Best Picture

2023 Oscars Best Picture Review: Past Lives

Jon The Blogcentric1 Comment
Teo Yoo and Great Lee star as two childhood sweethearts who could be destined to be for each other after all these years in Past Lives.

Do you believe in destiny? Do you believe in reincarnation? Past Lives is a story that examines it and how it pertains to love.

Reincarnation and a person’s belief they had a past life or many past lives is a topic popular with many. It’s also a topic of great skepticism. This story is unique as it shows the cultural significance of the topic of reincarnation. Specifically reincarnation commonly regarded through Korean people. This concept is called In-Yun. It’s hard to understand, but protagonist Nora Moon does a good example of simplifying it by saying a simple action could mean they’ve met before in a past life. Even a simple brush of each other’s clothing can send that message of In-Yun between two strangers that simply pass by and never see each other again. The concept of reincarnation itself is completely something someone will choose to accept or not, but something like In-Yun experienced through simple encounters like those are even harder for someone outside of Korea to understand and accept.

Nora is one who believes in In-Yun, despite her non-Korean husband being skeptical. What makes this story unique is how it relates in terms of romance. Could it be that destiny would make Hae Sung and Nora lovers in past lives?  Is it also destiny that they should be lovers in the present? And will it come at the cost of the end of Nora and Arthur? This is a romance story of a different kind! Also how does this belief of In-Yun sit well with Arthur who was never taught In-Yun? It’s not clear of Arthur’s beliefs himself but not being Korean, how will Arthur take to Nora’s belief of In-Yun? Will something he himself doesn’t understand mean this is something that is supernatural and beyond his control and something sending him the message he and Nora were not meant to be?

One thing I learned in my college courses of literature that for a work themed on the culture or popular attitudes of a region the protagonist lives in or a culture the protagonist comes from, it has to find ways to transcend the physical and cultural borders to make it understandable and relatable to “outsiders.” This concept of In-Yun is definitely something most people outside Korea can’t understand, but it gives the viewer a better understanding. Various scenes in the story like their reuniting online twelve years later or even Nora and Hae Sung visiting New York landmarks together, one’s Nora and Arthur didn’t go to together, will also stimulate your interest and question if these former schoolmates are soul mates. Making it not just a story about the two, but also about the man caught in the middle adds to the intrigue. If they’re soul mates, will it come at the cost of the man who loves her? It’s a story with a pace that’s slow and even quiet, but it succeeds in keeping your intrigue of the three involved and of the In-Yun most non-Koreans are just learning about.

This is an excellent film from director/writer Celine Song. A mostly fresh writer on the scene, Song has had experience writing for the stage and for television for The Wheel Of Time. This film is her first-ever work for film. The life of character Nora mirrors her own life as she herself  was born in South Korea in 1988, emigrated to Canada in 2000, achieved her MFA from New York University and worked her way to the New York theatre industry. Like Nora, she married a Jewish-American writer. Even the scenario mirrors her life as five years ago, a childhood sweetheart came to New York to visit. That must have been the making for this and it’s an excellent work.

The film starts with a lounge scene of Nora and Hae Sung talking happily while Arthur is looking down. You don’t hear them talking but you see them and hear the talk from two white observers. Then the story begins. Throughout the film, she takes this personal story and makes it into a story engaging for the audiences of all backgrounds. That’s another thing too. You might dismiss this as a “boring story” at first, but it will spark your intrigue over time. She helps the audience get a better standing and makes them a believer of In-Yun, if only during the film. Even the ending when Arthur gives Hae Sung a warm friendly goodbye seems right and fitting, even if it wouldn’t be your nature to do so. A very excellent film debut from Song.

Also excellent is the performance of Greta Lee. She has been active on the acting scene for the last ten years. She does a great performance as one who strongly believes in this In-Yun, even if it might threaten her marriage. Nevertheless she also exhibits confusion and heartbreak well. For a performance that’s not too demanding, Greta does a graceful job with it. Teo Yoo is also great as Hae Sung. It’s quite the effort playing someone whole heartedly believing in a soul mate only to learn right there it was not meant to be. Also great is John Magaro as Arthur. He played the frustration of being the man who might lose Nora to something she believes in and he doesn’t understand. He also makes the befriending of Hae Sung at the end believable.

Past Lives takes a love story about destiny some could dismiss as a joke and turns it into something great and something believable. It becomes a more engaging story as you continue watching.

2023 Oscars Best Picture Review: Barbie

Jon The Blogcentric2 Comments
Margot Robbie (right) stars as Barbie and Ryan Gosling (left) star as Ken as Barbie bring the legendary dolls to life.

DISCLAIMER: This is from a blog of four reviews I originally posted on March 2, 2024. The original blog has been removed.

Unless you’ve been under a rock, you would know that Barbie was the big hit movie of 2023. You may also ask did it deserve its box office success or its Oscar acclaim?

I actually learned about the Barbie movie over a year before its release. I saw photos of it on social media. During the time, I thought it was odd. A movie about the Barbie doll coming to life? Could it work? Would it be a dud? I know Greta Gerwig was directing it. I already knew Greta had established herself as a force to be reckoned with in films like Lady Bird and her adaptation of Little Women. Nevertheless I was skeptical that even a director with her accomplishments could make a good film about the Barbie doll. It was up for the release and the reception to tell the full story.

I have to say before I saw it in theatres, I first thought this would be a fail waiting to happen. A big-budget movie about Barbie dolls coming to life didn’t sound like a winner to me at all. Then once the film hit the theatres, it was obvious Greta created a winner. Instead of the film about Barbie dolls, the film’s focus was about feminism and how the patriarchy had made it hard and continues to make it hard. One would ask “Why would one make a movie with a feminist focus by including Barbie dolls?” Simple. Ever since the Barbie doll came, it has been widely blamed for the image problems of young women and commonly seen as “setting the woman’s movement back.” We’ve all heard the arguments and the controversies for decades.

Here, Gerwig settles the score. She creates a world of different Barbie’s based on the owner’s own making of the Barbie. In the middle is “Stereotypical Barbie:” a carefree girl who lives a life of blissful joy which comes to a screeching halt as her owner goes through her frustrations of life. She attempts to go to the real world and the Mattel headquarters to sort things out, only for Ken to piggyback his way in and adopt a patriarchal attitude as a way to fix his own identity crisis.  That leads to the group of Ken’s overtaking Barbieland and claiming it as their own. Meanwhile Barbie’s frustrations grow and grow even after she meets her owner, who happens to be a Mattel employee. Her owner’s frustrations become her own. It’s through meeting women in the real world that don’t look like her and are happy that she gets a sense of what happiness is. Over time, Ken learns he doesn’t have to start the patriarchy in Barbieland to get his sense of self-worth back, but Barbie’s still in a struggle.

It isn’t until he finally meets Ruth Handler, the creator of the Barbie doll, that she finally gets her sense of self back. I feel that scene at the end where Barbie meets up with Ruth is the best scene as it settles the score on the Barbie doll debate, too. After decades of debate and dispute about the doll, we get a moment in the film that finally settles the score about the doll and the image it’s to project. It’s through that ending we learn Barbie was not meant to be the stereotypical ditzy blond we commonly see it as. The Barbie doll was meant to be the epitome of her daughter Barbara. Something beautiful. Mattel may have toyed with the Barbie doll over the decades, but that scene finally settles the score on the matter. The Barbie doll is the result of mother-daughter love. And Stereotypical Barbie finally gets a sense of the never ending story of herself, as well as the human touch which is better than anything she could get in Barbieland.

Top respect should go to Greta Gerwig. Even without the whole Barbie phenomenon of 2023, Gerwig, who directed and co-wrote the film with husband Noah Baumbach, deserves credit for making a hit and a critical success for something that many felt was a bomb waiting to happen. She takes a common theme about the Barbie doll, of how many feel it is a bad influence to young girls and feminism as a whole, and makes it thought-provoking. Despite it being a thought-provoking film, she also keeps it comical and even entertaining to watch. I mean we are talking about a movie about Barbie dolls. Nevertheless, the film shows it can be funny and entertaining and still be able to get its message across strongly. As well as settle the score on the Barbie doll itself. Not to mention, achieve the first ever billion-dollar blockbuster directed by a woman! Congratulations, Greta, for doing all what we thought was impossible!

The film also finds its strength firstly in the acting of Margot Robbie. To take a character like “stereotypical Barbie” and make her three-dimensional without compromising the comedy is an excellent effort. They always say comedy is the hardest thing to do. Try doing comedy while trying to send an important message at the same time. Robbie succeeds in doing that. Also succeeding in achieving that is Ryan Gosling as Ken. Ryan gives personality to the Ken doll that the actual Ken doll has seemed to lack over the years. He succeeds in making Ken an insecure one and one to see patriarchy as the answer to his self-esteem. The performance is as bizarre as it is comical and entertaining. He even manages to make comedy of the patriarchy. Also worthy of acclaim is the performance of America Ferrera. While Barbie and Ken bring on the entertainment, it’s the character of Gloria who brings the movie’s darkness. America succeeds in creating an insecure Mattel employee whose personal insecurities influence Barbie’s insecurities and finding herself happening along Barbie finding herself. Also adding to the film is the narration from Helen Mirren. Her narration adds more charm.

For technical credits, Barbie has to get the biggest respect. Creating something like Barbieland and the Barbie dolls that live there is as much of an accomplishment as the film itself. First, there’s set designers Sarah Greenwood and Katie Spencer. They succeeded in making Barbieland into a land of Barbies that we can’t see anyone else doing a better job. It’s as big and colorful as it should be. Also top respect for costume designer Jacqueline Durran for designing the right type of costumes that look like perfect looks for Barbie dolls but very wearable for the actors and actresses. And then there’s the music. Those who saw it will know there are musical moments without the film being a full musical. Songs like “What Was I Made For?” “Dance The Night,” and “I’m Just Ken” add to the entertainment factor of the film. You can thank the many established songwriters who added their talents to this film.

For technical credits, Barbie has to get the biggest respect. Creating something like Barbieland and the Barbie dolls that live there is as much of an accomplishment as the film itself. First, there’s set designers Sarah Greenwood and Katie Spencer. They succeeded in making Barbieland into a land of Barbies that we can’t see anyone else doing a better job. It’s as big and colorful as it should be. Also top respect for costume designer Jacqueline Durran for designing the right type of costumes that look like perfect looks for Barbie dolls but very wearable for the actors and actresses. And then there’s the music. Those who saw it will know there are musical moments without the film being a full musical. Songs like “What Was I Made For?” “Dance The Night,” and “I’m Just Ken” add to the entertainment factor of the film. You can thank the many established songwriters, and main musical writers Mark Ronson and Andrew Wyatt, who added their talents to this film.

Barbie is more than just a humorous story. It’s a story that takes on the patriarchy, highlights feminism and has something to say about a doll that has delighted billions of girls. And thousands of boys, too. It also lives up to all the “Barbenheimer” hype of the summer of 2023 and entertains the theatregoer easily.

2023 Oscars Best Picture Review: American Fiction

Jon The Blogcentric1 Comment
Jeffrey Wright portrays a serious African American writer who faces pressure from a white-dominated entertainment society in the comedy American Fiction.

DISCLAIMER: This is from a blog of four reviews I originally posted on March 2, 2024. The original blog has been removed.

Not that often are the Academy Awards friendly to comedy films. American Fiction is just the type of comedy that can do the trick.

Those of you on social media must be very familiar with the #OscarsSoWhite campaign. Despite there being seven acting nominees that are racial minorities this year, we need to have things more consistent over the years. Focusing back on the film, the Oscars and their lack of consistency in making their nominees diverse is just one of the problems with Hollywood and the entertainment system as a whole in dealing with racial minorities. Hollywood is gratefully responsible for this. Those who’ve seen classic films of the past will have seen a negative or mocking depiction of a racial minority. Awareness groups in the last decade have helped to make Hollywood think twice about how racial minorities are depicted in entertainment. Even though they won’t stop an insulting depiction from happening again, they will raise hell when it does and make people think twice.

In this film, it’s very obvious the theme of the film is about African-Americans depicted in all forms of arts and entertainment. It’s not only about how they’re depicted in entertainment. It’s also about an entertainment system where top sales and ratings are the bottom line. African Americans have various personalities and life goals and directions, but it’s always about the images that sell the most. And that’s the problem Thelonious “Monk” Ellison has to deal with. His novels are of excellent quality and good for how they give a good atypical depiction of African American life. Nevertheless there’s the problem of his works not selling. That frustrates him to the point he feels he has to sell out and do a “gangsta” novel. I’m sure many others feel the same pressure.

The film is a humorous look of an African-American author trying to get respect in the literary world which all-too-often seems to favor quantity over quality. It spoofs the whole system and how the white-dominated public treats works from African-Americans from his latest manuscript being rejected for not being “black enough” to his books being sold in the African-American section of a bookstore to his adding clout to his author’s guise as a criminal on the run from the law to a jury of a book festival consisting mostly of white limousine liberals lauding his upcoming novel. It also includes the irony of the one African-American member of the jury, rival author Sintara Golden, panning his novel as pandering. Meanwhile Monk himself finds her novel pandering.

Although the story is obviously about a significant topic, the story also has a lot of personal elements for Monk. This story is also about the author’s difficulty of trying to create and market his breakthrough novel right during a load of sudden complications in his life. He’s put on a sabbatical by his college because of his frequent confrontations with students. While reuniting with his family in Boston, his sister suddenly dies. His mother’s Alzheimer’s worsens and she needs to be placed in a care facility. The maid who he grew up with has to leave her job and eventually marries. His brother is going through a divorce and drug addiction after his wife caught him with another man. In addition, he is developing a relationship with an established lawyer named Coraline but the relationship ends as he disagrees with her about Sintara’s book. Try plugging a breakthrough novel with all this happening!

Top respect should go to director/writer Cord Jefferson. This film is actually based from a 2001 novel Erasure. Jefferson does a great job in satirizing the difficulty of trying to make it as a “black writer” from the difficulty of doing his work his way to the pressure of dropping his artistic integrity and selling out by writing a pandering “gangsta” work to the “liberal elite” (full of mostly white people) taking it as serious literature worthy of acclaim to the media machine building up the hype to Monk taking his pandering further to add to the hype. It’s both funny and smart at the same time. Mixed with its humor, it’s very much an eye opener about the pressures African-Americans go through to make it in arts and entertainment. It pokes fun at the expectations of what African-American literature is expected to be from the elite of the arts who are mostly not African-American and an entertainment industry where top sales have always been the bottom line. It also pokes fun at the “liberal elite” who are mostly of white people who want diversity but are clueless in how to do it right, despite being the ones pulling the strings. Despite the themes, it also includes the human elements like Monk’s connection with his family and love interest and how it helps him understand himself better as a writer and as a person. Even that element of Monk dealing with his ‘genius’ characteristic adds to the story.

Respect should also go to Jeffrey Wright in playing Monk Ellison. It’s not an easy thing to do a comedic performance with intelligence, even though the story does just that. Wright does a great job of a ‘genius’ writer who feels compelled to throw away his dignity as he’s on a sabbatical and just sell out with a pandering novel. At the same time, Wright adds dimension with his role as Monk tries to keep family ties together and tries to start a relationship with Coraline, only for his ‘genius’ characteristics to interfere. That’s quite an effort to do and to keep comedic for the sake of the film. There are some great supporting performances. First is from Sterling K. Brown as the brother dealing with the frustrating addiction and troubling changes in his life. There’s Lessie Uggams as the mother with Alzheimer’s robbing her of her quality of life but also able to say something to help Monk get a better focus of himself. There’s also Erika Alexander as the girlfriend who knows how to draw the line with Monk’s attitude and arrogance. With the musical score of Laura Karpman added in, you have a winning film.

American Fiction is just the intelligent comedy we need right now. It makes the difficulties of African Americans trying to make it in arts mixed with the attitudes of the mostly-white elites in the business look like the circus that it is. At the same time, it makes it as much about the author as a friend and a member of the family and his difficulty with his personality interfering with that. Already I declare this the Comedy Of The Year.

2023 Oscars Best Picture Review: Anatomy Of A Fall (Anatomie d’Une Chute)

Jon The Blogcentric2 Comments
Sandra Huller plays writer Sandra Voyter suspected of killing her husband in the courtroom thriller Anatomy Of A Fall.

DISCLAIMER: This is from a blog of four reviews I originally posted on March 2, 2024. The original blog has been removed.

Anatomy Of A Fall first appears to be a common courtroom drama with a story of intrigue. Over time, you’ll learn it’s a film that’s a lot more.

Courtroom dramas have caught our intrigue time and time again. We’re presented with a criminal scenario or a legal scenario, but it’s up for us to decide whether they’re guilty or innocent or who to side with in a dispute. We learn the verdict and we’re left to decide if it’s the right verdict or not. This story is a unique story. It presents a case of a death from a fall. The deceased is the French husband of a German novelist. The fall happens from a chateau in a remote mountainous area of Grenoble. The first to notice the fall is the seeing-eye dog of the blind son. Questions arise. We learn of the troubled marriage. People turn against the woman. The prosecutor is determined to prove her guilty. The son watches despite his blindness, and seems like he doesn’t know what to think. Could he hold the truth? Could his seeing-eye dog also provide clues to the truth?

This isn’t simply a story of whether Samuel’s death is a murder, a suicide or an accident. It’s a story that develops over time with each new fact exposed, opinions from people in the story coming about, and your own opinions being formed. As we learn of Sandra Voyter, her turbulent marriage, and her recent liaisons, some of us are tempted to look down upon her and even suspect her of possible murder. As we learn about Samuel and his immaturities and later of his depression over the last few years, will that change our mind? The film is as much about how we see things and see people as it is about our story itself. Even possibly exposing sexist attitudes we didn’t think we had. There’s even the angle of the trial as seen through Daniel: the child caught in the middle. A blind boy, he has the biggest sense of the friction his parents have been going through. He lost his father and he’s at risk of losing his mother if she’s found guilty. During the time, he doesn’t know what to think of his mother and often feels lonely. Almost as if Snoop, his seeing-eye dog, is the only one who loves him and he can trust. Sometimes your concern shifts from how Sandra will be found by the courts to what will happen to Daniel. It’s like the film is two stories in one. Even Daniel’s testimony at the end will make you reconsider your stance in the case.

Top respect goes to director/writer Justine Triet. Triet has become only the eighth female director to be nominated for the Best Director Oscar. This film is actually a project she co-wrote with Arthur Haran for actress Sandra Huller to star in after the two worked together in 2019’s Sibyl. She creates a great story that presents a death and the question if it’s an accident or a murder. She presents it as a story of a French-speaking wife and a German-speaking husband who use English as a common ground to sort things out, but it adds friction. The death, the courtroom drama, the turbulent marriage, the communication barrier, and the son caught in the middle adds to the story. Even the ending which allows you to draw your own conclusion of the incident adds to the film.

Along with Triet, there was great acting from Sandra Huller. Her acting in this story helps create the character along with the actions and allows the audience to make their decisions in the case. Huller is as much of a storyteller as Triet herself. Also great is the performance of Milo Machado-Graner: the son caught in the middle. There are many times in the story, some thanks to camera shots of the courtroom drama, where one can think the film is as much about Daniel as it is about Sandra. He’s trying to make sense of what is happening. He is suspicious of his mother but is scared he will lose it all. There are times he tries to be tough with him teaching himself piano by sound clips, but you can tell he could break down. It seems like the dog Snoop is his one friend, especially with his sheltered upbringing. Graner makes him a boy you want to hug. Adding to the film is Messi The Dog as Snoop. Through Messi, we see Snoop is more than Daniel’s seeing-eye dog and best friend. He’s also one that hold clues to what could expose the truth. Additional great acting performances include Samuel Theis as Samuel Maleski, the husband that struggled with mental illness whose struggles threatened the family, and Antoine Reinartz as the prosecutor who will get you wondering if he wants justice done or simply to have Sandra found guilty.

This film has been lauded with buzz since the Cannes Film Festival. The film won the Palme d’Or at the and Triet became only the third female director in history to win. You know how I talked about Messi The Dog adding to the story? At Cannes, Messi was even given the Golden Dog Award for his efforts! Even after Cannes, film festival after film festival it was entered in would have this come away as the big winner. The film also won six European Film Awards. The film was not France’s official submission in the Best International Feature Film category. I assumed it’s because there’s too much English in the film, but other articles are suggesting there may be politicking.

Anatomy Of A Fall is a great legal drama that tells the story of a death in question and doesn’t only leave its fate to the juries, but for the audience to decide for themselves what they believe to be the truth. Even Triet herself won’t say if Sandra is guilty or not. All your call!

2022 Academy Awards: Best Picture Reviews – Part Two

Jon The Blogcentric1 Comment

It’s something that if you see all ten Best Picture nominees, that means you would have seen 65 of the 125 Oscar nominations! Possibly more than most Academy members!

A single blog having all the Best Picture nominees reviewed would be too exhausting to the eyes. Makes sense to split the ten Best Picture nominees over two blogs. You read the first. Here is the second review of this year’s Best Picture nominees:

The Fabelmans – “Movies are dreams that you never forget.”

After I saw this film, I’ve been telling people this is a reminder that for every big-name director, there was a child with a dream. We’ve seen films before of children being enchanted by film. This is Spielberg’s chance to tell his own story. Essentially that story of Sammy Fabelman is the story of ‘Stevie Spielberg!’ It all started when Sammy’s parents Mitzi and Saul took him to see The Greatest Show On Earth and they told them of the magic of movies: from both the scientific and artistic side. Sammy tries to remake the train crash scene with his toy train set and film it with an 8mm camera… and that was the making! One thing I have to say is that what’s missing in the theatres nowadays are films that make people want to chase their dream. I don’t know about you but if I saw this film as a child, it would make me want to be a film maker. Even adults who grew up with Steven Spielberg movies and have been blown away by them would want to see the story of how it all started.

There are many scenes where one can see that this is how it all started for Spielberg. The scene with Sam biking will remind many of E.T. The scene where he does his war films will remind many of Saving Private Ryan and other war-themed films he’s done. The scenes where he experiences anti-Semitism will tell people of what inspired Schindler’s List. Speaking of which, it’s not to say the dream doesn’t have its rocky moments. We are reminded of times when the dream faced some bumpy paths. There was how his filming exposed Mitzi’s concealed love for Bennie and would lead to the friction in her marriage to Burt. There’s the anti-Semitism Sammy went through being the only Jew in his Northern California town. There’s that time Sam did not want to shoot a movie for years because it would mean using the camera Bennie gave him. It’s funny how when he was young, he insisted to his father “It’s not a hobby,” and as a teen Sam wanted nothing to do with it. I guess the message the film tries to give the audience is that if the skill is in you, the dream can’t die no matter how hard you try to end it.

Top admiration to go to Steven Spielberg. It’s not easy to do a semi-autobiographic story of the director without it getting egotistical. Instead of something egotistical, we get an inspiring story. On top of it, this isn’t any director we’re talking about. We’re talking Spielberg. His films have thrilled us since the late-70’s to now. The film showed he was the type who went that extra mile in adding affects to his films even when he was young. Sometimes I think this film is Spielberg’s gift to us.

Young actor Gabriel Labelle was great in his performance of Sam Fabelman. It was not an easy task playing a boy with film dreams but going through the frustrations of teenagerhood. He did an impressive job. Michelle Williams was also excellent in playing the troubled mother. It was not easy playing the mother that supports her son’s dream but going through a troubling marriage. Also great was Paul Dano in playing the father caught in the middle. Judd Hirsch was also great in the brief scene he played the eccentric uncle. In addition, John Williams gives a great score to go with the film.

Tár – This is a story that we often see of a toxic personality falling from the top of their game. If there’s one thing we all learn as we get older, it’s that if we want to excel and be among the top, we need to have some amount of arrogance and some amount of ruthlessness to get there. Lydia Tár is exactly that case. Yes, she’s condescending to those that think differently. Yes, she does get this feeling that she owns the show when she really doesn’t. And yes, her controlling personality does not leave her when she’s with the women she loves. One thing we often forget is that Lydia Tár’s toxic control-freak persona is something very common in show business. We see it time and time again. Most commonly from the men in show business. This film shows it’s even possible for a woman to be this controlling and manipulative. It’s very easy to try and go from the top of your game and then face the comeuppance of a downfall as your actions catch up to you. That’s the story of Lydia Tár. It got to the point everyone had to turn on her. The suicide of Krista Taylor was the beginning of the end.

The film is a straightforward story of a conductor on top of her game who faces a downfall and then finds new life in the aftermath. Despite that, it still has to capture the essence of the conductor and their music. Despite Lydia Tár being a control freak of a person, like most people at the top in arts and entertainment are, it also has to capture Lydia’s passion for music. The film itself has not forgotten about Lydia’s passion for music as it shows itself throughout the film. Music is a common theme throughout the film and it captures the essence excellently.

The brains behind this piece is Todd Field. Todd has had other films that looked like potential Best Picture nominees like 2002’s Far From Heaven and 2015’s Carol (which Blanchett also plays lead) that have “missed by that much.” This time, he finally gets it! While the two aforementioned films are timepieces, this takes place in modern times. It’s an excellent work about a toxic musician facing their comeuppance in modern times. Also making the film soar is Cate Blanchett. Her performance as a prima donna conductor owns the film from start to finish. She keeps her character interesting and helps the audiences into sharing her passions. Although Blanchett practically owns the film, supporting performances from Nina Hoss as her wife and Noemie Merlant as her angry assistant also add to the film.

Top Gun: Maverick – I’m sure the idea of a sequel to the original Top Gun had been an idea ever since the film became a hit. It was possible one could be out two or three years after the first. Most sequels are out in that time, and it’s mostly duds in such cases. A sequel thirty-six years after its original release seems like quite the gamble. Sure, there has been a lot of this retro-80’s stuff coming back and yes, there has been a lot of rebooting and remaking, but a sequel? Can a Top Gun sequel work with a sixtysomething Tom Cruise?

Peter Craig and Justin Marks were able to write a story to serve as the catharsis for the Top Gun sequel. The story ended up being a believable story of Maverick who’s on the verge of moving from pilot to teacher, but was born to fly. In the meantime, he has to teach a new generation which includes the son of Bradshaw. It’s a story that makes sense to have. In addition, it’s a story that gives the effects of flying a fighter jet. Most of us will never fly in one. The first Top Gun film was a hit because it gave the thrill of flying a fighter jet. This film continues to give us that feel without making us forget the physical toll flying such a jet can take on the passenger.

Top marks go to director Joseph Kosinsky. It was no easy task to direct this sequel; a sequel to a film that came out when he was 12. A director with proven work in science fiction was needed for a film like this an Kosinsky was the right one. He delivers a sequel that has a sensible story and keeps the action active and dazzling. The dream team of scriptwriters also did a very good job in delivering a story that’s believable and a story that isn’t too similar to the original film, like most film sequels are.

Tom Cruise returns to give his best acting in many years. Maverick was the role that made him a superstar in 1986. To play Maverick 36 years later was no easy task. It was not easy playing a man who has aged over time, but still had that young love for flying big. Tom did it very well. Jennifer Connelly was also good as Penny, but her role was not as developed. The set of young actors to play the new recruits were also very good. Miles Teller was not only good as Rooster, but he was able to steal the show from Maverick many times. Glen Powell was easily dislikeable as Hangman, Nevertheless the main attraction to a film like this is the effects. Again, this film delivers in its effect to give the audient the feel of what it’s like behind a fighter jet at supersonic speed. It’s what makes a movie like this!

Triangle Of Sadness – This is a rare case of a comedy with a message to deliver. There are a lot of themes in this film to take note of. One is social status. The story goes from the young model/influencer couple who debate about paying for a date to the various business people and socialites. They flaunt their riches, they enjoy their time without a care in the world, they all have their dinners of choice. The workers on the ship are just there to do their job. All that changes after the heavy rocking of the ship and its shooting down. The scene of the ship rocking is especially key as we see the Russian oligarch not only share control of the ship with the American captain, but also them shouting both anti-capitalist and anti-socialist sayings on the intercom.

In the aftermath, the eight surviving passengers are on an island with nothing. There’s also the theme of power. On the ship, the rich had it all while the workers did what they wer told and has basic living conditions. After the sinking the Filipino woman who was a cleaner on the ship is now the leader because of her survival skills. Power going from the bottom to the top. It also shows how even she can use her power to get what she wants and how power can even be an addiction for her.

The film doesn’t just deliver a message about classism and superficiality. It does so in a unique fashion. First it starts with a male model who makes less than his influencer girlfriend. Then it’s an argument at a restaurant which then leads them to this cruise with the mega wealthy. The cruise introduces us to them and their mindsets. Then the ship rocks furiously with everyone getting sick on board. Then the ship is torpedoed which leads to the eight survivors on what appears to be a deserted island. The time on the island gives a new structure with the former cleaning lady leading and the other survivors co-existing. It’s a clever arrangement of a story mixed with the bizarre and the disgusting to go along with it. Nevertheless the message doesn’t get lost. Nor does the story of the model/influencer couple lose its status as the prime story.

Top accolades to go to director/writer Ruben Ostlund. This is a unique tragicomedy that lampoons the rich but also reminds us how addictive power can be for even the smallest of the small. It has a lot of bizarre humor and even treads on the disgusting, but it all works when you look back on it. It’s actually a smart edgy comedy. Harris Dickinson and the late Charlbi Dean were also very good playing the couple. Their roles weren’t too deep, but they did well in playing the young and superficial pair. There were scene-stealers in this film. The most notable being Dolly de Leon as the cleaner-turned-leader. She was excellent in going from just a cleaning lady to becoming the leader with all the unfairness that comes with it! Also a scene stealer is Zlatko Buric as the Russian oligarch who helps endanger the ship with the captain.

Women Talking – If there’s one thing we’ve learned in 2022, it’s about how religion is often used to control women. That is one world issue felt big in 2022 with the loss of Roe v. Wade and also with the Women’s Revolution in Iran. Here we’re presented a story of a community whose religious beliefs create a community separate from the rest of secular society. It’s a community with strict values unchanged for centuries. This strictness causes a problem as there’s a rapist in the community threatening the women. The men have not made any effort to protect the women from this madman so they have to organize things themselves. It’s in this conversation that they have to decide, to stay and fight or to leave all at once before the men return? Even though leaving seems like the best choice, how will they do it? How will the children be raised properly? Will the boys be raised to treat women with respect? There is a lot to think about in this film. August, the university-educated token male in the discussion, serves as the image of hope for the women. He’s the one man in the community they can trust to raise the boys right.

The film is done very smartly. It presents the issue and the vote which leads to the discussion. It’s fair to say 85-90% of the film involves the women meeting in the hall for the discussion. That’s possibly the most critical part of it. While the men who dominate the community are away, the women finally get their moment to discuss things and make the choice to do something of their own choosing. When you hear them talk, it’s not simple common blabbing. These are the women speaking their fears, their anger, the hurts they’s endured, their passions and their families who mean so much to them. The discussions get very heated with all that’s happen, but they all have a bond that’s like a sisterhood that they show near the end. Even though it is primarily about the women, it’s also about August as he is their sense of hope to make the community better. He does it at the sacrifice of having to lose the woman he loves. It hurts him, but he knows it’s worth it.

The biggest praise of this film should go to writer/director Sarah Polley. Those of us living in Canada have seen Sarah develop over the years first when she was a child actor in the Road To Avonlea TV series, then seen as the next “it girl” in films like The Sweet Hereafter, Go and Existenz, only to drop acting and move in the field of writing and directing. She has come of age greatly over the years and one could call this film her crowning achievement so far. She does an excellent adaptation of the novel into a film that will get one intrigued of what will happen, what will be decided upon. I’ve often felt since the story is mostly in the same room, it can be adapted into a stage play. We’ll see. As for the acting, it’s hard to pick a standout. All the women here did an excellent almost-unselfish job of portraying their characters well. If I could pick the standouts, they would have to be Jessie Buckley, Rooney Mara and Claire Foy. A tough call. Ben Whitshaw also did an excellent job as playing the man watching, observing, and providing both wisdom and hope.

And there you go. There’s my second blog of my review of the Best Picture nominees. My predictions for the Oscar wins I anticipate to have by Saturday.

Oscars 2010: The Buzz And The Biz

Jon The BlogcentricLeave a comment

Okay, you all heard my ramblings about my views of the Best Picture nominees. They all ranged from blockbuster hits to arthouse films. The question is how did they do businesswise? For that I had to check at one of my favorite sites, Box Office Mojo:

-as of this year, we have five movies that have grossed over $100 million, same as last year. Unlike last year, there are two additional movies that have grossed over $80 million as compared to only one additional from last year.

-There is no mammoth record-breaking hit movie like Avatar from last year. That explains in part why last year’s Best Picture nominee average is $170 million while this year’s currently stands at $130.8 million.

-Last year’s Best Picture winner, The Hurt Locker, was only the eighth-highest grossing Best Picture nominee from last year and the lowest grossing Best Picture winner since 1960’s The Apartment. This does not appear to be the case this year as the heavy Favorites for Best Picture have all grossed $88 million at the very least.

The post-nomination total gross of the ten Best Picture nominees of this year is almost 10% that of the combined pre-nomination gross; equal to that of last year. However seven of the ten nominees are still in theatres and have not finished grossing in.

-Of the five Best Picture nominees from last year that grossed over $100 million, all of them passed the $100 million mark before the nominations were announced. This year only three had grosses of $100 million before nominations. Black Swan and The King’s Speech surpassed the $100 million mark after their nominations.

-Last year none of the Best Picture nominees was able to get even half of their pre-nomination gross after the nominations. This year, The King’s Speech and 127 Hours grossed $58 million and $11.3 million respectively before nomination day. After the nominations, they grossed and additional $46.7 million and $6.2 million respectively. It’s even possible that both movies could double their pre-nomination gross upon Oscar success.

-This is the fourth year in a row a movie from Focus Features has been nominated for Best Picture. This is also the third year in a row a movie from The Weinstein Company has been nominated for Best Picture. This is also the third year in a row Paramount has a Best Picture nominee.

That’s what I’ve notices from the nominated movies since being nominted. I’m sure there will be more noticeable biz after the Oscars are decided on Sunday. Box Office Mojo also keeps tabs on that too each year. In the meantime, stay tuned!

 WEBPAGES CITED:

“OSCAR:Full Chart of Noms and Grosses” BoxOfficeMojo.com. 2011. Box Office Mojo. Owned by  IMDB.com. <http://www.boxofficemojo.com/oscar/chart/?view=allcategories&yr=2010&p=.htm>

“OSCAR: Best Picture Breakdown” BoxOfficeMojo.com. 2011. Box Office Mojo. Owned by  IMDB.com. <http://www.boxofficemojo.com/oscar/chart/?view=&yr=2010&p=.htm&gt;

2010 Oscars Best Picture nominee: The King’s Speech

Jon The BlogcentricLeave a comment

Whew! I never thought I could do reviews of all ten Best Picture nominees. Belive me that it was not easy. Anyways I will end my reviews of the nominees with the heavy frontrunner of this year’s Oscars: The King’s Speech.

The story of King George VI and his speech to England at the start of World War II is the subject of the movie The King’s Speech. What we see throughout the movie is how George had to overcome his stammering to make this speech to all of England. We also see the making of an unlikely friendship.

We start off in 1925 as Prince Albert is to make a speech in Wembley Stadium at the close of the British Empire Exhibition. The speech is to be broadcast to all the nations of the British Commonwealth. He stammers, much to the displeasure of the crowd.

After having no success with the therapists he had seen, his wife the Duchess recommends an Australian emigre Lionel Logue. Albert is surprised at Lionel putting on acting shows for his children. His therapy methods also appear unorthodox. He requests to Albert that they greet each other by their Christian names, a breach of Royal etiquette, and even calls him ‘Bertie’. Lionel also has him say a Hamlet soliloquy while listening to a Mozart record while Lionel records his voice. Albert believes he stammered throughout and quits in frustration. Lionel gives him the record as a keepsake. Years later, Albert listens to the record and is surprised to hear he never stammered.

Albert returns to Logue and resumes therapy. Part of the therapy also includes Albert explaining his past. We learn of his strict father, discomfort of his left-handedness, a nanny who humiliated him in front of his parents, and the death of his younger brother. We also learn his family encouraged mockery of his impediment. As the lessons continue, Alert and Logue develop a friendship. Then Albert’s father, King George V dies. Albert’s brother is heir to the throne and is crowned Edward VIII but Albert is unhappy he plans to marry an American socialite. Edward accuses Albert of wanting to usurp the throne and uses his speech therapy as grounds for suspicion. During the argument, Albert’s stammer returns, as does Edward’s childhood taunt of “B-B-Bertie.” As Albert returns to Lionel following the incident, Lionel makes a joke only to cause Albert to accuse him of treason and mocks Lionel of his humble origins and failed acting career.

Edward does eventually abdicate the throne and Albert is poised to be crowned King George VI. He visits Lionel and apologizes. At coronation preparation, George insists that Lionel be seated in the King’s box. As the Archbishop of Canterbury questions Logue’s qualifications, this prompts another confrontation between the two as Lionel tells of how he treated traumatized soldiers from World War I. Another time, Lionel sits on the throne promoting another confrontation as George criticizes his alleged disrespect to Royal relics, only to have it be a confidence builder for George. The coronation goes well and Lionel compliments George on his speech.

The pressures of World War II start looming as Britain is to go to war against Germany. George has to give a speech to the whole country and Lionel is summoned again. The two go through Lionel’s unorthodox preparations including singing and swearing before going into the studio. Lionel accompanies George in the studio and tells him to go about as if he was talking just to Lionel. As George delivers his speech, Lionel coaches him through every moment. At the end of the speech, George is congratulated by everyone and enters the public balcony as he appears to a cheering crowd.

The movie is more than about overcoming a speech impediment. It’s about a friendship few knew about, and would only be revealed after the men’s deaths. It also includes some surprise facts as well. Just before George makes his speech to the nation, he walks alongside Winston Churchill who tells him “I had a speech impediment myself.” It’s a surprising fact that the two men that gave Britain its most encouraging speeches during World War II had to overcome speech impediments.

 Another thing this film notes is the monarchy’s strictness on order and values. This played into effect how Edward had to abdicate from the throne for marrying a woman who was twice divorced. This comes into important factor now as there will be a royal wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton this year. Queen Elizabeth is 84 and still on the throne after almost 60 years. She shows no sign of giving it to Prince Charles. Many believe his divorce from Lady Diana Spencer may have something to do with this.

The acting was top notch. Colin Firth definitely gave one of the best acting performances of the year. Playing George with a speech impediment was a huge challenge and he did an excellent job. Helena Bonham Carter was also top notch as the Duchess Elizabeth. Geoffrey Rush was a good scene stealer as Lionel Logue. Guy Pearce and Michael Gambon had small amounts of screen time with their parts but made the most of it.

Director Tom Hooper definitely has to have made his best feature film ever. This is actually his third feature film and is more experienced at directing television. Seeing The King’s Speech, you wouldn’t notice it. David Seidler also did a good job of writing, coming from decades of research. A stammerer as a child, Seidler was inspired by how George VI overcame stammering. The set design and costuming was done to a tee. The music from Alexander Desplat fit the movie well. This was an excellently packaged and very well-produced film.

The big talk is how it will win the Best Picture Oscar, especially since it’s promoted by The Weinstein Company. It has already won the Producer’s Guild, BAFTA, as well as many major guild awards and its twelve total nominations is already making it a heavy favorite. Also if anyone can remember Harvey Weinstein’s Oscar heydays when he ran Miramax, you’d know he knows how to win Academy votes like no other studio exec. His new film company The Weinstein Company, founded not even six years ago, has already amassed two Best Picture nominees in the past two years with The Reader and Inglourious Basterds. It would not surprise me if The King’s Speech won the Oscar for Best Picture. Personally I feel The King’s Speech is deserving of its nominations including Best Picture, but I feel it does not deserve the Best Picture win.  If I had my own ballot, I would vote for The Social Network as it excellent acting, top directing and was excellently-written. That’s my call. However I’m not a registered member of the Academy so I’ll have to wait until then to have my say.

Even though The King’s Speech is not the best movie of the year, it is one of the best and deserves its Oscar acclaim. Even though I feel The Social Network deserves to win Best Picture, I would not be disappointed if The King’s Speech wins. It is deserving with its own merits.

2010 Oscars Best Picture Nominee: True Grit

Jon The BlogcentricLeave a comment

Personally I feel there are not enough Westerns in the movies nowadays. True Grit is a remake of a past movie starring John Wayne in 1969.With remakes, there’s always a question of will it succeed or will it fail to stack up to the original? Also a question for remaking is if the Coen Brothers are an ideal fit for direction. To the surprise of many,  the Coen brothers do their own version of the movie with excellent results.

The movie is told through the adult Mattie Ross. When she was fourteen, her father was murdered by hired hand Chaney who also made off with his horses and two California gold pieces. Mattie pursues a US Marshall to track down Chaney. Of the three choices, she chooses Rooster Cogburn because he’s the most merciless: with ‘true grit’.

Cogburn frequently rejects Mattie’s requests to be hired. At the boarding house where Mattie is staying, she meets Texas Ranger Laboeuf who is pursuing Chaney for his own reason: a murder in Texas. He proposes that he, Mattie and Rooster team up in pursuit because they know of his whereabouts in Chocktaw terrain. Mattie rejects because he wants Chaney tried for the crimes against her, instead of against Laboeuf. After Cogburn finally agrees, he tells Mattie to meet him in the morning to start the pursuit, only to leave Mattie behind with a note saying he’s after Chaney and for her to go home.

Despite it all, Mattie is determined to catch up to Laboeuf and Cogburn. She even rides her swimming horse across the river when refused onto a ferry. Upon learning the two men plan to split the reward, Mattie threatens Cogburn with arrest for fraud because the agreement was that she come with them.  He reluctantly allows Mattie to come along but Laboeuf disagrees and splits to pursue Chaney alone. Mattie and Cogburn spend overnight in an isolated shack, only to come across two outlaws who suddenly turn on each other. Cogburn kills the older outlaw and the dying younger outlaw reveals that ‘Lucky Ned’ Pepper were planning to return later that night. Cogburn and Mattie stay in the shack, expecting Chaney to be with Pepper’s gang.

Laboeuf however rides up to the shack ahead of the gang.  Once they arrive, they lasso him and drag him behind a horse. Cogburn then shoots three to death and accidentally wounds Laboeuf. He ends the night getting drunk on whiskey. The next night, he and Laboeuf have another argument and Laboeuf departs on his own again. The following morning, Mattie spots Chaney. She shoots Chaney but is unable to kill him. Chaney drags her back to the gang whom Ned plans to use as a hostage to get Cogburn to ride off. She’s hostile to Ned at first but calms down when he promises he doesn’t hurt children. Riding off to pursue Cogburn, Ned leaves Mattie in care of Chaney so that he can drop her off in a safe colonized land later.

Chaney does try to attack Mattie but Laboeuf knocks him out with his rifle end. He explains he encountered Cogburn the night before and hatched a plan. Both watch above a cliff as Cogburn takes on Ned and three other gang members. He shoots two dead and mortally wounds Ned, but his horse is shot from under him. As the dying Ned tries to shoot Cogburn, Laboeuf shoots Ned dead. Chaney tries to kill Laboeuf but Mattie shoots Chaney dead, only for the recoil to knock her into a rattlesnake-filled mineshaft where she is bitten in the arm. Cogburn rescues Mattie and carries her off for help. He arrives at a village late in the night and in time.

The movie fast forwards to Mattie: 25 years later and her bitten arm amputated from the acquired gangrene. She received an invitation from Cogburn to see him perform at a travelling Wild West show, only to learn at the site he died three days earlier. She has his body moved to the family plot. A final honor to the man that helped her.

The direction and writing of the Coen brothers is top notch. You’d think that doing a Western movie isn’t something to expect from the Coen brothers but they do a surprisingly excellent job. You could tell they put in a lot of detail into this. The movie captured the Wild West environment well. It portrayed the lawlessness of the times well. It also showed things like public hangings in excellent detail. Even the police system and courts of law were done to a tee. Those who never grew up during a time when Western movies were frequent would be surprised at the times and the happenings. Even frequent references to God in people’s speech would surprise many that these were a time when referring to God meant something.

As for the acting, Jeff Bridges did an excellent job as Rooster Cogburn. Matt Damon did a good job with a pretty lightweight role as Laboeuf. However the true star of the movie has to be young Hailee Steinfeld. Although she’s nominated in the Supporting Actress category, there’s no question that she was the lead performance and she was excellent. While all the other adult characters were foolish, she was one that meant business and she could put those foolish adults to shame.

The technical aspects of the movie were also excellent. Roger Deakins always does a top job of cinematography and this was no exception. The sets, both natural and constructed, were top notch and fit the time frame well. Costuming was also top of the line. Carter Burwell’s music fit the movie perfectly. Overall this was a masterpiece of a Western.

Some people might compare this version to the original 1969 version, directed by Henry Hathaway and starred John Wayne and Glen Campbell. I don’t want to compare it with the original in terms of its quality. Some notable differences are: the new version left out the murder of Frank Ross at the hands of Chaney; Mattie is still fourteen in the original but is played by Kim Darby who was 20 at the time of filming Laboeuf dies from head injuries in the original; and Cogburn is still alive at the end of the original when he agrees to Mattie about being buried next to the Ross family plot. The most I’ll critique in terms of quality is say that Jeff Bridges is no John Wayne. Interesting that the 1969 version wasn’t nominated for Best Picture and John Wayne won Best Actor.

The remake of True Grit goes above and beyond expectations. John Wayne fans may not be completely pleased but fans of Westerns will be delighted. The Coen brothers were given a heavy task when they took this on and they delivered.

2010 Oscars Best Picture Nominee: The Fighter

Jon The Blogcentric1 Comment

I’m sure that once you hear about the movie The Fighter, the first thing you’ll say is “Not another boxing movie.” It’s more than that. It’s about real people with a goal. It’s about a real-life boxer who wanted to win a title and won it. It was also about other battles he had to face along the way.

The movie starts in 1995 when Micky Ward is a 30 year-old unsuccessful boxer. He’s managed by his mother Alice and trained by his brother Dicky, who once fought Sugar Ray Leonard as a rising talent. Micky has unfortunately established himself as a fighter other boxers defeat to raise their standings. Dicky has turned to a life of crack addiction.He frequently visits a crack house where his girldfriend, a prostitute, stays.  He thinks HBO is filming a documentary about his comeback and allows them to film everything, including his crack smoking.

Micky becomes disheartened with his career after losing a match against a last-minute replacement for his original opponent who fell ill. Upon retreating from the world, he meets Charlene, a bartender who was a former college athlete. They soon become a pair. However this does not go well with the family. After Micky turns down a fight offer Alice made, Alice and Micky’s seven sisters feel that Charlene demotivated him. They start calling her things like ‘MTV’.

Micky however has been given an offer for better training in Vegas, but the family has a strong mistrust from offers from outsiders. They feel people other than family, especially Vegas people, try to use fighters. Dicky tries to match the offer by claiming he can get the money. Dicky then fixes up a prostitution arrest heist to steal a car only to be foiled. As Micky sees Dicky being tackled by the police, Micky jumps in to stop the police beating, but Micky is beaten and arrested himself. At the trial, Micky is released but Dicky is sentenced to prison.

While in prison, Dicky is shocked that the HBO documentary he was filmed in was about crack addiction in Lowell. He and his family watching at home are humiliated that it documented his downfall into crack addiction and crime. Micky’s father tries to motivate him back into boxing. It works as his father assembles a new trainer and a new manager and explains to Micky that his mother and brother will no longer be involved. They place him in minor fights to regain his confidence and is soon placed in an HBO-televised title fight against a rising young talent.

Micky visits Dicky in prison and Dicky gives him advise before the match. Originally Micky dismisses it, feeling Dicky just wants to bring back his failed career. During the fight, Micky is overwhelmed but takes his brother’s advice late into the fight. It works for the better as Micky earns a surprised win. This puts him in a match against an English fighter for a World Welterweight title.

Before the match, Dicky is released from prison. He is free from drugs; motivated by the humiliation of that HBO ‘special’. He and his mother go to see Micky train. At the gym, Dicky is met with the unfriendly news that he is no longer to be involved with Micky. Charlene and his trainer leave in disgust, unhappy to see Dicky and his mother back. Micky then gets into a violent fight with Dicky at the gym, leaving him injured. Dicky goes back to the crack house but opts to say goodbye. He then talks with an angry Charlene and points out to her that she shouldn’t call him a failure when she’s a college drop out. He tells her that Micky needs them both and to work together. Everyone is brought back together in time for the fight in London. Like the HBO fight, Micky takes a lot from his opponent at the beginning, but later comes on strong to knock his opponent out. He achieves his World Welterweight title. Years later, Dicky credits Micky for his own success.

Some would immediately dismiss it as another Rocky, but it’s too premature. The fact that Micky Ward had to succeed as a boxer and overcome a lot of family problems is what makes this story unique. Also surprising how two sets of people who were completely against each other had to come together for the World title fight. That was another battle Micky had to deal with on his way to the top.

That had to be the most notable thing about this movie. ‘Irish’ Micky Ward was fighting as many battles outside the ring as he was fighting inside the ring. In addition to the family problems and rivalry between training groups, it also appeared he was fighting time taking away his athletic prime, the negative rap of his family, and the bad name his town of Lowell has received over the decades as an industrial town gone downhill.  Mark Wahlberg, a native of Massachusetts himself who also grew up in a large working class family, is both a fan and friend of Micky Ward and considers him a local hero. It’s no wonder that playing him would be an honor.

Another thing this movie reminds us is how much poor areas, in both developed countries and developing countries, value athletes. There have been many athletes from around the world in many sports who came from the poorest areas and the biggest slums to athletic greatness. They play a role to the youth, the community as a whole, and even a nation in showing that there can be a way out of the hard times. Boxing is one of those sports where many have come from rough upbringings and have gone on to athletic greatness. Some of the biggest names in boxing have grown up in the slums or in poor conditions.

Mark Wahlberg was impressive in playing Micky Ward. He also prepared very well physically to have a boxer’s body. However it’s the supporting performances that steal the show in the movie. Christian Bale was excellent as Dicky. It appeared he studied Dicky’s mannerisms and voice to a tee. He even had to lose a lot of weight to get the right look of a crack addict. Melissa Leo was also marvelous as Alice. Both actors were excellent in getting the right Boston accents and right physical mannerisms of their characters to master the roles. Amy Adams will surprise many as the sexy but feisty Charlene. The group of seven sisters also had their scene stealing minutes. My favorite was when Alice and the sisters were furiously rushing over to Charlene’s house and it looked like this ‘army of big hair’. You had to see it to love it! David O. Russell did by far his best directing job. He has directed film before like Three Kings and I Love Huckabees but nothing as remarkable as this.

So if you think that The Fighter is just another Rocky, you’re wrong. This really happened. Micky Ward and his family did go through all this. Seeing what Micky and his family went through in order to win the title makes one appreciate what he went through and why Mark Wahlberg is an admirer.

2010 Oscars Best Picture Nominee: The Social Network

Jon The BlogcentricLeave a comment

It’s surprising to know that Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg became a billionaire before he could turn 30; the first self-made billionaire to achieve that feat so young. It’s also ironic he’s this young and already has his own Citizen Kane style story. It all started with the book The Accidental Billionaires and it led to the movie The Social Network.

The movie starts with Mark, a student at Harvard, on a date with his girlfriend Erica Albright. It ends in a breakup. Returning to his dorm in a drunken rage, Mark blogs negative defamatory comments about Erica and then gets Harvard students to rank female students by their attractiveness. His internet activities cause so much traffic within Harvard, most of the system is brought down.

He pays a price: six months academic probation and the male most hated by the Harvard females. He also gains from it as twin brothers Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss and their business partner Divya Narendra take an interest in him and want him to program their dating website for Harvard students only. Mark then tells Eduardo of his idea of a social network for Harvard students only called ‘theFacebook’. Eduardo lends money and even distributes the link to Eduardo’s social connections at his Harvard final club and it becomes a hit.

When word hits the Winklevosses and Narendra of ‘theFacebook’, they become furious and want to sue at first. Cameron Winklevoss recommends instead settling out of court ‘like Harvard gentlemen’. As ‘theFacebook’ grows in popularity and expands to more schools across the US, it further infuriates the Winklevoss twins and Narendra. Cameron decides to have Mark accused of violating Harvard’s Code Of Conduct only to be dismissed by the president of Harvard.

Later Mark, Eduardo and his girlfriend are introduced to Sean Parker, co-founder of Napster. Eduardo is suspicious of Sean’s personality and past activities cause suspicion in Eduardo but Mark is impressed with his ideas. Upon Sean’s suggestion, Mark moves the company to Palo Alto and changes the site name to ‘Facebook’ while Eduardo remains in New York seeking advertizing support. The Winklevosses learn after a rowing competition at Henley regatta that Facebook has even expanded to British universities and it’s there they finally decide to sue.

Meanwhile Eduardo is unhappy to learn of Sean living at Mark’s house and making decisions for Facebook. After an argument with Mark, Eduardo freezes the company’s bank account and returns to New York. After learning the deal he signed with Sean’s investors would dilute his share of the company to .03%, he confronts Mark with the intention to sue: right on the day Facebook hits its 1,000,000th member. Parker and some other Facebook interns are later arrested at a party for cocaine possession.

One unique thing about the movie is that it frequently shift back and forth from the days of Facebook’s creation and growing success to the separate lawsuits filed against Mark Zuckerberg from the Winklevoss twins and Eduardo. The back and forth throughout the movie adds to the intrigue on how this all happened. At the end, Mark’s junior lawyer tells him there will be a settlement with Eduardo because of the sordid details of Facebook’s founding and Mark’s own personality.

Many have compared this movie to Citizen Kane. Some have even called it Citizen Zuck. However it shows a theme that when creativity and a computer meet in this internet age, a lot of innovation can happen. A lot of negativity can come out too. Often one who can do such activity with a computer, especially a hacker, can get a false sense of invincibility or even a ‘God complex’. Some may feel that they’re either above the law or they can crush the law in the future with their cyberwisdom. Even for those that create legitimate sites, there’s that pursuit or drive to go for the biggest of the big. As George W. Bush once said, in America there are ‘haves and have-mores’. When one has a computer and an idea, the drive of being one of those have-mores is there. It’s all whether they play it out right.

The movie also shows how much the internet has changed the way one does things and also how ugly it can get. Nowadays there’s more fraud than ever. Defamatory posts like Mark’s of Erica are everywhere and widespread. Hackers are sometimes seen as heroes. Even seeing how Facebook changed the word friend from being a noun only to being a verb as well. One can even question whether the human race can now tell what a friend really is because of Facebook. Some only invite friends not necessarily to keep up with them but so they can compete against others for the most Facebook friends. Yet this movie presents a unique story how the person who practically revolutionized the word friend was lousy at being a friend.

 There’s a lot of debate to the truth of this movie. Mark Zuckerberg and others say this movie is false. There’s even question whether Eduardo was really a friend of Mark’s. Don’t forget it was based upon the book The Accidental Billionaires which also is facing its own questionings of truthfulness. Fact or fiction, the movie was well played out and kept one intrigued. There was rarely a dull moment as it would keep one wondering what will happen next or how did Eduardo stop being friends with Mark.

The script written by Aaron Sorkin was excellent in all that it placed out, whether it be true or not. Often throughout the movie, it shows the trials and would get one wondering how it happened. The history from its start would tell how it all happened. David Fincher did a top notch job of directing, if not the best of the year. Jesse Eisenberg was a perfect fit for Mark Zuckerberg and played him out well. Andrew Garfield also was good as Eduardo and Armie Hammer did a good job of mastering his twin role as the Winklevoss twins. Is it just me or did the Winklevoss twins come across as Twiddle Dum and Twiddle Dee? Justin Timberlake was impressive as Sean Parker and really captured the egotism and God-complex of a computer hacker and site founder quite well. Rooney Mara made the most out of what little screen time she had as Erica Albright, the one woman who could bring Mark back to reality. The editing was excellent in shifting back and forth from the frame of Facebook’s creation to the lawsuits against Mark. It added to the intrigue of the film. The score from Trent Reznor fit the movie just perfectly with its climactic moments. The addition of other music also added into the film as well. Overall this had to be one of the best films of the year, if not the best, and I find it the most deserving of the Best Picture Oscar.

Very rarely does a film with good acting, good writing and good directing win over a big young audience. The Social Network delivered and gave us a masterpiece for our young century.