jacked feels that her biases and views towards those who aren't white are justified and therefore not racism. Then we have the car-jackers; 2 young black men, one of whom is constantly complaining about racism half the time, and uses it as an excuse the other half. Then we have 2 cops, the experienced one a racist pig, the other who believes he doesn't hold those views at all, and hates the experienced cop for his. We have a black filmmaker and his wife, who were recenetly harassed by said cops, the wife semi-molested during the experience, and feels her husband doesn't support their black background and tries to be "too white". Then we have a Latino man, who is trying to make a better life for his daughter. And a Persian family trying to make it in America with their store, who have recently purchased a gun.

I'm going to put it out there right away, this movie tried WAY too hard to get it's "point" across, that racism still happens today. In all honesty, most of the things that happened weren't really racism, just people making stupid decisions. Granted, there were a lot of examples of racism, but there were also a lot of examples of people acting like idiots. But that's besides the point. This movie just took everything to the extreme to make a point, and it really lowered it's value. This year's The Help also dealt with racism, but did it in a much better way, which wasn't throwing it in your face every 5 seconds.

Ludacris's character was the car-jacking, racism complainer. All we really did heard from him was about how racism is unfair, how racist people are, and how he don't ever steal from black people. I understand him complaining at first, but it got really tiring after over an hour of straight complaining whenever he was on screen. Granted, he did a great job in his role, and I thought he was quite well acted.

This is the same with pretty much all the character. I know it was a film about racism, but in other films about racism, it's not a constant rant about race, which is what this movie was. Sure, there were some powerful moments in the film, like when the filmmakers wife is rescued from the car crash just before it exploded by the racist cop who semi-molested her only 12 hours before. Powerful, and it wasn't as blatant as some of the other scenes, and had much more subtlety to it.

Anyway, enough about my rant about it's obviousness. Other than that fact, the acting was quite good. While most characters spent very little time on screen (another problem of the film, I felt like I was being introduced to someone new, constantly), they performed well. I was pleasantly surprised by Ludacris. I'd had no expectations from him, but he was quite good. And I really enjoyed Sandra Bullock as the cold and racist woman. Things like cinematography were good too.

Overall I spent half the movie going "oh my gosh..." and rolling my eyes, or being like "really? did that just happen?". I also laughed a lot. This movie was just too corny and hoaky, and while it did get it's message across, loud and clear, it was just too much. Also, has anyone ever heard of this movie?

4/10

Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close

Sunday, February 5, 2012

Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, 2011
Directed by Stephen Daldry
Nominations Include Best Picture and Best Supporting Actor.

Synopsis: Oskar Schell is special child. Being an amateur inventor, pacifist, tambourine-player, etc, he and his father have a special connection, playing a game called "reconnaissance expedition", which Oskar must find clues and solve mysteries his father sets him on which makes him talk to people, and do more things he's scared of, all while learning. But then tragedy strikes and his father is killed in 9/11. Oskar is shattered, and feels alone, scared, and angry. A year after his death he finds a key in his father's closet, labelled black, inside a vase he breaks by accident. Immediately he assumes it's another clue, something he needs to figure out, and he sets out to find the lock for this key, and to try to find out what his father left him.

I watched the trailer for this film several months ago, when the initial buzz started forming around this film. I remember watching it and thinking "seriously? Best Picture potential?" and I shrugged it off, knowing it was stlil 2 or 3 months until it's release. Then  it got nominated for Best Picture (after poor reviews) and again I thought, really? But knowing it was one of 2 films I still needed to see of the nominees, I'd have to go see it. I opened my mind to give it a blank slate, and expected nothing of it. I gave it a chance.

And, well, it wasn't horrible, but it wasn't that great either. Hm, where to start this review.

Oskar was an extremely unsympathetic character, which probably would've been a lot better read in the book. You can get away with a lot more things in books than you can on film. And I think this film was a good example. Oskar would frequently ask nosy questions he really had no business asking strangers, he had many quirks about him (like shaking a tambourine to calm himself), counting his lies, listing the things he was afraid of, giving random facts and just having a general inner-monologue that was slightly unnecessary in a film. All would've worked well in the book, but didn't work quite as well on film. Additionally, a lot of the time Oskar would say things about himself, but would act almost hypocritically later. For instance, he has a fear of bridges, but darts right across when the Renter (a mute neighbor of his who offers to help him on his quest) offers to share his story. He's also scared of public transit, but is okay once the Renter, once again, coaxes him on, and they exchange Oxymorons (his father and him used to have "Oxy-moron wars"). This was no fault of Thomas Horn's (the actor of Oskar), or even Jonathan San Froer's (the authors). It was that of the screenwriter, who didn't seem to follow through on things written. Additionally, there seems to be much more to Oskar than is shown in the film. We get a list read to us that he's an Inventor, a Francophile, a Pacifist, and we never get to see any of that. We only get it read to us on a list.

Thomas Horn, who played Oskar, was quite good, but you can tell he has not had too much experience. This is Thomas Horn's very first film, and I must say he did quite well for this being his first. However, many of the voice-overs were very monotone, and he, in fact, spoke monotone a lot of the time, except for when he was angry and yelling (the latter, he did very, very well). He was convincing as the quirky, unique Oskar, even if a little stiff or awkward at times.

One part I was excited for about this film though, was Alexandre Desplat would be scoring it. Desplat, being my favourite film composer, I was delighted, and as always, he didn't disappoint. His music was simple, and so melancholy, but it had a great effect. Mr. Desplat was indeed snubbed this year, missing out on several different opportunities, having scored Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows Part II, Carnage, The Ides of March, and a Better Life.

While the summaries of this story boast about it being about Oskar's quest to find the lock that the key his father had, it isn't really. While it certainly was a part of it, it wasn't too as well as it could've been. Many a times we see little clips of the different people he visited (usually all looking purposefully at the camera, no Oskar involved), or very small clips with no conversation where we see Oskar interacting. We get the idea he's met so many people, since we see him scrap-booking pictures of everyone he's met, but we don't really get to see any of that, besides one or two characters. Instead, what we mostly see if the many tantrums of Oskar, the many times he leaves his apartment in the night, in his pajamas, out doing something or other, or flashbacks to "the worst day". In a way, I felt like, well, not a lot happened. The movie didn't go very far forward, and I felt like we had very little character development. Most of the time Oskar was rude to the Renter, or his mother, or the doorman, or he was in his room either crying, or looking at his maps. It could've been a meaningful story,  had the option of the people he'd met, heard their stories, and realizing we all have stories, and we've all lost someone. It could've been very impactful. Instead that route isn't taken and it's a shame. There was potential.

Overall, the word that floated through my mind while watching this movie was "pretentious". I had never really understood what people meant when they said a film tried too hard. I do now. It tried to hard to be "deep", it tried too hard to have a quirky little boy, and it tried too hard to show Oskar's grief and his thoughts. Several times in the film we get this image of a man falling through the air (presumably out of one of the twin towers), and it just seems so forced. Force for an emotional reaction. Of course, there is one (as I could tell from the sniffling from those around me in the audience), but the times that were the saddest were the conversation, were the "i love you"s that were almost unheard, and those moments that seemed more natural. Those were the moments where the film was at it's best, and really had something going for it. But in the end, I feel like we hardly moved forward. It was countless moments of Oskar being sad, when we could've gotten more in-depth to some of the people Oskar and the Renter met. While it was a sad film with a good message, it look a long time to get there, and with too many 2d characters.

Will it win Best Picture? It hasn't a hope. I still wonder why it was nominated, especially given that it had to get at least 5% of the overall number #1 choice votes. While it was an okay film, it was definitely the bottom of the 9 nominated, though I have seen a lot, a lot worse films this year. And Max von Sydow hasn't a hope either. Christopher Plummer already has it all wrapped up. Not that I thought Von Sydow's performance was particularly noticeable, much less award-worthy, but nevertheless.

Not a terrible movie, but not a great one either. Again, when asked if I liked this film, I simply shrugged, because there wasn't a whole lot to say about it. It was just okay.

6.5/10

008. Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close

Saturday, January 7, 2012

008. (05 Jan) /Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close/ (2011, Stephen Daldry)* 82



On a second viewing, I can truly appreciate what powerful filmmaking this is. The emotional weight Daldry lends to both simple scenes, like Thomas Horn's scenes opposite Jeffrey Wright and Viola Davis, and the powerhouse ones like Horn's with Bullock. It's a rarity when fine acting, focused direction, and technical achievement combine like this. Chris Menges' cinematography and Alexandre Desplat's score are especially wonderful.

The film itself is repeatedly an outright devastating experience. I can scarcely recall being more moved by situational sadness or finely drawn connections between characters. Daldry continues to be the most accomplished of emotion-driven directors working today.

EXTREMELY LOUD AND INCREDIBLY CLOSE

Thursday, December 29, 2011


EXTREMELY LOUD AND INCREDIBLY CLOSE
Written by Eric Roth
Directed by Stephen Daldry
Starring Thomas Horn, Sandra Bullock, Max von Sydow and Tom Hanks

Making movies about the September 11 tragedies is unquestionably tricky. You don’t want to gloss over the facts and you definitely don’t want to exploit the pain but you also have to ensure that your movie is not so bleak and depressing that no one ends up seeing it. EXTREMELY LOUD AND INCREDIBLY CLOSE, the latest film by Oscar nominee, Stephen Daldry (THE READER), does a pretty decent job of oscillating between the morose and the uplifting, without ever succumbing too much to either side, but it also never truly finds its voice as a result.

The story itself, adapted from the well regarded novel of the same name by Jonathan Safran Foer, is a poignant one. Young, precocious, Thomas Schell (played by Teen Jeopardy winner, Thomas Horn, in his first film), loses his father (Tom Hanks) in the September 11 attacks. Naturally, this causes his already rampant anxiety to expand greatly. He no longer takes trains, fears tall buildings and carries a tambourine around with him at all times to help ease his mounting tension. All of this makes his quest to find the lock for a key he found amongst his father’s belongings particularly difficult. Before his father passed away, he would orchestrate mysterious puzzles for his son to solve and Thomas sees this key as a way to keep his father alive just a little bit longer. Not surprisingly, he pushes away his mother (a touching Sandra Bullock) in the process and subsequently befriends a stranger (Max von Sydow, in an incredibly telling turn considering the character is mute) in an effort to replace his absent father figure. Across the board, the acting is quite understated and very respectful to the horror that inspired this story. The way the events unfold though is at times too whimsical to be fully believed.


What I found most moving about EXTREMELY LOUD AND INCREDIBLY CLOSE was how perfectly it captured that newfound sense of danger, apprehension and confusion that didn’t exist in Western society before the World Trade Center towers collapsed. At nine years old, Thomas cannot make sense of what happened on that day. Heck, most adults couldn’t make sense of it. And so, without being able to understand how his father was taken from him when planes flew into buildings, he now fears most everything instead. The beauty in the final journey Thomas finds himself on, is that it not only brings him closer to his father, but it also brings him closer to healing without his even realizing it. Maybe Daldry will have the same effect on you.

486. Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close

Thursday, December 8, 2011

486. (07 Dec) Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close (2011, Stephen Daldry)* 82

The Final Conclusion - Best Actress 2009

Saturday, June 19, 2010

We finally got to the end of our reviewed first year, 2009. Actually, many say that this was a truly weak, and of course giving five stars to four performances means that I was deeply satisfied with this year's nominees and had any of the members of my top 3 won, I also would have been satisfied. These ladies prove that you can give a stellar performance no matter what. Stone-cold sober I find these women fascinating (Whom did I quote?:D). Gosh this decision was so painful as I feel really sorry for #2 (especially her) and #3, but in time one of them might become my pick. This is just how I feel at the moment. But I won't let the suspense go on, let's just jump to the ranking:

5. Sandra Bullock in The Blind Side
Although Bullock suffers from an awful screenplay, a predictable movie and a terrible cast, she was still able to give a decent, but not brilliant performance, which was definitelyworthy of winning the Oscar, but was able to save a movie from being a total disaster with the help of Bullock's charm.

4. Helen Mirren in The Last Station
Although I was a bit too generous in my rating, I am still very shocked how much people dislike Dame Helen in The Last Station. As Sofya Tolstoya, she was able to give a terrific performance which is unfortunately not for everyone (and this might be its biggest flaw), but still amazed me.

3. Gabourey Sidibe in Precious
This is a devastating, moving and heartbreaking piece of art, which could become the part of the history of movies. Despite Sidibe's inexperience, her performance truly speaks for itself and one just cannot get across Sidibe's brilliance, which I hope to see very often in the future.
2. Carey Mulligan in An Education
Mulligan solves everything with grace and amazing naturality, I can't say enough times how amazing she really is. To sum up, this is a terrific, beautiful and even poetic performance by a rising beauty and star, who's sure to become a marvellous and acclaimed actress. Fantastic, riveting work.

1. Meryl Streep in Julie and Julia
Had the movie been only about Julia (and hadn't it been for that dreadful It's Complicated which ruined her chances) Meryl would have easily won her third. She did not, but again she gifted us with a performance which is truly-truly unforgettable and top-class. I felt lucky that I saw her and could experience her brilliance.

So I announce that my winner for this year is...
Meryl Streep in Julie and Julia
Bon appétit! Viva Meryl!.


So what do you think about my reviews? Should I go on doing this or am I completely awful? Do you agree with my ranking or do you say Bullock deserved to win? You can also suggest years I should do next, and I tell if it's possible (I have a plan too) .

Sandra Bullock in The Blind Side

Thursday, June 17, 2010


Sandra Bullock received her first nomination and won the Little Golden Guy for playing Leigh Anne Touhy, a conservative, rich and controlling Southern woman adopting a homless black boy, who turns out to be a real sport talent. And naturally Leigh Anne offers everything she can until the very-very surprising and shocking ending (kidding).

The Blind Side is a rather dumb movie and when I realised that it was nominated for Best Picture I was incredibly shocked and furious. I could understand Sandra's nomination but the movie itself was way behind it's competition. I guess Bullock's popularity led the movie to the nomination. The screenplay is so sentimental and unrealistic, that it makes it truly hard to believe that this is actually a true story. I don't want to be cynical, but this is a true American (male) cinderella story, the rich men's Precious. The acting is also so-so at best, except for the always reliable Sandra Bullock (and maybe Kathy Bates in her brief role).

Now, if you think that I'm gonna say as many bad things about Sandra Bullock as I can, then you can easily be wrong. I would not say that she's talented, but has a natural charm and in my opinion was born to become a rom-com queen. For example, she almost does miracles with these movies, see The Proposal, While You Were Sleeping or Miss Congeniality. These are entertaining, relaxing flicks, which are perfect on a Sunday evening on TV or on a hot summer day in a cold movie theatre. However, this defintitely DOESN'T equal an Oscar. At least not with me.

Yet, most of the problems of this performance are due to the previously mentioned terrible screenplay. Nobody could be able to give life to those cheesy and corny lines, nobody could have been brilliant with such bad actors (except for Kathy Bates of course) and the lame directing. So we can say actually that Sandra saves this movie for being a disaster, but she doesn't give enough to make this movie great. I have the same feeling when I watch her that I felt while watching Loretta Young in The Farmer's Daughter. Some great moments, but the whole thing is more of mediocore.

The directing does not help her either. In her first scene, we see her yelling with her exaggerated Southern accent (it gets a bit softer as the movie goes on) and you immediately resist this performance. It begins as annoying and if you don't watch it at least twice (I know it's a torture), you will hardly find anything to like in her. But since I'm crazy and a real Oscar nerd, I have seen this movie three times and at a third viewing, I found some very good things about this performance.

First of all, there's Bullock's natural charm, which always works (at least with me), and after a while she injects some humor and irony into this humorless character. Bullock knows perfectly well what to do, when and how. We can say, that she's a craftsperson. She doesn't give a true depth to her character, but she makes them at least human and entertaining. And I was entertained by her quite often.

There are some scenes though which she can't deal with, for example the one when she's looking for Michael, she was not credible enough for me. I could not feel her desperation or something else (but again this is also the screenplay's fault). Although these mistakes are not very severe, the ruin the overall picture a bit. Nevertheless, Bullock's comedy skills help her a great deal.

But then a question comes up: does being charming and entertaining equal an Oscar win? And the answer is a very quick no. However, had she only been nominated, I would have been OK with it, I just can't understand this Oscar, even though it's much better than the other so-called "star-crowning" wins. I had some problems how I should rate her, because sometimes she's a very strong four, but sometimes she's only a weak two. I guess I'll be generous and use mathematics to rate Ms. Bullock.


So I'm waiting for the comments where you can share your thoughts and pick who should be the next reviewed lady.

Another experiment

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

As I'm moving along with the Best Supporting Actor reviews, I'm trying something else to see who it is to do this thing that everyone else those, but I haven't started it.

So now, it's my pleasure to announce that I'm going to do my very first Best Actress Profiles and let's get stylish my first year is going to be this year.

So Best Actress profile #1 and the year is 2009.


The nominees were:
• Sandra Bullock in The Blind Side
• Helen Mirren in The Last Station
• Carey Mulligan in An Education
• Gabourey Sidibe in Precious
• Meryl Streep in Julie and Julia

My first reviewed lady will be Helen Mirren, but after her you tell me in your comments who should be next.

So who will be my pick? Who do YOU want to win?
 

Blogger news

Blogroll

Most Reading