The Oscars have arrived!

As usual, I am posting my picks. My confidence is only moderately high, since this is SUCH a competitive year. I have not see every nominee, but have seen quite a few, and I think all the major contenders. So, here goes:

Best Picture: Argo   (Lincoln is so close that it's almost a toss-up. Lincoln does hold the slight edge of having its director nominated as well. They are usually selected together. So, we'll see! I liked them both and perhaps even liked Zero Dark Thirty more, so I have not real preference.)

Best Actor: Daniel Day Lewis  (Personally, I thought Hugh Jackman's performance was amazing, but Day Lewis was phenomenal too. Still, Day Lewis is the closest thing to a lock this year!)

Best Actress: Jennifer Lawrence (A really tight race, with amazing performances all-round. If Jennifer doesn't get it, I believe Jessica Chastain will. There has been renewed interest in the performance of Emmanuelle Riva in Amour -- and she was terrific, but I think it goes to one of the younger actresses. At first I thought Naomi Watts would win, but there's no buzz there anymore.

Best Supporting Actor: Tommy Lee Jones   Another tough category, with Christoph Waltz winning some earlier awards, and Robert De Niro always a favorite. But I think I'll stick to Jones, who was such a key player in Lincoln.

Best Supporting Actress: Anne Hathaway  Early buzz was for Sally Field, but that faded. And after I saw Les Miserable, I saw why Hathaway was the favorite. She (and the movie) was marvelous.

Best Director: Steven Spielberg for Lincoln. I haven't yet seen it, but I've read quite a bit of sentiment for Ang Lee for Life of Pi. But I'm betting the academy will want to spread the love for Lincoln by giving this to Spielberg.

Best Song: Skyfall by Adele. At least the Bond movie will get something for one of the best pictures of the year!! (Should have gotten a nomination for best picture!)

Cinematography: Hoping it's Roger Deakins for Skyfall, but will most likely go to Caludio Miranda for Life of Pi. And where is the nomination for cinematographer for The Impossible?

Best Original Screenplay: Mark Boal, Zero Dark Thirty

Best Adapted Screenplay: I'm going with Chris Terrio for Argo, but it could be Tony Kushner for Lincoln.

Foreign Language Film: Amour (oddly enough, from Austria) A slam dunk. And a very depressing movie, by the way!

Sound Editing: I'm going to agree (again) with the World Herald reviewer and pick my favorite movie -- Zero Dark Thirty.

I'm not going to pick "Visual Effects" because I'm ticked off that Skyfall isn't nominated! (Life of Pi should win.)

So there you have it. I don't know enough to pick in the other categories. May the best man, or woman, win!!!

10 … 20 … Zero Dark 30

It finally opened wide, after an agonizing wait. The wait was worth it.
Zero Dark Thirty, the controversial movie about the killing of bin Laden, turned up the suspense (a remarkable feat in a story in which we all know the end) and never let it wane.
The movie covers the 10 year span after 9/11 when the CIA embarked on a long and tedious search for the al-Qaeda kingpin. At the center of the search is the character Maya (Jessica Chastain), the agent who becomes obsessed with finding him. Maya is based on a real person (and is also said to be part compilation). Director Kathryn Bigelow (outrageously passed over for an Oscar nomination) has said the movie is based on the first-hand accounts of unnamed persons. That the government is trying to unearth names tells me that Bigelow got close. And that flap about the use of torture? C'mon, who doesn't believe it was employed in the early hunt, especially when Obama expressly forbid it after taking office? I, for one, think the movie makers got this pretty darn close to the truth. And the final assault on the compound was probably as close as we're ever going to get to the truth. It rang true and showed us just how treacherous and dangerous the mission was and how brave and well-equipped those Seals were. But I'm getting ahead of myself.

There is a gritty reality to the whole film. I'm still spitting dust and sand out of my mouth.
I've come to admire not only the people who spent years of frustration running down thousands of leads and coming up short most of the time, and the talented cast who portrayed them. We get a unique insight into how the CIA works and how incredibly tedious their work is. People rotate in and out of the Middle East, while Maya stays the course. Her first co-worker, Dan, played to perfection by Jason Clarke, is an expert at torture, but there's very little payoff in terms of information. Those being "interrogated" – in a blisteringly hot, bleak bunker, chained in a standing position for hours when they aren't lying face-up being water-boarded – are either hardcore terrorists or small frys who don't know anything. Either way, information leading anywhere is hard to come by. And while he's tough, Clarke's character shows his softer side in surprising ways.
The CIA does know (probably) that a very elusive carrier may be the key, but finding him is proving as hard as finding bin Laden. Clue after clue dries up. And still Maya persists.
Chastain is supported by a terrific cast, including Kyle Chandler as the CIA station chief, Jennifer Ehle as another colleague, James Gandolfini in a small but pivotal role as the head of the CIA, and Chris Pratt and Joel Edgerton as Navy Seals, and many more.
The action is often quiet, but always tense. Throughout the movie's two and a half hours, no one left the auditorium, remaining riveted on the screen. My only quibble with the movie is the length … I think a little bit could have been trimmed in the early going. But Chastain makes up for that by being a constant luminous presence. She certainly deserves her Oscar nomination.
The violent scenes, including torture and killing, are handled with restraint. The language is what you would imagine if you were working under the conditions they were. Even Chastain joins in as "one of the boys."
One of the pluses of the film is getting the recent history we all know (or think we know) presented to us visually, putting everything into context. How many times have we said: Why can't they find that guy? What's taking so long? This helps to answer those questions. It also gives us a close-up look at the conditions our military have been enduring.
This is a meticulously-crafted film about an important topic. Never over-the-top, it feels real at all times. And the final raid is a real nail-biter, as we move right alongside those Seals, seeing the action through night-goggles just as they are. Fascinating.
I highly recommend this powerful movie. While it may have taken a few liberties, it's about as close to a history lesson as we're going to get.
Four reels for this one. 

Good Evening…

"The Master of Suspense" started each episode of his television show, "The Alfred Hitchcock Hour," with that greeting, then proceeded to set the scene for the week's episode. The show ran at same time as some of the director's best motion pictures, including the subject of this movie.
In Hitchcock, we are introduced to the eccentric filmmaker and his wife and uncredited collaborator, Alma Reville, as he struggles to get Psycho made in 1959.

It was such a departure from his other movies, although also a suspenseful plot, that he couldn't convince Paramount to bankroll it. He was so convinced he had to make this picture (after buying up every single book he could so no one could reveal the ending), he financed it himself, mortgaging his home.
While this is the story of Hitchcock's (Anthony Hopkins) making of Psycho, it is also a love story between him and his wife, Alma Reville (Helen Mirren, who just snagged a Golden Globe nomination), who backed him 100% all the while putting up with his fixations on his young, icy blonde stars. Scarlett Johansson plays Janet Leigh very capably, looking striking in the wonderful period wardrobe. James D'Arcy nails it as Anthony Perkins – he's a dead ringer. And Jessica Beal is lovely as Vera Miles, who is at odds with "Hitch." Toni Collett, Danny Huston, and the familiar faces of Ralph Macchio and Wallace Langham of "C.S.I." flesh out supporting roles.
The screenplay also serves up a generous helping of humor, resulting in some hearty laughs. Hitchcock's pronouncements were often colorful and funny, here especially concerning his battle with his weight. There is also a poignant side to the story, well-played
Besides terrific performances by the whole cast, the movie boasts wonderful period clothes, home decor, cars – everything connected to 1959.
Those of a certain age who are very familiar with Sir Hitchcock's films will delight in learning more about the man and his home life, pulling back the curtain that has always veiled the director. They will surely enjoy this movie immensely (myself among them).
For younger audiences, the appeal may be in the star power and in the romance of film making in general. Fans of Psycho will love it, especially the shaping of the iconic movie and how it evolved.
In an interesting, and artsy, addition to the movie, we become acquainted with Hitch's apparent muse, the serial killer Eddie Gein (Michael Wincott), whose grisly deeds were unearthed in 1957, who "speaks" to the director during the planning and filming, inspiring some of Hitch's innovative shooting and editing techniques.
The score by Danny Elfman was right on; not surprising as Elfman's biggest influence was Bernard Herrmann, who scored Psycho.
A very entertaining, well-made movie with terrific acting and a good screenplay, Hitchcock deserves a rating of three and a half reels (out of four).

Wow, how times flies! One evening turned into another. Because it's Friday, I am going to reverse the order of my promised reviews.

Let's start with Skyfall.

No beating around the bush: the best action film of the year. Yes, really.

But it's not just an action movie. Daniel Craig as James Bond has made the role his own with this, his third, installment. He is simply fantastic in it. He's manly, flawed (!), strong, tender, suave, funny, loyal, and vulnerable. What more can you ask for in a movie hero?

From the exhilarating opening scenes, Bond gets the adrenalin pumping!

What's new here? Bond revisits his past, revealing more about the man than has ever been shown before. We understand him so much better. And love him more.

Oscar-winning director Sam Mendes brings a relentless pace and, along with his cinematographer, Roger Deakins, breath-taking new locales. There's eye candy to spare, be it the rugged hills of Scotland or the neon beauty of Singapore, or the stunning beauty of leading ladies Naomie Harris and Bérénice Marlohe.

The acting is a cut above many films and probably all the previous Bonds. 

The story is simple: As Bond rises from the "dead," having been shot in the long, thrilling, edge-of-your-seat opening, he reluctantly returns as 007 when MI6 comes under attack. Bond's loyalty to M (once again the magnificent Judi Dench) is tested as her past comes back to haunt her (and she's pretty ruthless at the beginning of this), and he knows he must hunt down and destroy the threat, seemingly from within. It seems that when he was "killed," he let the bad guys get their hands on a vital list of secret agents, an action he died trying to prevent, M is blamed, and is being forced to retire.
There are many red herrings, but since you probably already know that a bizarre-looking Javier Bardem is the chief villain, they may or may not pan out.

The outstanding cast also includes French actress Berenice Marlohe as Severine, English beauty Naomie Harris as field agent Eve, Ben Whishaw as Q, Ralph Fiennes as government agent Gareth Mallory, and Albert Finney (I won't say who he plays ... it's more fun for you to figure that out).

This movie could easily stand alone as a great spy movie. But it is very much a Bond film, thanks especially to all of the retro references (the audience silently – or not-so-silently – speaks the lines that are left unspoken). The old "Bond" music is played more often than it has in the past several movies, and at just the right times.

The gadgets are more subtle, but just as much fun. For aficionados, it's a lot of fun anticipating their use. 

The action is spectacular and inventive. A long motorcycle chase over impossible terrain gets the heart pumping. An underground scene is magnificent. The action scene in Singapore is eye-popping. Even the routine gun-play is both scary and fun. The almost obligatory casino scene is very different from all the others. And while all Bond movies are over-the-top, this one seems more grounded than the others.

Dench and Finney are marvelous, as is Naomie Harris, who combines beauty, charm, humor and a lot of grit into the complete package (just wait until you find out who she is!).

So many memorable moments in the 2 hour and 20 minute show. And it is bookended by the beautiful theme song co-written and sung by Adele, and the iconic Bond camera lens pose.

A must-see on so many levels.

Don't let this one get away. My husband, who has not been a fan of Craig as Bond, was completely won over and insists on seeing it again! I didn't need much convincing but it made me an even bigger fan than ever. There might even be some Oscar-buzz here, deservedly so.

It's rated PG-13 for intense violent sequences throughout, some sexuality, language and smoking (!). But aside from the violence, it's pretty tame compared to, say, Flight (which is rated R).

Four Reels for this terrific movie!

After a LONG break, I'm BACK, with more enthusiasm than ever. I hope you will enjoy my comments and reviews as I go forward. First up will be a review of Flight, followed by a review of Skyfall. Fasten your seatbelts – I'll be back in just a little while this evening.

Did you vote? I did!

Spider-Man is, well, Amazing

Pardon the long, long interruption of this blog. Happily, I'm back and rarin' to go...out in Omaha!

Let's begin by looking at the latest motion picture release, the one that opened at 11:50 last night, July 3. 

That, of course, would be The Amazing Spider-Man.

The reboot of the series that started less than a decade ago with Toby McGuire has burst upon the screen – in 3D and IMAX no less – with a new title hero, Andrew Garfield.

The story returns to Spider-Man's beginnings as Peter Parker, complete with the mysterious disappearance of his parents, his being raised by his aunt and uncle (the well-cast Sally Field and Martin Sheen), and being bitten by a spider while on a sort of field trip.

But this Spider-Man is edgier and actually more believable. He really acts like an ordinary teenager (which for a 29-year-old actor is impressive). He worries a lot – about having a crush on fellow student Gwen (a radiant Emma Stone), being bullied by a bunch of nitwits at school, and about why and how his parents died (?). 

When he first discovers his new abilities after that fateful bite, he has a bit of fun with them (what boy wouldn't like to virtually fly?), and then when things take a dark turn, he uses them to exact revenge.

His actions turn him into someone wanted by the police, whose chief just happens to be Gwen's father (Denis Leary).

But when his unique abilities are needed for good, he steps up to the plate. And when things go wrong, they go really, really wrong. His father's former partner, Dr. Curt Conners (a very good Rhys Ifans), with Peter's help, takes what was a promising medical breakthrough and uses it unwisely to say the least as he transforms into a hideous lizard. That's when the special spider effects rally go on steroids.

All that is all the more impressive in 3D, to say nothing of IMAX.

Those two film treatments have undergone a real transformation in terms of their watchability. Yes, we still have to wear the glasses, but at least they're comfortable. We no longer have to put up with fuzzy red/green moments or stomach-churning, vertigo-inspiring action. Well, some of the action is supposed to be like that, but that's another story.

Anyway, the end result is a beautiful film, crystal clear and awe-inspiring, Those "flying" sequences are really beautiful, if a little bit terrifying.

So, should you go?

Did you like the first version? I'm betting you'll like this one even more. I really love the new Peter Parker. And the chemistry between Peter and Gwen is palpable (it doesn't hurt that they are an item in "real" life). All of the acting is really good, believable, never over the top. 

Ifans is a far cry from his goofy character in Notting Hill; he's all grown up and likable when he isn't turning into a lizard monster.

Even Spider-Man's creator Stan Lee makes a cameo in a very funny scene in the school library.

The film's violence and occasional gory bits make it a PG-13, but, refreshingly, the language is "G" (one of Peter's curses is "Mother Hubbard"). 

I loved the heart of this, the good acting, the great look of it, and the eye-popping action. It is a fun, fun summer film and one of the best action movies in recent years. I recommend it for all those who like fast action, smart actors, dialogue that rings true, and a little sentiment to boot. It's a little dark, but not as dark at the current Batman series.

Go ahead. Go see it. In 3D. In IMAX if possible. Let it spin its web around you!

Three and a half (out of four) reels

2012 Oscar Picks

 My Oscar Picks, some by reasoning, some by sentiment:

My reasoning:
I think The Artist will win, because the momentum is all theirs now. There was a time when The Descendants had the steam, and before that The Help. Hugo is mounting a last-minute attempt to grab the spotlight, but I think that’s too late.
The other Best Picture nominees (9 in all) are:
Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close (reviews are either very good or very critical); Midnight in Paris (a personal favorite of mine, but no buzz); Moneyball (also a very good film, but it just lacks that “Wow” factor; War Horse (a fine movie with no acting nominations…it is the kind of sweeping movie that may have won 30 years ago); and The Tree of Life (which I did not see, and apparently neither did anyone else, and is reported to be a touch too arty).
I would really like for The Help to win (it really sticks with you and it has a story both poignant and heroic), but I won’t quibble if (and when) The Artist does. I liked The Descendants from our very own Alexander Payne, but don’t think it has the heft to win. The Help will get their love with acting statues (and deservedly so). The Descendants will earn Payne another writing award, and probably a Best Actor acting award for Clooney. I say probably, for this race is too close to call really. Jean Duiardin did a great job in a difficult role, having to convey everything with his face and body language, and pulling it off. Gary Oldman was also terrific in the underrated  Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. But I think Clooney has the love (his only “con” is that he has an acting Oscar).
The Best Actress race is equally hard to pick. Merle Streep has her incredible body of work leading up to a performance that critics have lauded (I haven’t seen it yet, but knowing Streep, she’s great). Viola Davis has turned in some terrific performances in the past few years, including a nomination for Doubt (her co-star? Merle Steep!). This one is too close to bet any money on, but I’m going with Davis because I just thought she was magnificent.
Supporting Actress is easy: Octavia Spencer (The Help) all the way. I’m in love with Minnie. Loved her in the book; loved her in the movie. She is the movie’s mojo. The other actresses are good, but Spencer just blew everyone away. Bet on this one if you must bet.
Supporting actor will apparently go to longtime superb actor who has yet to earn an Oscar, Christopher Plumber. It will probably help the film get some viewers; I doubt if anyone watching tonight has seen Beginners!
I have one quibble: that Rooney Mara from The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo didn’t get a more serious look. I thought she was amazing. I walked out of the (fabulous) movie knowing she would get a nomination. Talk about transformation! I guess she would be up there with Glenn Close if that were the criteria (didn’t see her movie, yet, but of course she’s wonderful).I loved Mara and can’t wait to see the two sequels. I can’t get her portrayal out of my head. She absolutely broke my heart.
In my picks in other categories, I gave some love to Mara’s movie (which may not win, but I thought it should) and even a couple nods to Harry Potter, because I never did think it got enough attention from the Academy (old white men). I hope someday they give it an honorary Oscar. After all, it was a record-shattering success from start to finish and it was a stupendous undertaking done well all along the way, by several directors. The series will stand the test of time to be sure.
Oh, since the Best Director prize usually goes to the director of the Best Movie, I’m assuming that Michel Hazanavicius (maybe we’ll find out how to pronounce it tonight!) will win. If on the other hand The Help wins, then maybe Payne or Scorsese will win, since inexplicably, The Help’s director was not nominated (I guess they didn’t need him to so lovingly bring the best-selling book to the screen).
I guess you can hear my little nitpicks, so I’d better wrap up by saying that Octavia Spencer will be dressed exquisitely, and Merle Streep will not. But then there Sasha Baron Cohen…
And now, it’s OFF TO THE OSCARS!

Shhhhh ...It’s a Silent Movie!

I was not prepared to like The Artist all that much. After all, it was in black and white and used subtitles (you know, like closed captioning) instead of dialogue. There was music of course, and near the end, a sound or two.
Then, lo and behold, I started caring about those black-and-white people, got sucked into their story, exhibited all the right emotions at the right times, and – although it was maddeningly predictable – fell under its spell.
Much of that was due to the performances of three of its stars – two of them Oscar-nominated.
Jean Dujardin and Bérénice Bejo are both delightful in their roles as the silent movie star and the up-and-coming talkies ingenue. Their budding love story is really fun to watch. 

The story has every up and down: elation, sorrow, love, heartbreak, humor, triumph, tragedy, and redemption. 
And it has Uggie. Now there’s one actor that should have been nominated. The adorable little Jack Russell Terrier sticks to Dujardin like glue, and his every move is just terminally cute. Everyone should be so lucky as to have a dog like that. 
The makers of this movie did several things right. They cast the right actors, the aforementioned and others like James Cromwell, John Goodman, and Penelope Ann Miller. They got the details right, with great props and sets and costumes that allowed us to step back in time to the late ‘20s and early ‘30s. The home decor, the cars, everything was perfect.
The movie isn’t perfect – it’s pretty simple after all – but it sure was fun. 
As for it’s Oscar chances, I’m ambivalent. I’ll discuss that further in my Oscar picks ... which will follow this post.
But for now, I’d recommend you get to a theater and see The Artist. You won’t waste your money!
I’m giving this three-and-a-half reels (out of four). Actually, more like three-and-three-quarters.

Blue Man Group Review

Opening night and the Orpheum was packed, all there to see three hairless men painted blue.
Beginning with a series of funnier and funnier and sillier and sillier electronic messages scrolling above the stage, the audience was engaged. They eagerly did whatever the messages commanded them to do, like reciting "Happy Birthday" to someone in the audience (“No singing!”). Like a warm-up comedian, the signs got the crowd laughing and clapping, before we ever saw a human being (or a blue man). 

 

Then the three appeared, performing some acts we may have seen before on television, like making paintings with colored spit, or catching said paint balls in their mouths before painting. The blue man on the right caught a stream of them, in two sessions, so many I lost count after about a dozen. The people in the front rows wore clear raincoats in anticipation of the mess.
People were plucked from the audience to appear on stage in skits. 
My favorite of the night was the young woman who sat with the three at a dining table, all facing the audience and all mirrored above so we could see the tabletop clearly. Slowly, they moved through a meal of Twinkies … well, you kinda had to be there, but it was hilarious. At one point, a blue man hands her a candle and a lighter. No sooner does she light it than another blue man whips out a fire extinguisher and puts it out. When one begins vacuuming up Twinkie wrappers, he oversteps and sucks up a piece of Twinkie, prompting another one to suck up “Christina” on the Andrew Wyeth painting hanging behind them. 
Beautiful visuals filled the stage often. Expert use of hi-tech devices enhanced the show; and their send-up on tweeting was very funny and relevant. 
They played unlikely musical instruments (PVC pipe?), making credible music. They flung an unsuspecting audience member, covered in blue paint, up-side-down onto a canvass (“backstage" and most likely pre-taped).
They concluded with a “rock concert,” complete with audience rules of behavior (all given by those overhead electronic signs and on-stage screens). We were bombarded with confetti and streamers and ginormous inflated glowing balls, all accompanied by strobe lights. I was happy for the ear plugs they provided on request, although I heard old-hands say this wasn’t nearly as loud as some of their shows.
And hour and a half, straight through, of laughter. All ages attended, and all seemed to enjoy it immensely. Definitely worth the price of the ticket! 
Blue Man Group continues through Sunday, with matinees added on Saturday and Sunday. Limited seats are available for the weekend, so hurry!

War Horse

Looking for a thrilling yet heartwarming story? This is the one for you (and all of your family save maybe the little ones).
Steven Spielberg’s War Horse is the story of a boy and his horse ... well, really it’s much, much more. It’s the start of WWI in England, and horses are being conscripted into the army.

Albert and his parents are at odds about the thoroughbred (Joey)
that dad foolishly bought instead of the plowhorse he needed.

Young Albert, who has raised the spirited horse named Joey, must part with him for the cause. The young officer promises he will do his best to bring Joey home to Albert. Sadly, that partnership is cut short and the horse begins an odyssey across the front lines, from German to France to No Man’s Land.
Joey is used by Brits and Germans, friends and foes. He is worked beyond most horse’s capabilities. But beautiful Joey is strong and special and touches many lives.
Meanwhile, Albert is finally able to join the Army in his quest to find his horse. Sound melodramatic? It might have been but for the deft hand of Spielberg, who elevates it to a thing of beauty. From the natural beauty of the English countryside to the terrible beauty of battlefields, he brings World War I to life just as he did WWII in Saving Private Ryan.
The war scenes are difficult to watch, but necessary to this story. At two and a half hours, it is long, but not overly long. Newcomer Jeremy Irvine, along with Emily Watson and Peter Mullan and the rest of the impressive cast, are spot on in their roles.
Put this in the category of movies like Seabiscuit, National Velvet, Secretariat, Marley & Me, Lassie … stories of heart, and loyalty, triumph over sometimes enormous odds. I liked this movie a lot and was especially moved by the tragic scenes of war.
Three and a half reels (out of four)