I hate to say it but Charlie Wilson’s War did not do much for me.
I hate to say that because this 2007 film is fairly well-acted, well-directed, and well-written (by Aaron Sorkin, whose scripts usually get on my last nerve). And it deals with an important subject. Taking place in the 80s, the film details how a Texas congressman (Tom Hanks), working with a profane CIA agent (Philip Seymour Hoffman) and an eccentric socialite (Julia Roberts), managed to create popular and political support for giving weapons to the Afghan rebels who were fighting the Soviet invasion of their country. By doing so, Wilson helps to weaken the Soviet Union but, when his efforts to provide humanitarian aide to Afghanistan are less successful, he also contributes to the subsequent rise of the Taliban.
It should have been a film that I would normally rave about but … I don’t know.
I watched Charlie Wilson’s War. I laughed at some of Tom Hanks’s facial reactions. (Hanks is playing a womanizer here who may, or may not, have been high on cocaine when he first learned about the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and it’s obvious that Hanks really enjoyed getting to play someone who wasn’t a traditionally upright hero.) As I watched, I again considered what a loss we suffered when the brilliant Philip Seymour Hoffman died. And, as I watched Julia Roberts, I again wonder why, despite the fact that she’s from Georgia, it is apparently impossible for Julia to sound authentically Southern.
(Of course, I’m sure some would argue that Julia wasn’t playing Southern here. She was playing a Texan. Well, I’m a Texan and I’ve never heard anyone down here sound like that. Tom Hanks, meanwhile, actually managed to come up with a decent accent. Wisely, he underplayed the accent, whereas I don’t think that Julia has ever underplayed anything in her life.)
And, at the end of Charlie Wilson’s War, I knew I had watched a good film but it was also a film that left me feeling curious detached. To be honest, I almost think the film would have been better if Hoffman’s CIA agent had been the main character, as opposed to Hanks’s congressman. Hoffman’s character, after all, is the one who nearly lost his job over his belief that the Afghan rebels should be armed. All Hanks really has to worry about is whether or not he’s going to be indicted for using cocaine in Vegas.
However, I do think that Charlie Wilson’s War does deserve praise for one very specific reason. Excluding the films made by native filmmakers like Richard Linklater and Wes Anderson, Charlie Wilson’s War is one of the few films that I’ve ever seen that actually portrays anyone from Texas in a positive light. Even more shockingly, it’s a positive portrayal of a Texas politician!
(I know it must have been tempting to change history and pretend that Charlie Wilson was originally elected from somewhere up north…)
But, overall, Charlie Wilson’s War didn’t do much for me. But, if you’re into military history and all that, you might enjoy the film more than I did.
(Plus, all you boys will probably enjoy Emily Blunt’s scenes….)
At the very least, you can watch it for Philip Seymour Hoffman.
Obviously, it’s way too early to start speculating about who and what will receive Oscar nominations in 2016. I mean, that would be crazy, right?
So, that’s exactly what I’m going to do. Just like last year, I’m going take a monthly wild guess and try to predict what might be nominated. Next year, around this time, we’ll look at the predictions below and probably laugh.
Since the year just started, these predictions should be taken with more than a few grains of salt. Needless to say, these predictions are heavily orientated towards what played at Sundance this week and also towards films that were directed by the usual suspects. For instance, I know next to nothing about St. James Place but it stars Tom Hanks and it was directed by Steven Spielberg and, when you’re guessing this early in the year, that’s enough to earn it a listing.
(And before you laugh too much at how influenced this list was by Sundance, consider that the campaigns for both Boyhood and Whiplash started at Sundance.)
Of course, for all I know, the release of some of these films might be delayed, much as how Foxcatcher was moved from 2013 t0 2014.
With all that in mind, here are my way, way, way too early Oscar predictions for January!
“My life amounts to no more than one drop in a limitless ocean. Yet, what is any ocean, but a multitude of drops?” — David Mitchell
Let me tell you about Icarus. He took flight with wings of feather and wax. Warned not to fly too low so as not to have the sea’s dampness clog his wings or to climb too high to have the sun melt the wax. Icarus heeded not the latter and tried to fly as close to the sun. Just as his father had warned him the wax in his wings melted as he flew too close to the sun and soon fell back to earth and into the sea.
A tale from Greek mythology that taught has taught us about ambition reaching so high that it’s bound to fail. One such ambitious failure of recent times has been the epic science fiction film Cloud Atlas directed by The Wachowskis and Tom Tykwer.
The film was adapted from the novel of the same name by author David Mitchell which looked to take six stories set in 19th-century South Pacific and right up to a distant, post-apocalyptic future. Each story’s characters and actions would connect with each other through the six different time and space. The film attempts to do what Mitchell’s novel did through several hundred dense and detailed pages.
Just like Icarus The Wachowski and Tom Tykwer’s attempt to connect the lives and actions of all six stories amounts for what admirers and detractors can only agree on as an admirable and ambitious failure.
The film boasts a large ensemble cast led by Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Jim Broadbent, Hugh Grant and Hugo Weaving. More than one of the actors in the cast would perform characters in each and every six interconnecting stories in the film which added a sense of rhythmic continuity to the whole affair, but also made for some very awkward and uncomfortable scenes of what could only amount to as “yellowface”. This was most evident in the story set in 22nd-century Neo Seoul, South Korea where actors such as James D’Arcy, Jim Sturgess, Keith David and Hugo Weaving have been heavily made-up to look Asian.
Cloud Atlas was and is a sprawling film that attempts to explore the theme that everything and everyone is connected through time and space. It’s how the action of one could ripple through time to have a profound effect on others which in turn would create more ripples going forward through time. The film both succeeds and fails in portraying this theme.
It’s the film’s narrative style to tell the six stories not in a linear fashion from 19th-century to the post-apocalyptic future, but instead allow all six tales to weave in and out of each other. At times this weaving style and how it would seamlessly go from one time location to another without missing a beat made for some very powerful and emotional moments. But then it would also make these transitions in such a clunky manner that it brings one out of the very magical tale the three directors were attempting to weave and tell.
Yet, even through some of it’s many faults and failings the film does succeed in some way due to the performances of the ensemble cast. Even despite the awkwardness of the “yellowface” of the Neo Seoul sequence the actors in the scenes perform their roles such admirable fashion. One would think that someone like Tom Hanks who has become such a recognizable presence in every film he appears in wouldn’t be able to blend into each tale being shown and told, but he does so in Cloud Atlas and so does everyone else.
It helps that the film was held up from a very hard landing after reaching so high with an exquisite and beautiful symphonic score composed by Tom Tykwer, Reinhold Heil and Johnny Klimek. It’s a score that manages to accentuate the film’s exploration of emotions and actions rippling through time without ever becoming too maudlin and pandering to the audiences emotions.
Cloud Atlas was hyped as the next epic science fiction film from The Wachowskis and Tom Tykwer leading up to it’s release. This hype was further built-up with thundering standing ovation during it’s screening at the 37th Toronto International Film Festival. But once the film finally was released and more critics and the general public were able to see it for themselves the reaction have been divisive. This was a film that brooked no middle-ground. One either loved it flaws and all or hated it despite what it did succeed in accomplishing amongst the failures.
Just like Icarus, Cloud Atlas and it’s three directors had high ambitions for the film. It was a goal that not many filmmakers seem to want to put themselves out on the limb for nowadays because of how monumental the failure can be if their ambitions are just too high. It’s been the reputation of The Wachowskis since they burst into the scene with their Matrix trilogy. Their eclectic and, somewhat esoteric, storytelling style have made all their films an exercise in high-risk, high reward affairs that makes no apologies whether they succeed or fail. Each of their films have a unique vision that they want to share with the world and they make no compromises in how this vision is achieved.
One could call Cloud Atlas an ambitious failure. It could also be pop, New Age psychobabble wrapped up in so-called high-art. Yet, what the two siblings and Tom Tykwer were able to achieve with the film has been nothing less by brave and daring. If more filmmakers were willing to allow their inner Icarus to fly then complaints of Hollywood and the film industry not having anymore fresh new ideas would fade.
This morning the SAG Award nominees were announced and, perhaps not surprisingly, the story is less who was nominated and more who was snubbed. For instance, Oscar front-runner Robert Redford’s performance in All Is Lost was ignored while Forest Whitaker’s rather one-note turn in The Butler was nominated. Tom Hanks was not nominated for Saving Mr. Banks but the late and missed James Gandolfini picked up a nomination for Enough Said. Myself, I’m more surprised that Octavia Spenser was not nominated for her performance in Fruitvale Station.
As has been pointed out over at Goldderby, the SAG Awards are no longer the fool-proof Oscar prediction tool that they used to be. Getting a SAG nomination no longer guarantees you an Oscar nomination and, by that same standard, getting snubbed is no longer an automatic cause for concern.
That said, the SAG winners do typically end up receiving an Oscar nomination in January.
The film nominees can be found below:
BEST FILM ENSEMBLE
“12 Years a Slave”
“American Hustle”
“August: Osage County”
“The Butler”
“Dallas Buyers Club”
BEST FILM ACTOR
Bruce Dern, “Nebraska”
Chiwetel Ejiofor, “12 Years a Slave”
Tom Hanks, “Captain Phillips”
Matthew McConaughey, “Dallas Buyers Club”
Forest Whitaker, “The Butler”
BEST FILM ACTRESS
Cate Blanchett, “Blue Jasmine”
Sandra Bullock, “Gravity”
Judi Dench, “Philomena”
Meryl Streep, “August: Osage County”
Emma Thompson, “Saving Mr. Banks”
BEST FILM SUPPORTING ACTOR
Barkhad Abdi, “Captain Phillips”
Daniel Bruhl, “Rush”
Michael Fassbender, “12 Years a Slave”
James Gandolfini, “Enough Said”
Jared Leto, “Dallas Buyers Club”
BEST FILM SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Jennifer Lawrence, “American Hustle”
Lupita Nyong’o, “12 Years a Slave”
Julia Roberts, “August: Osage County”
June Squibb, “Nebraska”
Oprah Winfrey, “The Butler”
BEST FILM STUNT ENSEMBLE*
“All is Lost”
“Fast & Furious 6”
“Lone Survivor”
“Rush”
“The Wolverine”
This year is the 50th anniversary of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy and I have to admit that I’m surprised that there aren’t a few hundred JFK-related films coming out this year. Seriously, since January, it’s something that those of us in Dallas have had to hear about it on a daily basis.
Then again, it’s because I’m from Texas that I’m somewhat glad that there aren’t a lot of films coming out about that day back in 1963. Quite frankly, I don’t need to sit through a hundred films featuring a bunch of character actors butchering my state’s native accent.
If you can’t do the accent, don’t accept the damn role. End of story.
However, just because there aren’t a lot of them, that doesn’t mean that there won’t be films looking to exploit the anniversary. For example, there’s Parkland. Judging from the trailer below, Parkland appears to be an ensemble film about “ordinary” people dealing with the assassination of President Kennedy.
A lot of critics have been saying that Parkland might be a dark horse contender for best picture but it looks dreadfully earnest to me. Add to that, this seems like just the subject matter to bring out the pompousness that always seems to be hiding underneath the surface of producer Tom Hanks.
With Veteran’s Day coming to a close I would just like to share a scene that encompasses the sort of people that make up the men and women of our military. While this scene is from Spielberg’s Saving Private Ryan I think the sentiment shared by Capt. Miller to his squad works just as well today as we find more and more of our country’s civilians being called in to do their military duty as part of the nation’s Reserve Force.
Yes, the military now is an all-volunteer one, but it doesn’t count those men and women who make up the reservists force. These soldiers, marines, airmen and sailors have done their tour of active duty and decided to join the reserve force on a part-time basis. They do this knowing that when the time comes they might be called to answer the call from the country’s military to take up their uniform once again and deploy to a war zone as they have done so for the past decade in both Iraq and Afghanistan. These are doctors, police men and women, lawyers, teachers, construction workers and men and women from every walk of life.
I know that it’s not popular to venerate and admire these people in today’s day and age, because to do so means people like myself and others glorify war and against peace. People have become cynical to the point that they deride these people for getting themselves in the predicament of leaving behind their families and jobs to fight for a war they might not believe in. These people don’t understand the sacrifice and will to do their duty for their country even if its leaders might fail them in the end.
It’s not just soldiers of the US I speak to about celebrating but every man and woman brave and dedicated enough to do their job either as a volunteer or as part of their nation’s conscription call. It’s these very same people who understand the real cost of war and the first to wish for peace, but until the time comes when they’re not needed anymore they will always answer the call to do their duty.
Earlier this month, I finally found the time to see Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close, the critically reviled “prestige” picture that was the center of a minor scandal when it received an Academy Award nomination for best picture back in January.
That nomination, by the way, is the only reason that I made a point of DVRing the film when I saw that it was going to be on HBO. I had already been turned off by the film’s trailer and the subject matter (a little kid trying to make sense of 9-11 by wandering around New York with a mute old man) seemed like the sort of thing that could only have been made effective by a Roberto Rossellini or a Vittorio De Sica. Say what you will about director Stephen Daldry (and I think that both Billy Elliott and The Reader are excellent films), he’s not an Italian neorealist. Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close seemed like just the film to bring out his worst instincts as a filmmaker.
Having now finally seen the film, I am sorry to say that my initial instincts were correct. Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close is the type of film that gives a bad name to good intentions. This is the type of film that you watch and you know that you should be touched by the subject matter but it just all feels so forced, heavy-handed, and ultimately quite empty.
The film tells the story of Oskar (played by Thomas Horn), a brilliant child who is also a bit abrasive and neurotic. At one point, Oskar says that he’s been tested for Asperger syndrome but that the tests were “inconclusive.” What’s interesting about this is that in the book that this film is based on, the possibility that Oskar might be autistic is never stated or even hinted at. Instead, he’s just an abrasive kid and, to be honest, the film’s decision to make Oskar autistic feels less like characterization and more like narrative laziness. It’s hard not to feel that the filmmakers introduced autism as a way to avoid dealing with the fact that Oskar (especially as played by Thomas Horn) is perhaps one of the most abrasive and annoying characters in film history.
Oskar’s life falls apart when his father, Thomas (Tom Hanks), is killed on 9-11. He obsessively listens to the final 6 messages that his father left on the family’s answering machine, even while he hides those messages from his mother (Sandra Bullock).
A year later, Oskar is exploring his father’s closet and finds a vase that has an envelope in it. Inside the envelope is a key and written on the envelope is the word “Black.” Convinced that the key is a final message from his father, Oskar looks up the address of every single person in New York whose last name is Black and sets about tracking each one of them down and demanding to know if they knew his father. Eventually, he’s joined in his quest by a sad-eyed mute (Max Von Sydow) who lives with Oskar’s grandmother.
Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close is based on a novel and the film’s central idea — that Oskar’s quest is his way of trying to make some sort of sense out of the September 11th terrorist attacks — is one that works better as a literary metaphor than as an actual story. While Oskar’s quest might seem poignant on paper, it becomes narcissistic and rather insensitive when seen on film. You find yourself wondering why so many New Yorkers are willing to let this obnoxious and rather annoying little brat into the homes, especially when he usually responds to their hospitality by being rude and condescending.
(In the film’s defense, it does try to address that very issue at the end of the movie but it does so in a way that just doesn’t seem that plausible.)
Ultimately, the film feels like a rather crass exploitation of a true-life tragedy and it’s made even more offensive by Daldry’s heavy-handed approach to the material. This is the type of material that needed more than a hint of realism and instead, Daldry seems to feel that it’s necessary to manipulate us into thinking that 9-11 was a national trauma (as if we didn’t already know that). The all-star approach that Daldry takes to casting his story also serves to undermine the film’s message. At moments when you should be wrapped up in the unfolding melodrama, you find yourself saying, “Hey, it’s John Goodman! There’s Viola Davis! Oh look! Jeffrey Wright!” Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close ultimately feels less like a film about a national trauma and more like a slick Towering Inferno-style disaster flick.
The film’s one saving grace is Max Von Sydow, who dominates this entire film without saying a word or even having that much screen time. One wishes that Daldry had told his 9-11 story through Von Sydow’s sad eyes and just left the kid at home.
We’ve been getting quite a bit of hype for the fall and holiday releases of 2012 but for some reason one film that should’ve been on more people’s radar seem to have gone unnoticed until this week when an extended trailer for the film was released to the public. It’s the film adaptation of David Mitchell’s epic sci-fi novel Cloud Atlas.
The film is directed by Lana Wachowski (formerly Larry Wachowski), Andy Wachowski and German-filmmaker Tom Tykwer. It’s a film that has a cast which includes Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Jim Broadbent, Jim Sturgess and Susan Sarandon for starters. The story looks to stay faithful to the original novel source which interweaves six different stories spanning time from the 19th-century all the way to a post-apocalyptic far future.
It’s going to be interesting whether the Wachowskis and Tykwer will be able to keep these six stories from becoming too confusing for the general audience to follow. Most important of all will be if these filmmakers will be able to create an entertaining film out of a novel heavy on themes and ideas. One thing the trailer sure points out is that the Wachowskis haven’t lost their touch when it comes to the visual side of filmmaking.
Cloud Atlasis set for an October 26, 2012 release date.
Jeff and I have been in Baltimore since last Friday and I’ve been having a great time seeing the sights (I thought I’d found the rowhouse where they hid all those bodies on The Wire but Jeff says all condemned buildings look the same) and just getting to meet and hang out with my boyfriend’s family. We went shopping on Saturday, bonding on Sunday, and on Monday night, they took me to see the fireworks at Baltimore Harbor. And, on Tuesday, we went to the movies and saw the new Tom Hanks/Julia Roberts romcom Larry Crowne at the wonderful Harbor East Cinema. Now, I have to admit that I wanted Larry Crowne to be a really sweet, funny movie because we were seeing it not only with Jeff’s younger sister but with his mom as well.
So, imagine my horror as Larry Crowne flickered across the screen for 90 minutes and it quickly became apparent that we weren’t watching a cinematic classic. Far from it. With each flat punchline and uninspired piece of on-screen business, the feeling of despair at the pit of my stomach grew and grew. Oh my God, I thought, they’re going to think about this movie now whenever they think about me. In their heads, I will forever be equated with a bad, boring movie. In their heads, in their heads…zombie…zombie…zombie…
Suddenly, I had another terrifying thought. What if they, like a handful of other people in the audience, actually enjoyed the film? What if, during the end credits, they looked over at me and said, “Wasn’t that wonderful? That Tom Hanks really delivers.” What would I do? In my mind, I replayed all of the fun that I’d had in Baltimore up to that moment. Damn you, Larry Crowne, I thought, things were going so well!
By the time the end credits had finished, I literally felt like I was aboutto be ill.
And that’s when Jeff’s mom looked over at me and said, “Well, Tom Hanks sure did drop the ball on that one.”
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! I wanted to shout. Not only did we agree on the overall quality of the film but she also specifically went out of her way to blame Tom Hanks and not me! Seriously, I can’t begin to tell you how happy this made me.
As for Larry Crowne, it’s the story a guy named Larry (played by Tom Hanks, who also directs) who loses his retail job because he doesn’t have a college education. So, he enrolls at the local community college where, for some odd reason, he quickly captures the attention of a girl named Talia (Gugu Mbatha-Raw) who is several years younger and makes it her mission to make Larry into a cool guy. Why does Talia take such an interest in this guy? The movie never really says. It’s not for any sort of romantic reason as Talia has a boyfriend (played by Wilmer Valderamma). The only thing that she has in common with Larry is that they both drive motor scooters. In fact, Talia’s in a gang of scooter riders. And by that, I mean that there’s like 20 to 30 people in this group. We never learn any of their names or why they’re all hanging out together. Seriously, it all seems so false and cutesy that, after a good start, the entire film falls apart once Larry and Talia meet. In the end, it just seems like another case of a Hollywood film in which a down-on-his-luck caucasian is validated by the fact that a member of a minority group has developed an inexplicable interest in his life.
Anyway, one of Larry’s classes is taught by Julia Roberts and oh my God, can we just be honest here? I know all you boys love her and stuff but seriously, Julia Roberts is aging terribly and she looks just awful here. It doesn’t help that the character she’s playing here comes across as a brittle, self-centered psychotic with a drinking problem. Whenever you see Larry starting to get near her, you just want to yell out, “No, Larry — she’s crazy!” Julia’s performance gets better as the film goes on but it’s still hard to warm up to her character. Not only does she appear to have been born with a scowl on her face but she’s also not much of a teacher. Seriously, what type of public speaking professor interrupts her students while they’re giving a speech? Anyway, Tom and Julia eventually end up pursuing each other, though not because it makes any sense for their characters to feel any sort of attraction towards each other. This is the type of romantic comedy where the romance feels like an afterthought. It’s as if someone said, “Wait — both Tom and Julia are in this movie? Well, make sure they fall in love.”
Now, the frustrating thing with Larry Crowne is that it’s never actually bad enough to be a “so bad that’s it’s good” type of film. Instead, the film settles very early for a very complacent, almost lazy sort of mediocrity. As a result, the film is ultimately not terrible but instead, just very forgettable. It’s heart it is in the right place. Tom Hanks has said that this film is meant to be an “antidote to cynicism” and, if that’s the case, he can take pride that there’s not a cynical bone in the film’s body. It’s all very earnest, very well-intentioned, and finally just very, very bland.
Sometimes, a little cynicism is just what the doctor ordered.
Through the Shattered Lens 