“I’m Not There” [review]
I felt like writing a review, and due to all the talking about the film as of late, I just thought I’d throw my two cents into the ring. Going into the film, I expected a great film, but I was skeptical, because I didn’t see eye to eye with everyone’s expectations. The outcome, however, was grand. Mainly because I didn’t expect anything more than a few great performances. Here’s my review.
This film had crucial risky directorial choices, considering it is trying not to offend the man the film was portraying. This was hard, considering the entire thing is from plain sight, very experimental. To mix authenticity and ‘uniqueness’ together may cause duress, and it may become a big bust. Thanks to Todd Haynes’ dexterous job in the director’s chair, pinpointing all accuracies, and creating a film both honest to Mr. Dylan, as well as creative and even ‘bizarre’ at times. His use of Dylan’s songs were miraculous. Some to add symbolic references, some to set the mood, and some because they fit the scene perfectly. Some unique songs were thrown in to boot, and not all of his greatest hits made the cut. Haynes’ ideas for the cast were also par none, getting some of the best working actors and actresses today, to portray the man himself. Easily one of, if not, the most distinctive directorial jobs of the year.The screenplay, also helmed by Todd Haynes, is very unique. It isn’t telling a life story, complied into a direct series of events, like most biopics. Rather, ‘different’ artists’ life stories, complied to re-create Dylan’s journey as a musician, and not the hardships of his everyday life. By doing so, it barely going into his ’struggle’, and predominately showing his trials as an artist, and not how he got there. Haynes’ vision was just choosing interesting, ‘important’ stories to keep the viewer enjoying themselves during the 2+ hours of running time. While you’ll say “obviously, all bio-pics do that”, this doesn’t give a conclusion to a career, nor a definitive ending.
The acting from the tremendous ensemble was fantastic. Every performance was ranked from great to fabulous, and even people with limited time stuck with you.To start, I’ll talk about two cameo roles. Both are from Academy Award nominees, and both were great. The first role is performance by Julianne Moore, who’s character is apart of the ‘documentary/interview’ section of the film. She is Moore, and thus knows how to act. However, her character had very little to work with, and was basically just apart of the film because they wanted to add more star power to the film. She was fine, but didn’t add or take away from anything. The other cameo performance comes apart by Michelle Williams, who plays Blanchett’s girlfriend (sexy, eh?). Sadly, you never see Williams and her husband on screen together, because their stories are different (for those wondering). She did a great job in a very, very small amount of time. Completely stole the scenes she had away from Cate; a hard feat to accomplish.
In my opinion, the ‘worst’ of all of the Dylan portrayals comes from Academy Award nominated Heath Ledger. He plays “Robbie“, and I thought he didn’t do much, but it wasn’t like he had much to work with anyhow. On a fault of my own, I got Bale and Ledger confused a few times, due to the striking resemblance. So my opinion on this matter could be taken as void, and I accept that. From what I do remember of Heath’s performance was that he did have a few pretty good scenes with Charlotte Gainsbourg. Pretty good performance, but wasn’t better than anyone else from the cast.
Christian Bale plays “Jack“, who later turns into the spiritual Dylan, known in this film as “Pastor John“. I honestly find Bale to be one of the most overrated actors currently, and this performance gives me more reason to believe that. While he is very good, he is inconsistent with his performance. His performance isn’t bad by any means, whatsoever, just not fantastic like the others. He did very well with what he had, but quite a bit of his role had very little dialog. This segment just seemed out of place, and Bale’s performance reflected upon it.
Richard Gere plays the ’spiritual’ Dylan, as “Billy“, who’s story is (in my opinion) the weakest story, because it lags and goes almost nowhere. Gere’s performance, however, saves this section from being completely bad. As Gere does, he brings great emotion into his roles, and since nothing else was happening in these scenes, the viewer was much more focused on Gere, rather than the whole concept behind his character. Due to this, I hung on every word he said, and he is such a ‘poetic’ actor. His voice is memorable, and his character was easily the most ‘heroic’ of all of them. Great year for Mr. Gere, and this performance only adds to the statement.
Ben Whishaw plays “Arthur“, who’s the ‘courtroom Dylan’. His dialog is completely composed with no one else in the scenes and done to perfection. In the seven minutes of screen time he has, he compiles Dylan’s life and vision/thoughts better than most of the film. He really holds the film together, which is surprising due to the amazing cast. He had little to work with, other than a lot of dialog that didn’t involve much emotion. His performance was fantastic and is the underrated performance of the film, by far.
Most of you are probably wondering why I haven’t talked about Gainsbough. This is because she is fantastic, and gives one of the best performances of the film. Charlotte Gainsbough plays “Claire“, the significant other of Ledger’s character. Surprisingly, she has a fairly large role, and doesn’t express Dylan in a conventional way, though to some extent ’symbolically’. An everyday person, frustrated due to being disappointed by people. Besides this, she gives a phenomenal performance. Her expressions, her presence and basically everything that has to do with her performance was just fantastic. I had completely forgotten about her until I started writing the review, and shame on me for that. Don’t see this only for Blanchett, but for Gainsbough as well.
Cate Blanchett plays “Jude“, the ‘out of control Dylan’. Her performance was fantastic, but at times she overacted a lot. I predict her to win the Supporting Actress award this year, because her performance is very, very revolutionary, and she does play out of her element to an extreme degree. We all have heard it’s an amazing performance, so it’s almost pointless for me to go into details here, for I agree to an extent.
My favourite performance comes from Marcus Carl Franklin, who plays the leathertramping Dylan, as a child, in “Woody“. His story was my favourite of all of them, and his performance [while not the best] was extremely heartwarming, and very lovely. His character shows more struggle than any other performance in the film, his voice was better than all of the other actors in the film, and his singing was so magnificent, it really gave me chills. If the year weren’t so amazing in Supporting Actor, he’d get a nomination easily. Very easily.
The technical aspects of an ‘experimental’ film should standout very much. These are an essential part of having a film that is experimental. It shows the beauty of the idea perfectly, and really enhances the ‘absurd’ parts of a movie. This film is no different.The makeup really helped the film be what it was, especially due to Blanchett’s role. She really did look like a man, and because of this, I found that it was extremely well used. Along with this comes very glamourous hairstyles and wacky makeup.
The art decoration was great, especially in the pad. The houses everywhere ranged from completely empty with almost nothing besides a few mirrors, to a well kept house, tidy with a few ‘expensive’ things. From very modern to very unique, the decor was a major part of the settings and atmosphere.
The cinematography was a key ingredient in making this film so ’special’. A lot of what happened had specific lighting, had a specific ‘tone’ it needed to grasp, in order to accomplish the right vibe. This film’s cinematography does that, thanks to Edward Lachman. Just great, great stuff.
Finally, the best tech of the film was the film editing. Without great editing, this film wouldn’t of worked. It kept a brisk pace, by splicing the ’slowish’ stories and very intriguing stories together, by cutting up parts of scenes, and scattering them everywhere. Some will call the film very unorganized, incoherent, and flat out ‘outrageous’ to try to create such a ploy. I thought the completely opposite. Nothing was in chronological order, thus adding to the experimental feel Haynes created.
Nominations for I’m Not There
Best Actress in a Supporting Role – Cate Blanchett (#2)
Best Director – Todd Haynes (#4)
Best Film Editing – (#1!)
Best Ensemble Cast – (#1!)
4 Nominations and 2 Wins.
My Rating : 8/10. #29 of the Year
“Enchanted” [review]
Well, I went to this film in a ’spur of the moment’ type thing, brought on by severe boredom and curiosity. Knowing it was a Walt Disney film, and knowing that it couldn’t be as great as everyone is saying, I basically went to see it for the lovely Ms. Adams. Surprisingly, the film is very much unlike the rest of their latest films; with great performances, an original concept, and some 2-D animation! Alright, onto the review of this shockingly great film.
To be honest, the direction of this film was very average, and very much like the rest of the Disney productions. Mr. Kevin Lima didn’t bring anything new to the table, and it seemed as if he only followed the script. This means he didn’t have a vision of his own, but only Disney’s vision, which did hurt the creativity of the film, but it was great nonetheless. He had some good ideas, but what could you honestly expect from a person who’s done 102 Dalmatians. If he wanted to stand out more, as a director, he could’ve done a few things differently from the Disney trend.Surprisingly enough, there was a great standout in the ‘behind the camera’ section, and that was the writing. I knew it would be at the very least; interesting, but it is so much more than just ‘unique’, and enters a league outside any other Disney work. His resume was previously very unimpressive, with two films, and both were written with a fairly creative concept, but executed poorly in dialog. These films were Premonition and Blast from the Past. Since this film depended on creativity, Bill Kelly really had to pull through to make it work. Fortunately, he created a script that while cliche, and marketed at kids, it also had enough adult situations to keep both parties enjoying themselves. He also tied in some other fairy tales, to make the movie like a spoof, but with an actual ‘original’ plot outline, and only uses these ’spoofs’ as a comedic device. Very good work on Kelly’s part, and hopefully he keeps working at this level of skill from here on out.
The acting was surprisingly much more than just one great performance, but rather a few great performances, and one fantastic one. Susan Sarandon plays “Queen Narissa“. The role is predominately voice work, with about three minutes of actual face time. She plays the role very well, and does great voice work. She was evil, her nonexistent presence was scary, and she delivered all of her lines very well. Though, my problem is : Why cast Susan Sarandon when you have a perfect Michelle Pfeiffer, who’d be perfect for the role?.
Patrick Dempsey plays “Robert Philip“, the lawyer that finds the princess in a ‘disillusioned’ state, and who takes care of her. While I thought the role didn’t have all to much to work with, he was certainly disappointing. Every emotion he emoted seemed fake, which hurt the film, because in a sea of great performances, the second biggest role was portrayed as wooden. On a side note, I would’ve loved to see Paul Rudd in this role. He not only looks the part, but would’ve been fantastic with this material, in my opinion.
James Marsden plays “Prince Edward“, in his best performance ever. He fit the role perfectly, and was hilarious. He had great chemistry with everyone he encountered, and stole every scene he was in. I was worried that he would do a bad job, because of his horrendous turns in other comedy films. See Interstate 60; probably the worst performance ever (i kid you not). Anyways, he certainly looked the part, and had a wonderful voice that carried throughout his musical scenes. A grand performance, and hopefully Marsden continues to work in musical films, because it seems to be his strong point.
Timothy Spall, one of the most underrated British talents by far, plays “Nathaniel“, the Queen’s chore boy. He transforms the himself into this character so flawlessly, that he deserves more recognition than he’s getting. It’s all about Adams and Marsden, but Spall was the true ‘comedic’ hero of the film. So many great scenes for him to work with, and a lot of varieties of character for him to create, makes this performance my favourite of the film.
Amy Adams plays “Giselle“, in her wonderful turn as a fairy tale princess in a modern society. I don’t understand what people were saying about her having “a wonderful transformation”. While the transformation she goes through is great, adapting to a realistic society, it wasn’t all that ‘transformed’, and more sudden than anything. From disillusioned to slightly less disillusioned… that’s it. That being said, it is a certain contender for the Oscar, and yes over Marion. I’d even place her over Marion, because while she gives an amazing performance, she also a)carries her voice majestically, b)gives the best performance as a princess… ever, and c)is so damn adorable. I was wrong to doubt Adams’ talent, and should’ve known better, because she is the best actress of this decade. (3/3 for me)
The technical aspects were very good. From the beautifully written songs, to the CGI, it was all done well.The cinematography was okay, but nothing too outstanding. Don Burgess did his job, and created a realistic feel to the film, but he didn’t have much to go on here.The makeup was great. Though it is only used in a few scenes, it is very effective, and makes the actor look completely different, every time.
The costume design is wonderful, and ever so beautiful to look at. The eye candy is mainly perpetuated by Giselle, and her crafty wardrobe work. But other lovely costumes are found in every day society, a ball, and from the witch. Everything is done wonderfully, and for that it gets a nomination. The same goes for the Art Decoration, but to a lesser extent. It is lovely, but doesn’t get the opportunities to shine like the costumes. Only a few places looked wonderful, so it doesn’t get a nomination; mainly due to limited resources.
The sound was wonderful. Mixing instruments, melodic chirping, wonderful vocals, and police sirens together, to create an unrealistic realism that the film needed to achieve.
The score by Alan Menken and Stephen Schwartz was very simple, but also very nice. Like most Disney scores, it gives a fanatical feeling, as well as an uplifting melody that makes the film easy to swallow. Sadly, it sounded way too much like many other scores, so I wasn’t impressed at all by it.
Finally, the outstanding ‘tech’ from the movie was easily the original songs. I loved all five of them, and if this year weren’t so strong, they’d all get nominated. Amy Adams has a wonderful voice, so the three songs she sings were just so lovely to listen to, it’s beyond words. The other two were great, but I prefer “So Close” (Jon McLaughlin) [my second favourite from the film] to the ‘acclaimed’ song from the film “Ever Ever After (Carrie Underwood) [which i thought fit the film well. just didn't appreciate this song all that much]. All in all, one of the best soundtracks of the year, for these songs alone, and I will try to get these songs a.s.a.p.
Golden Globe Nominations [Comedy/Musical]
Best Picture (#3)
Best Actress in a Leading Role – Amy Adams(#1!)
Best Actor in a Supporting Role – Timothy Spall or James Marsden (still debating) (#5)
Best Costume Design – (#3)
Best Original Song – That’s How You Know (#3)
5 Nominations and 1 Win
My Rating – 9/10 [yes, that high]
“Redacted” [review]
I wasn’t exactly ‘anticipating it’, because of the mixed reviews, and fairly disappointing scores on both RottenTomatoes and Metacritic, I didn’t know what to expect. Well, this film, in all honesty, blew me away. The film is hard to sit through, and I did squirm twice during it. If you look up the film at Rotten Tomatoes, the quote right under the percentage is “Despite DePalma’s passion, the film suffers from stereotypical characters.”, and that is definitely something I’d disagree with. Of course a lot of war characters have similarities, and in that category this film is different, in the ways that it explores much deeper into the psyche of grunts, sargents and soldiers alike.
One of the most inconsistent directors in Brian DePalma, helmed the film, as well as wrote it. DePalma’s direction of this movie is far more gritty and honest than the rest of his entire filmography. Not only does his vision captivate you, with it’s perfect dexterity, but it also make you endure the entire, gut wrenching 90 minutes. Though the ninety minutes doesn’t seem like a long time, it certainly feels longer, for all the right reasons. Another interesting fact is that he had to use High Definition Cameras for the whole film, otherwise he wouldn’t of gotten the right production and backing for the film. His use of these cameras may have compromised his vision, but I think they were used perfectly. Anything other than these cameras used would’ve probably ruined the ‘reality’ of it all, in my opinion. If there’s a comeback to direction this year, it isn’t Sidney Lumet, but rather Brian DePalma
His take on this tragedy, writing wise, is just as good as his direction. A lot of realistic dialog. In my opinion the script was very ‘van sant’ like, in that it was realistic situations, with realistic character with dialog that fit perfectly in every moment. The heinousness of his ideas are both shocking and some how still tastefully done. Well not tasteful in the traditional sense, but done proper enough to be deemed ’suitable’ and not ‘done in bad taste’. The situations, and fabricated truths the film perpetuates are perfect for the whole premise of the film; war brings out the good and evil in people. Truly an under appreciated masterpiece, in my honest opinion. Certainly DePalma’s best work.
The acting, alike the writing, is very real. The thought that DePalma had in casting fairly unknown actors to portray these roles was wonderful, because you never thought back on their previous roles, and went on about ‘how he could’ve done this better; see this film, etc’. A lot of the stronger male performances of the year come from this movie, and the characters these actors undertook worked perfectly for them. This film is certainly an ensemble piece, among other things.I felt that Mike Figueroa was very under used in his role as “Sgt. Vazques. He did a great job in his role, with almost nothing to work with. The sad thing was that he wasn’t exactly one of the ‘main’ characters, so he was very wasted. I think he should’ve gotten a bit more screen time than he had.Ty Jones plays “Jim Sweet“, the Master Sergent of the infantry portrayed in the film. He is not unlike Jamie Foxx in Jarhead, with his foul mouth, foul, but yet truthful points. He spurs out his dialog with a lot of anger, and a lot of passion. A very fine performance from Mr. Jones, and I certainly hope he isn’t a ‘one trick pony’, and gets casted more now.
Kel O’Neill plays “Gabe Blix“, the ‘nerd’ of the group. Constantly reading, and very poetic in his speech at times. Very much unlike the rest of the characters. Again, he was only a ’surface’ character, and didn’t have much to work with, except the occasional one scene with real ‘meaning’. He was very good as well, and had the film been longer (which I think it should have), he would’ve probably stood out much more.
I completely loved Izzy Diaz’s portrayal of “Angel Salazar“, who’s only reason for being involved in this war, is because he wants to go to a film school. He is the main reason for a lot of the ‘footage’ that the film has; shooting everything, every situation on his digital camera. This shows us a lot of the ’surprising’ footage that you wouldn’t of seen otherwise. He is kind of a mix between a ’surface’ character and a ‘meaningful’ character (not to say surface characters cannot have meaning), in that he emotes a lot, but doesn’t have a lot to work with. Just a bit more dialog for him to have worked with, and he probably would’ve made my top ten.
Rob Devaney plays “Lawyer McCoy“. His performance isn’t exactly glamorous or fantastically emoted, but he does a good job, because his character is meant to be the ’subtle’ one of the cast. He does a very good job in this role, and he even looked like a typical soldier, which helped a lot in making me believe him. On a side note, he has the ‘money shot’ of the film, at the very end. Perfect scene to close the film.
Daniel Stewart Sherman plays “B.B Rush“, who is the most disturbed character of the film. He makes the character him. He makes you hate him as a person, which is phenomenal, because I’ve never felt this way about a performance since The Green Mile. Constantly unconscionable, and vividly vile, so many adjectives could describe this atrocious character. He had a lot to work with, being the main antagonist and all, which helped make his performance one of the best of the film.
The best performance in this movie comes from Patrick Carroll as “Reno Flake“, who has a lot of dialog, a lot of screen time, and a lot to work with. He has a two fantastic monologues nearing the end of the movie, which really made his performance stick out at the end. Up until that, he was a very arrogant character played increasingly better throughout the entirety. By the end, I was astonished at how well he went through the motions. The best performance of the film by far.
The technical aspects of the movie are very well done. As well done as any R rated war movie I’ve ever seen.The makeup is fantastic. Absolutely fantastic. A lot of gruesome things for the makeup department to work with. From limbs laying everywhere, to deep wounds, to basically anything violent you could imagine.The cinematography by Jonathon Cliff is very good. A lot of creative uses for the digital camera, as well as normal dolly tracking shots. The background in some of the scenes are breathtaking, but only a few scenes have such shots to drool over. There were also some very interesting choices for camera placements, and it all worked out wonderfully in the end. He’s quite a talented photographer, and I hope to see more of his work in the future.
The music used in the movie is very emotional and intense. Though it does get a little agitating at times, because it’s used a bit too much, it’s still very beautiful. Unfortunately, it is not original, and I do not know who composed it, so it isn’t eligible in the ‘original score’ category, and I cannot credit the composer.
Finally, the outstanding tech from the movie; the film editing. Oh my, was the camera ideas perfect. A lot of wonderful scenes, a lot of interesting uses of the internet for some scenes, and just… wow. I really don’t know how to explain film editing, but this film kept a rapid yet soft pace, and had wonderful angles and ‘re-uses’ of scenes. Excellent, excellent stuff.
Nominations for Redacted
Best Picture – (Three Way Tie for #1!)
Best Director – (#1!)
Best Original Screenplay – (#5)
Best Ensemble Cast – (#2)
Best Film Editing – (#1!)
Best Makeup – (#2)
Six Nominations and Three Wins
My Rating : 9/10
My Review for ‘No Country for Old Men’
The Coen Brothers are back in Oscar form, with their latest film No Country for Old Men. The film gives us stellar acting, ‘on the edge of your seat’ moments, and yes, even a few laughs; making it the ultimate film. Meaning one you can always enjoy, and always find ‘quality’ in. The pace is alike fluid, never slowing down. Though the film lacks depth, it has a lot of ‘face’ value. It never goes into the human psyche, but rather gives us reasons to believe certain things are certain things. It isn’t a ‘thinking’ film, but for only this reason, it is. The film is crammed full of subtleties, giving the viewer new perspective on film, and that not every entertaining film has to be explosion after explosion. As for the writing, you’ve got lyrical writing that juxtaposes crude, and crude writing that juxtaposes unnecessarity. Some scenes may be out of place, and the script [at times] tries to force common knowledge down our throats. This is the film’s only real flaw.
Onto the review.
The direction by the Coen brothers [yes, both of them] is very interesting, as always. They bring Hitchcockian suspense to the film, as well as Argento-esque terror, and as always their dark humor. While the script is fairly uneven, the Coen’s do know how to make it work. They choose a lot of unusual ideas, that other director’s would not do [ie - the subtleties]. They also create quite a horrific atmosphere, for the most part. This sets the film up perfectly, for it is more than just a ‘crime’ film. This is probably their best film, with Fargo and The Hudsucker Proxy right behind it.The script was adapted by the Coen brothers from the Cormac McCarthy novel by the same name. Now as I previously mentioned, I found the script flawed, but yet it worked. One flaw from the film was that it was too palpable. It didn’t leave too much to the imagination, which really would’ve helped the viewer ‘connect’ to the film more. The only ‘connection’ the viewer has with this film, is of but one ‘thought-provoking’ area, and that lies beneath the ambiguous ending. A few of the scenarios are unnecessary, but some of them are wonderful. The best scenes come with the character “Anton Chigurh“, because he definitely has the most ‘face-value’ depth. When the script focuses on his insanity, and his obsession, the film really picks up. It’s sad though, because the most interesting character of this year, and probably this decade, isn’t the lead. If they had focused more on Anton, the film would’ve been more interesting. As opposed to splitting the plot up three ways. But, I am fine with how it turned out. My last thought on the script would be that even though it did lack in some essential ‘perfect’ film qualities, it definitely could’ve been worse with a different director[s] at the helm.
The acting of this interestingly casted ensemble is great. The ‘main’ performances are all solid, which leaves no room for someone to contest, in this area.
Kelly Macdonald plays “Carla Jean Moss“, Llewellyn’s wife. She has a very small amount of screen time, which is bothersome, because as the only ‘main’ female in the film, she did a great job. Her southern accent was very realistic, not a flaw in her speech. All of her scenes were great, but then again, the sum of her scenes would be about six minutes. Hopefully she’ll get a bigger role in the future, because she is one of this year’s new ‘hidden talents’.
Woody Harrelson plays “Carson Wells“, an ex-Special Forces officer, who will help Llewellyn if he gives him the money. His performance is pretty much just there to add plot. The character doesn’t bring much to the table, but Harrelson’s portrayal of Wells is great. He captures the slimyness of the character, making the viewer odious of him. He suffers from Macdonald’s problem, in that his role is small. Though it is a bigger part than Macdonald’s, it isn’t much bigger. A very good portrayal of a very supporting character.
Tommy Lee Jones plays “Ed Tom Bell“, the sheriff in the film. He is unjustly billed first, and is probably only there because he is the only ’star’ of the film. He has a role smaller than both Brolin and Bardem, and doesn’t do nearly as much with his time as either of them. In fact, besides the ending, he is just playing a role he’s played oh so many times. This is not to say the performance is bad by any means, just isn’t as good as it could’ve been. It’s just Jones rehashing previous roles with new material, in my eyes.
Josh Brolin plays “Llewellyn Moss“, the central character of the film, and for this reason, the only lead. This truly is Brolin’s year, having three great performances in three great films; this is one of those performance. After this year, he is definitely going to get more limelight, having gained star power. Anyways, onto the performance. He plays the role as ‘bad-ass hick’ very well, and certainly is among the Top Twenty Lead Actors of This Year. His take on the role is wonderful, capturing the ‘thug’ mentality, and the traditional Texan essence perfectly. If it weren’t for Javier Bardem, he would’ve gotten a lot more exposure for his role.
Onto a major reason I had to see this movie, Javier Bardem as “Anton Chigurh“, the insane antagonist. His performance is mind blowing, and by far one of the best supporting performance of the decade. His take on this role is singular in retrospect, crafting the role as murderer perfectly. This performance is simply put, flawless.
Among being one of the best acted, best directed films of the year, it’s technical aspects are among some of the best of the decade.Though the film has no background music for the entire film, at the very end, during the credits, there is a very chilling score by Carter Burwell, that would’ve brought more suspense to the film, but this was one of the Coen brothers’ interesting choices. To keep the film suspenseful without having to add skin quivering compositions. Nonetheless, the score is very good. The sound editing is fantastic, for it scares you when it is used at top form. In the scenes of action, all you hear are loud gunshots, and the mood the film projects just makes your heart race.The film editing, done by the Coen brothers [under faux names] is wonderful. As I mentioned before, the pacing is top notch, and without great film editing, the pacing could be uneven, and the film would falter. The film editing ties in with the cinematography perfectly; especially in the country setting scenes. So many beautiful shots in a small amount of time are just overwhelming, and the beauty absorbs you.
The cinematography was done by the Coen’s colleague for life, Roger Deakins, who is one of the best at his work. As I mentioned above, his skill is just masterful, and he sets the mood perfectly for any scenario. From the outdoor, calming, but yet ‘too’ calming scenes, to the dark, eerie tracking shots, his wonders flourish perfectly in this film.
Nominations for No Country for Old Men
Best Picture – (#1!)
Best Actor in a Supporting Role – Javier Bardem (#2) [possible winner]
Best Director – Ethan and Joel Coen (#2)
Best Adapted Screenplay – Ethan and Joel Coen (#4)
Best Film Editing – (#2)
Best Sound Editing – (#5)
Six Nominations and One Win
My Review for Juno.
I saw it awhile ago, but never finished my review for it, so here it is. Also a note on the film. It was only one of two films I saw that got a standing ovation when it was over. It lasted about seven minutes.
Well, I didn’t think the film would be as great as it was. With Jason Reitman as the director, and a blossoming Ellen Page as the lead, what could be bad about it? Well, the answer is nothing. As flawless a comedy movie I’ve ever seen. Constantly funny, with an interesting story and some heartwarming scenes to boot, made this film a very enjoyable experience.The direction by Jason Reitman was great, and proves he is here to stay, and not a one hit wonder. His ideas work perfectly with the already amazing screenplay. He makes sure the pacing of the film (alike thank you for smoking) is fantastic, so you’re always enjoying yourself, and you never look at your watch. Kudos to Reitman, hopefully he gets the exposure he so truly deserves.The screenplay, written by Diablo Cody, is as I said before, simply amazing. Cody is a new writer, and hopefully she writes another script soon. Her ideas, her wit and her humor are fantastic. Not a thing in this film felt out of place, because it was so well written. Well actually, one thing really bothered me, but it was unique so I’ll let it go. The thing was how some of the characters said some of the weird ‘lingo’ I’ve ever heard. Look no further than the trailer for an example. ’shenanigans’. Are you serious? What person says that word, let alone a high schooler? Besides this one minor flaw, the screenplay was wonderful.
A great combination of thoughts between Cody and Reitman really gave the audience something wonderful to love, along with the film. This is the soundtrack, composed mainly by The Moldy Peaches. If you’re anticipating this film a lot, I suggest you try to find some music by them, for it really sets the film’s mood really well.
The fantastic ensemble really made this film what it was. A lot of great characters played by great actors cinched the film’s perfection.Olivia Thirlby plays Juno’s best friend “Leah“, a popular girl, unlike Juno. Thirlby plays this role very well. Her delivery of some of the ’stupid’ lines work so well with the flow of the film, it’s just a shame she was only in it for ten minutes.Allison Janney plays Juno’s mother, well step-mother “Bren“. I can’t understand why people are predicting her, when Garner has a much better chance. Janney has about six minutes of screen time, and only one scene of her’s really stood out at all. Anyways, she’s a love/hate character. Many people will despise her presence on the screen, or they’ll love it. It all depends on how you take to her. She delivers her lines alright, but came off as a bitch to me. I really didn’t like her performance at all.
J.K. Simmons plays Juno’s father “Mac“, and as well all know, Simmons is just a comedic presence that is unmatched by soo many actors. He had slightly more screen time than Janney, and was certainly better than her. He was both very funny and very ‘wise’ in his role, something that you see often, but doesn’t really click as much. I’m glad Reitman wanted to work with Simmons again, because Simmons is just a lovable man, and really made the scenes that would ‘lag’, enjoyable.
Michael Cera plays “Paulie“, a cross country runner, and the ‘man’ who got Juno pregnant. He doesn’t have a lot of screen time, like I hoped. [shouldn't be billed second, but it'll draw a crowd, which is what the producers want] His role is basically like his role in Superbad; a nervous, shy guy. He plays this role as well as his role in Superbad, and if you loved him in that, I’m sure you’ll love him in this.
Jennifer Garner plays “Vanessa Loring“, the woman that Juno plans to give her child to. Garner is in fact great in this role. Don’t count her out of being nominated because you don’t like her, or because you think she looks bad, because she is in fact great. She brings a lot of sincerity to the role, and some unconventional humor. Her chemistry with both Page and Bateman is wonderful, and very realistic. If you like Garner, you won’t be disappointed with her performance here. Also to note, her character goes through some fantastic emotional changes, so just focus on her when you see the film.
Jason Bateman plays “Mark Loring“, Vanessa’s husband. If you loved him Arrested Development, you’ll love him here. His dry wit and charm transfer onto the big screen in this film. His role is the second biggest in the film, next only to Page’s. His chemistry with Page is outstanding [he spends the most time with page in the film], and so realistic. The many scenes they have together are the best in the film. Going from music, to movies to just laughing about life. The best performance he’s ever given, in my opinion.
Onto the main reason everyone wants to see the movie, Ellen Page as “Juno“. As Page said at the Q&A, she wanted this role because Juno is very similar to her, in many ways, and it shows. Her performance is fantastic, and certainly is nomination worthy. Her sarcasm is the standout of her performance. She plays a happy character with a gloomy attitude, and does it miraculously. If you loved her in Hard Candy, you should love her more in this film. Just an all around grand performance by Page. I really hope she gets more exposure as well, after this film is released.
Nominations for Juno
Best Picture
Best Original Screenplay ***
Best Ensemble Cast
Top Tens
Best Actress in a Leading Role
Best Film Editing
My Rating : 9/10
