The Iceman

"The Iceman" has all the staples of a film about the mob.
There's the basics like a business to serve as a front for illegal activity and the money coming in paired with themes like the main character struggling not to betray their family and who they work for.
Either scenario doesn't end well. That is certainly the case in "The Iceman," and it's all based on a true story.
Michael Shannon stars in the film as Richard Kuklinski, a contract killer from New Jersey who killed more than 100 men. The film focuses on a period of his life from the mid-1960s to the mid-1980s, but it is reported Kuklinski's mob career started in 1948.
Director and co-writer Ariel Vroman tells the story, for the most part, in a linear way to show the highs and lows of Kuklinski's life.
He was a family man in the beginning, one that would do anything for his wife Deborah (Winona Ryder) and two kids.
But you soon learn Kuklinski has a dark side that blurs the lines between what he can justify as good and bad all with the purpose to support his family.
At first Kuklinski simply follows orders from his boss in the mob, Roy Demeo (Ray Liotta) while his family thinks he has a day job lucrative enough to support their comfortable lifestyle in the New Jersey suburbs.
After Demeo is told to stay off the grid for a while by his boss, Leonard Marks (Robert Devi), Kuklinski continues on by working with another contract killer Mr. Freezy (and unrecognizable and amazing Chris Evans).
In the film Kuklinski and Mr. Freezy freeze their victims' bodies to cover up when they died. Thus, Kuklinski's nickname "The Iceman."
The filmmakers credit a novel ("The Iceman: The True Story of a Cold-Blooded Killer" by Anthony Bruno)
and documentary ("The Iceman Tapes: Conversations with a Killer) about Kuklinksi's life as sources for their work.
Shannon stands out for his portrayal of Kuklinski over about 20 years of his life and the actors cast in roles of those closest to him help show the type of man he was.
The cast also includes a mustachioed David Schwimmer as Demeo's sidekick, another actor it is difficult to recognize at first glance, and James Franco.
I wasn't familiar with Kuklinski's story before seeing "The Iceman," but I feel the filmmakers effectively used their own style to tell it while staying true to what happened and the book and documentary they credit.
Kuklinski was ultimately arrested and received two life sentences in prison for his crimes. He died in 2006.
In an interview, Vromen said he wanted to focus on the "love story" between Richard and his wife Deborah (named Barbara in real life) in making "The Iceman."
The other side of it is the undercover investigation that led to Kuklinski's arrest.

“When you have 18 or 19 years of stories, of so many characters, and a limitation of time and budget, you gotta choose what story you’re telling,” Vromen said at a recent press gathering in New York, when asked about the brevity of that important chapter. “I wanted to tell the love story. So I started the movie on a date and I end up on a separation.” (northjersey.com)

Maybe Vromen's choice will divide audiences and, understandably, people who knew Kuklinski.
But I think it was a choice worth making to expose people, like me, to one facet of a story they had not heard about and to the inspiration it came from.

The Great Gatsby

After seeing the above photo and reading James Franco's thoughts on Baz Luhrmann's "The Great Gastby" I began to wonder why Mr. Franco wasn't cast in the film.
This is really off topic from where I wanted to start this post, but I will go ahead and say Franco would have made a very interesting Nick Carraway opposite Leonardo DiCaprio's Jay Gatsby.
Franco, a writer and actor with a diverse film resume, could have pulled off the depth of Carraway's character.
Baz Luhrmann's adaptation of the great American novel by F. Scott Fitzgerald already seems to be a love it or hate it film so it is unlikely that Franco as Gatsby's neighbor and, ultimately, best friend, would create any more of a divide between critics and audiences.
My personal preferences aside, Tobey Maguire did fit the bill of Carraway's character quite well.
Carraway is introduced right away, but the narrative to connect him with Gatsby is a slow burn.
Luhrmann's use of glitter, green, and glam are enough of a distraction until Gatsby's delayed appearance.
Carraway speaks the narrative from a perspective slightly different than the novel. I actually didn't notice that until listening to Slate's Spoiler Special about the film. That review, and others I've listened to so far, did not criticize Luhrmann for his choice.
The script, co-written by Luhrmann and Craig Pearce, stays true to the rest of the story.
The visualization of it is to reach a new audience. I just hope they read the novel to see Luhrmann's inspiration.

Leonardo DiCaprio is an obvious inspiration for the director too. Did I mention he is FANTASTIC as Gatsby? Just checking.
Luhrmann builds the anticipation for the viewer, through Carraway's eyes, to meet Gatsby for the first time as one of many luxurious parties rocks on at his mansion off Long Island.
Then you're soon reminded it's all for his lost love Daisy (Carey Mulligan) who lives across the bay with her husband Tom Buchanan (Joel Edgerton).
I noticed similarities to Luhrmann's "Romeo and Juliet" in some of Gatsby and Daisy's interactions and in the visuals he used to connect the characters.
There is tragedy and darkness in both romances, but a feeling of just a little bit more hope from Jay Gatsby.
In fact, Carraway describes Gatsby as the most "hopeful" men he's ever met.
That hope held on until the end of the film and the life of Gatsby's character.
Luhrmann's "The Great Gastby" is very over the top at times, but it's worth it to see the life it brings to a classic story.
That's all, old sport.

Mud

"Have you been to the cinema lately?"

"Why yes, Doug Benson, I have. I saw 'Mud.'"

Doug: "Ooooh, what did you think?"

Me: "Well, if the Leonard Maltin game can wait a bit, let me tell you."

I'll stop my "Doug Loves Movies" dream there because I doubt I'd even be able get those words out on stage. But if you're reading, Doug, here are my thoughts on Matthew McConaughey's latest film. 

The Jeff Nichols (writer and director of "Take Shelter") project stars McConaughey as "Mud," a man on the run encountered by two teenagers, Ellis and Neckbone. 

The encounter is pretty early on the film, set in Arkansas, when Ellis (Tye Sheridan) and Neckbone (Jacob Lofland) find him in hiding on an island in the Mississippi River.
Mud is living in a boat wedged in the treetops that, while it keeps him hidden, he ultimately needs a motor to get off the island so he can escape with his true love Juniper (Reese Witherspoon).
Ellis and Neckbone agree to help Mud by finding a motor for the boat, communicating with Juniper and bringing him food.
On the one hand Mud could be a bad guy, having killed a man in Texas and being pursued by bounty hunters for the crime, but his story also has a good guy component focusing on love and family.
The boys and Mud forge friendships and trust and in the end Nichols effectively mixes the love that is at the backdrop of the characters' actions with the danger connected to Mud's past.
In fact, the softer side of the story distracted me from the fact that Mud committed a crime and had his enemies seeking retribution for it.
I don't know if it was on purpose or not but Nichols' storytelling created a twist in the plot that then allowed for the secret of Mud's world to fully connect with that of Ellis and Neckbone.
The revelation, I think, ultimately brings everyone closer and defines the love they need in their lives.
For Mud, it is from an unexpected source.
Nichols doesn't completely spell it out for the viewer and leaves symbolism he uses in the film up for interpretation, which I liked.
I've never been a huge fan of Matthew McConaughey, but he is growing on me. It's hard not to see the capability he has as an actor through his portrayal of Mud and to know he will have his pick of roles in the future.
The supporting cast of Michael Shannon (also from "Take Shelter"), Sam Shepard, Tye Sheridan, and even Witherspoon are strong alongside McConaughey.
Sheridan and Lofland's characters are reminiscent of those in "Stand By Me" while moving the definition of performances in a coming-of-age story to a new level
I'll watch out for their next roles, as well as anything McConaughey is in.
I need to catch up on some of his work, such as "Bernie" and "Killer Joe," and let's not forget "Magic Mike." I've seen it four times already to study up on Channing Tatum, but McConaughey's performance is impressive too and may warrant a fifth screening.
Some of his next roles are in Martin Scorsese and Christopher Nolan films, which are always a good sign for an actor's resume.
I hope "Mud" stays on the radar for award season later this year.
Overall I can look past the fact that there are several scenes involving snakes in "Mud" and recommend the film as an original work of art to see if you like to think about stories long after they're over.
That's the magic of movies, right?

Spring Breakers

"Spring Break, Spring Break, forever ..."
If you've seen Harmony Korine's "Spring Breakers" it's no doubt those words in James Franco's voice keep running through your head.
It's been happening to me since I saw the film last weekend and I really have no complaints about that or Korine's latest work of art.
Sure there is extreme nudity and lots of drug use that could be a bit polarizing for audiences, but at its core "Spring Breakers" is a story that really draws the viewer in and I actually did feel for the main characters.
Franco plays Alien, a gangster by way of St. Petersburg, Florida, in the film.
He bails a group of partying college girls on Spring Break out of jail and brings them into his world.
By this time in the story the girls Candy (Vanessa Hudgens), Brit (Ashley Benson), Cotty (Rachel Korine) and Faith (Selena Gomez), have already been in a enough trouble so the addition of guns and even more money to their week of drinking and doing drugs is just a natural progression.
Well, not so much for Faith, who Alien is most taken with.
Faith, in addition to her friends, especially wanted to break free from the conformity of college and dorm life for a week but not enough to rob the "Chicken Shack" to fund their travels.
She isn't cut out to be a gangster's sidekick either.
After about half their time in Florida Faith, to Alien's dismay, decides she needs to go home.
And then there were three to take over St. Petersburg with Alien.
There are no hard feelings among the girls when Faith leaves, just the lingering sense they should have all been on that bus together.
Back in Alien land, he gets to know his three partners in crime or "soul mates."
As a boy who dreamed about being kicked out of school so he could live his life being bad, I find Alien, Brit, Candy and Cotty are very similar.
They adapt pretty well to the "bad" lifestyle and having Alien's back against his best friend turned rival in the St. Petersburg gangster scene.
It's a pretty simple story but when you're watching it play out on screen in the style that only Harmony Korine could do, you won't be able to look away.
James Franco's performance, dreadlocks, grill and all, really made the film for me.
I have seen "Kids," of course, and should watch Korine's other films but right now I just want "Spring Breakers" on repeat.
As for Franco, his IMDB page makes me dizzy and I can't wait for all of it.
He is directing, writing and starring in many films in the near future.
Franco probably wouldn't, but he could say "Look at all my sheeyit!"

Frances Ha

I don't normally craft a blog immediately after seeing a film, even if I am really inspired, but I feel it is pertinent to document my thoughts on "Frances Ha" tonight.
My sister and I attended a screening of it at Walker Cinema as part of their retrospective of Noah Baumbach films (such as "Kicking and Screaming" and "The Squid and the Whale.")
"Frances Ha" is Baumbach's latest work that has been popular on the festival circuit during the last year and hopefully will advance to other cinemas so more people can see it.
Tonight Scott Foundas, the chief film critic for Variety, introduced the screening of "Frances Ha."
He dedicated it to Roger Ebert, a legendary critic who Foundas said had been in the very theater where the screening took place. Of course it is known Ebert died today at the age of 70.
Ebert actually posted a blog on Monday about his hope for the future mixed with complete honesty about the challenges in life that took him away from his focus on films.
But he also said watching films could take him away from those challenges and the impact of his illness.
I will admit I haven't consistently read Ebert's work but I am influenced by his long time presence as a writer, critic and movie lover, complete with the "thumbs up" catch phrases and "I'll see you at the movies."
Foundas said in his brief dedication to Ebert tonight that he knew him for 20 years. There didn't appear to be any connection between Ebert and the film about to be shown, but comparing his last blog and the themes explored in "Frances Ha," I do see it.
Ebert's words from Monday reflected hope no matter what the future would bring and Frances, yes she is a fictional 27-year-old woman living in New York City, ultimately does the same.
I think it's fitting, while sad, that the screening was today.
Baumbach directed the film and co-wrote it with star Greta Gerwig, who he is reportedly coupled with in real life.
Gerwig, 29, helped Baumbach, 43, develop his idea and build a character audiences could relate to.
According to Foundas, Baumbach's characters in films such as "Margot at the Wedding" and "Greenberg" did not get a favorable response.
But Frances is irresistible and in turn audiences are loving the film, he said.
I concur.
The story centers on Frances, of course, as she pursues a career with a dance company in New York and battles the city with her best friend Sophie.
But there is soon trouble in paradise and Frances ends up moving from apartment to apartment in between seeing her parents in Sacramento for Christmas (without Sophie at her side) and going on a jaunt to Paris she can't afford.
Sophie continues to be present throughout the film and very important in Frances' life, even though she tries to pretend that's not the case. But the rift between the two friends and their lives also allows Frances to step out on her own.
The film is tough to watch at times and, while perhaps it was not intentional, does express a bit of hopelessness in Frances.
Whether or not Baumbach created that twist to contrast the hope that ultimately defines Frances, it does make the end all the more satisfying when things work for her the way they should.
Baumbach chose to make the film in black and white, which prevented any distractions from the character's faces, dialogue and actions.
It's a brilliant work, story and character that I personally relate to.
Regardless if that is the case for other viewers, on the surface "Frances Ha" is an inspirational film and I hope you see it.

"I got a tax refund, want to go to dinner?"

Stoker

I really can't stop thinking about "Stoker," the recent release by director Park Chan-wook, known for films like "Oldboy" and "Lady Vengeance."
Fans of those films will love his first American language piece, and it's certainly a good place to start for newcomers. (Then see the "Oldboy" series, please).
The visual story of "Stoker" is just as telling as the script and leaves viewers equally thinking about the meaning of the imagery and the dialogue.
The main character of the film is India (Mia Wasikowska), whose father dies in a car accident on her 18th birthday. India is left living in an isolated mansion with her mother Evelyn (Nicole Kidman) and her Uncle Charlie (Matthew Goode), who comes into the picture the day of the funeral.
India's father is clearly the person she was closest to and who understood her the most and his death causes her to unravel. Uncle Charlie's presence doesn't help. Overall it seems India is infatuated with Charlie and resentful and jealous toward her mother.

But she also has a side I couldn't really pinpoint. Was India's obsession with Charlie all a ploy to get revenge toward her mother, who seems equally infatuated with him, or just a side effect from her father's death?
I took away that India is the one in control, no matter the cause of her attitude toward her mother and Charlie, and she begins to put together the pieces of why he mysteriously shows up at the funeral and slowly moves into their lives.
As for the cinematography, Park Chan-wook uses each and every set piece, angle and shadow to visualize the strife between his characters as well as their internal battles for the viewer to take away as representation of the purpose of his film.
Kidman, Goode and Wasikowska play well together as three people "stuck" in the mansion to represent the after effects of a horrible tragedy and the depth of their own issues.
Here Park Chan-wook describes his film as a twisted fairy tale and translation of a day's events into a dream - or nightmare.
"Stoker" is a dark, but beautiful, film and I recommend you give it a chance. Park Chan-wook delivers a film that comes full circle by way of India's character and most certainly leaves the viewer wanting more of his stylistic storytelling.

Side Effects

"I think the hardest part about writing is writing." - Nora Ephron.

It's a new year of movies and Oscar predictions are already out for 2014.
Steven Soderbergh's "Side Effects" didn't make this particular list but it is definitely a film to watch, perhaps twice.
Soderbergh has billed the thriller as his last film, other than "Behind the Candelabra," which will air on HBO. Soderbergh unsuccessfully tried to sell the film, about Liberace (Michael Douglas) and his lover Scott Thorson (Matt Damon), to production studios.
I don't really know why the film didn't sell in Hollywood, especially with Soderbergh's solid and diverse library of work, but "Side Effects" is an effective big-screen note to go out on.
The cast includes Soderbergh regulars Jude Law, Catherine Zeta-Jones and Channing Tatum, the star of two of his more recent films, "Haywire," and "Magic Mike."
Rooney Mara is a newcomer for Soderbergh as the female lead, Emily Taylor. Emily is married to Martin (Tatum) who at the beginning of the film is serving the last of his eight-year prison sentence for insider trading.
Martin's arrest turns the couple's white-collar lifestyle upside down and starting over causes some serious side effects on many levels.
Emily suffers from anxiety and depression, enough to drive her car into a cement wall at full speed, and is seen by psychiatrist Dr. Jonathan Banks (Jude Law) in the hospital.
The trailer for this film drops pretty obvious hints that something even worse than prison or depression happens to Emily and Martin. My only advice is to really pay attention to all the details the first time around and then see the film again once you know what clues to look for.
Soderbergh and screenwriter Scott Z. Burns (who also worked on "Contagion" and "The Informant!") throw in a lot of twists and turns that change the story from what appears to be a dramatic commentary about the pharmaceutical industry to a straight up "whodunnit" mystery.
Maybe I am just that much of a fan of Soderbergh, but only he can manage to turn out an enjoyable film even if the viewer doesn't entirely know what is going on from one minute to the next.
I wouldn't say there are any stand out performances from the actors because, especially in this film, Soderbergh distributes the importance of the characters' motives pretty evenly.
One potential negative about "Side Effects" is there may be holes in Soderbergh's plot, but I think I'll know that better when I see the film again.
The Slate's Spoiler Specials podcast was also helpful to listen to for some insight into the story.
It would calm my nerves the most if Soderbergh really wasn't retiring from directing films.
He's had such a consistently solid career and, while Channing Tatum has many films in the works, who is going to direct "Magic Mike 2?"
I am always skeptical about sequels but Soderbergh's ability to work with regular stars over and over makes him the man to tell us ladies what is going to happen next for Mike.
Or maybe Tatum is the new Soderbergh?

That's a wrap

Wait a minute, The Oscars are tonight?
Fail. I still have four best picture nominees to see, not to mention a handful of the films with nominated actors and actresses and the whole lot in the documentary, foreign and animated categories.
I'll still watch the big show tonight and try to get to all the nominees after the fact. Better late than never, right?
Before I get to the predictions I can make, I did recently see the final best picture noms I would get through before the airing of The Oscars.

Today I watched "Beasts of the Southern Wild," which is also nominated for best director (Benh Zeitlin) and best actress Quvenzhane Wallis for her role as Hushpuppy.
Some of the effects would have been more fitting to see at the movie theater, but my small screen showing didn't take away from the film.
It has been showing at the theater I work at since the Oscar nominees were announced and a few people left the auditorium because they couldn't handle the hand-held camera style.
I hardly noticed the camera work over the plot of the film.
Hushpuppy, who is 6 in the film, and her father Wink live in a southern land surrounded by water that they call "The Bathtub."
The film was shot in Louisiana and mixes some reality in the relationships between its characters with the fantasy of how they are surviving in a world that could be washed away by the effects of nature at any second.
I think it's important to use your imagination while watching the film and just let it take you away.
It's enjoyable and certainly a respectable first film by Benh Zeitlin. He collaborated on the screenplay with Lucy Alibar, who wrote the stage play "Juicy and Delicious" that is the basis for the film.
"Beasts of the Southern Wild," was released in theaters the first time last summer after buzz around the film festival circuit like Sundance and Cannes.
While I am supportive of the predictable rat race between "Argo" and "Lincoln," (maybe "Amour" too, although I haven't seen it) for best picture - it is films like "Beasts of the Southern Wild" that make one wish for the surprising wins that rarely happen at the Academy Awards.

Moving on to "Lincoln," I should clarify that I can see why the film is in the mix with the other best picture nominees, I just don't think it's deserving of the award.
I've honestly had a draft of my review about Steven Spielberg's hyped-up baby in the works for a month but I couldn't get the words out just right.
It's not that I didn't like "Lincoln," I just I left the theater wanting something more. This may be a story Spielberg felt needed to be told in a film, using Doris Kearns Goodwin's book,"Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln," as a backdrop, but I honestly would have been satisfied with a lesser-known tale about the president or even something completely fictional.
Daniel Day Lewis' acting was one of the high points of the film but there was too much attention on his physical likeness to Abraham Lincoln over his ability to play the part.
The teaser trailer released in September 2012, to me, was only a reason to show viewers the profile of Daniel Day Lewis as Abraham Lincoln.
The visual turned into a distracting fault of the film rather than one of its favorable points.
The plot of the film centers on Lincoln's push for the emancipation of slavery as well as some of his family life and persona as a president.

The U.S. Senate approved Lincoln's amendment to abolish slavery and the conflict turns to securing enough votes from the House of Representatives.
Turns out, according to Wesley Morris' Oscars preview on Grantland, that Spielberg and screenwriter Tony Kushner switched the votes of two Connecticut congressmen to be against the amendment. The facts were changed for dramatic effect and it's been requested there is a correction when the film is released on DVD.
I won't judge the film for that because Morris also points out some inaccuracies in the depiction of the true story "Argo" is based on. However, I wish "the" film to be made about Abraham Lincoln was more out of the box and didn't leave me with the feeling it was made, well, just to be made.
"Argo" seems to be the leader for best picture after it continued to sweep some of the post Golden Globes awards. 

I think it will, and should win, based on what I have seen.
Affleck was snubbed for a best director nomination by the Academy, as was Kathryn Bigelow for "Zero Dark Thirty." It did get honors in the best picture category, but I hear the criticism from the political world may have hurt the film's chances. It is definitely next on my list, and then I just need to see "Life of Pi," "Amour" and "Les Miserables."

Emmanuelle Riva, from "Amour," is getting more buzz to win the best actress award with Jessica Chastain for her role in Bigelow's picture as a challenger.

I can't make many educated statements about best actor, having only seen "Lincoln" and Bradley Cooper in "Silver Linings Playbook," but it is obvious Daniel Day Lewis is the critics' "should-will" selection here.

Denzel Washington seems to be a runner-up for "Flight" but I think Cooper needs to cut is teeth a little bit more in dramatic roles before winning.

The supporting role nominations, at least for the actors, still make me cringe a little bit due to Leonardo DiCaprio's name not being on the list for his performance in "Django Unchained." I am happy overall that the film is recognized among the best picture nominees and for Christoph Waltz's performance.

Jamie Foxx should have been in the mix as well, and what about any nominations for "Moonrise Kingdom?"
It did make it into the screenplay category, but the Wes Anderson film and cast needs more recognition Lastly, I understand "The Master" is a snub for best picture, but it did make quite the sweep in acting with nominations for Joaquin Phoenix, Amy Adams and Philip Seymour Hoffman. Surprise surprise, I also need to see this film.

I certainly have gone on long enough about this Hollywood popularity contest, but it is the culmination of award season and exciting nonetheless to think a few underdogs might get their moment on stage tonight.

If they don't, there is still the opportunity to look at the overall appreciation of film throughout the whole year.  Festivals are ongoing from Texas to Toronto and France to Utah and don't forget the pre-Oscars Independent Spirit Awards to honor anything and everything cinema. 

And by tomorrow the buzz about films that could be the next contenders on that circuit will begin. (I'm thinking Steven Soderbergh's "Side Effects," which I am seeing this afternoon.)

Before I sign off, I recommend watching David Carr and A.O. Scott banter about their Oscar picks from the offices of the New York Times. 

Enjoy the show!

Five to rewind

My sister recently asked me what five movies I would take with me if I were stranded on an island for the rest of my life.
Willllllllllllssssssssssssssoooooooon!
I would have clothes and other necessities, but only five movies. I could only stare at Carla in dismay and said I would have to think about it. This is a tough life question for me and one that is easier to work out in written form.
I just like too many movies and appreciate at least something about all the other ones. I've written about what I would watch if the world were to end and my picks for a weekend here and there, but never only five titles to see over and over.
It makes sense to pick films that mark memories and traditions in my life and bring more joy than living on a sunny island. Here we go, in no particular order:

5. "The Royal Tenenbaums"
This is my favorite Wes Anderson film so much that I have been searching for the perfect Margot Tenenbaum Halloween costume two years in a row. Hopefully I will accomplish that before I am whisked away to an island, but when I am there I will always been in the mood for regular visits with the Tenenbaums.

4. "You've Got Mail"
I know, I know, but I've secretly always liked this movie. It's cheesy, predictable and it makes me happy.
I know there are other classic romances that are better and more worth hanging on to for the rest of my life, but this is the era of the rom com, embrace it. I have a soft spot for many titles on the rom com cheese wheel, but my choice for eternity is the Tom Hanks/Meg Ryan pseudo sequel to "Sleepless in Seattle."

The monkeys on this island don't judge, right?

3. "A Christmas Story" (Did you know the house from the movie is now a museum? I need to go.)

I've always liked watching this on Christmas Eve and only on Christmas Eve. This is one to remind me of my childhood and winter, which hopefully will never happen on the island. I like four seasons of weather, but would much rather have to watch a movie from the winter times on repeat than commute in the snow. Just sayin'. 

2. "Fletch"

This is what I consider a classic. Chevy Chase, Gummy, Sammy, Larry, Provo, Dr. Rosen Rosen, I love it all! "Fletch" is on my end of the world list as well. I have yet to accomplish memorizing all the lines in the movie, so I have to take it to the island. Hopefully my cat can make the trip too. 

1. "Good Will Hunting."

Oh my, this is really my last choice? Can't I throw in "Lost in Translation," "The Labyrinth" and the eye candy in "Magic Mike?"

Sigh.

I chose "Good Will Hunting" because it is one of the many titles I associate with why I love film and I am okay with watching it over and over.

This choice probably sounds silly and insignificant among all the other accomplishments in film, but I've admired and respected Matt Damon's career from the beginning.

This is my list and I am sticking to it. Now, when I actually have the time, I am going to watch "Good Will Hunting" again.

See you on the beach bitches!

The Oscars: Noms and snubs and what I need to see, like now

I've had my coffee and just spent an extensive amount of time this morning reading about Leonardo DiCaprio online.

Fans of his surely haven't been able to get out of bed since Thursday's Oscar nominations were announced and Leo wasn't named for his performance in "Django Unchained."
I am not necessarily upset about the nominees in the best supporting actor category, and I can't judge Tommy Lee Jones or Philip Seymour Hoffman because I haven't seen their films yet. But DiCaprio was FLAWLESS as Calvin Candie.
I loved most everything about Quentin Tarantino's latest baby, but the more I think about it Leo's performance is the best.
"Django Unchained" did get nominated for best picture, Tarantino is in the mix for writing and Christoph Waltz made the cut for best supporting actor.
There is an extra burn for poor poor Leo. Waltz did great and is deserving, but could he have ousted his costar? Awkward.
At least DiCaprio's performance is recognized in other award circles. He received a best supporting actor win from the National Board of Review and Golden Globe nomination, but the Django snub at the Oscars is pretty shocking.
It could be his best role yet and on top of that DiCaprio has a really strong filmography since he started out as an actor.

The Chicago Film Critics Association named Leo the most promising actor after his performance in "What's Eating Gilbert Grape" in 1993. He also earned an Oscar nomination for that film, "Blood Diamond," and "The Aviator."

On one hand the Oscars could be considered an over-hyped popularity contest, but it's the culmination of award season and it really doesn't make sense that an actor like Leo can make it through all the other levels only to be cast out at the end.

I didn't see "J. Edgar" but I did catch the look in Leo's baby blues when he lost out at the Golden Globes to George Clooney last year.

Then he got snubbed at the Oscars for that role too. I don't know if I'll be able to take it if he doesn't get what he deserves at the Golden Globes tomorrow.
What does the man have to do to be recognized by the Academy for some of his best roles? He's consistently worked with top actors and directors, including Martin Scorsese on several occasions.
Come on, he even walked Kate Winslet down the aisle at her wedding! He's got a save the world-type foundation and you never really hear much drama about his life. 

Whatever, "Academy," Leo is better than you. 

There is no good transition to get into the other Oscar nominations here, so I'll just move on from my rant. 

I have quite a few of the best pictures to see, but I can do it. To be honest I am not as excited about crossing the titles off my list as I was last year, but "Lincoln" and "Zero Dark Thirty" are intriguing to me. 

I saw "Argo," which cleaned up at the Critic's Choice Awards as the best picture and with a best director nod to Ben Affleck. We'll see what happens at the Globes, but the film is a contender now.

I have "Beasts of a Southern Wild" on DVD to watch and then just need to get through "Amour," "Life of Pi," and "Les Miserables."

It is nice the nominations are out earlier this year so I can keep on task with my list and have more time before the big show.

Comparing the Golden Globes best picture musical/comedy and drama nominees to the Oscars, "Moonrise Kingdom,"  "Salmon Fishing in the Yemen," and "The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel" did not make the final cut. 

I saw Wes Anderson's picture of course, but not the other two. It would be nice to see that more on the Oscar list, at least for some of the performances. The writing by Anderson and Roman Coppola did get a nod though. 

I admit this is getting really long, but I just find the dynamics of what makes films and actors qualify to be "award winning" very interesting and nonsensical at times.

In the end (ignoring my entire rant about Leo's snub), I hope the award for people behind and in front of the camera is in the form of expression film can be. I have always admired filmmakers for being able to put their individual stamp on documenting true events and history, coming up with something completely from their imagination or bringing a favorite book to life.
That's all, thanks for reading, I need to go watch something now.

"Django Unchained"

The news of the day is the Oscar nominations will be released Thursday and "Texas Chainsaw 3D" beat "Django Unchained" to be No. 1 at the box office last weekend.
WHAT?
Maybe I shouldn't be surprised, but I was coming down from having just seen Quentin Tarantino's film when I heard the news.
I'm over it now and just want to talk about Django!
Tarantino fans won't have trouble liking something, if not everything, about the film. The cast, acting, music, effects and length are all epic.
I knew the film would be a long one before watching, but that didn't impact my viewing experience.
Where to begin?
Jamie Foxx is Django (Tarantino reportedly wanted to cast Will Smith), a slave freed by Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz) about two years before the Civil War.
Schultz is a dentist (bounty hunter) looking for three men who only Django knows and can help him find. The two start a journey across the south to find the men and ultimately save Django's wife Broomhilda from slavery.
Broomhilda (Kerry Washington) is found at the plantation of evil and slightly flamboyant Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio).
The web of characters and stories Tarantino pulled together, even though he used nearly three hours, is impressive to me.
It's consistent with his style, which is why fans will be on board, but I don't know how new audiences are going to take to the film.
I recommend it, of course, as long as people have an open mind and can see the big picture.
Everyone in the theater may be laughing at one minute and covering their eyes during the violent scenes the next.
Tarantino has a knack for all things gore ("Kill Bill: Vol. 1," "Kill Bill: Vol. 2," "Pulp Fiction," etc.) while being able to show the true emotion and evil that leads to the most hurtful violence caused by his characters.
He's also big on revenge, which Django is seeking the most and on many levels.
Basically, be prepared for so much blood splatter and bodies that it's not even realistic and an equal mix of scenes portraying true fear caused by the rivalry in the south.
One criticism I heard about the film is, like "Inglourious Basterds," it should have ended earlier and perhaps in a different way.
Tarantino tricks the viewer into thinking the film is over at least once. Maybe I am in the he-can-do-no-wrong fan club, but I didn't mind the trickery, or the ending.
It doesn't end well for some, but there is a bit of light at the conclusion to help the viewer erase some of the darker moments.
Tarantino, like Wes Anderson, is a true individual in what he creates and I appreciate that the most.
He also brings out the best in his actors, which reminds me I need to mention Samuel L. Jackson's brilliant performance.
Leonardo takes the (white) cake as Calvin Candie and Foxx certainly excels as Django. I wonder about Will Smith, or anyone else, in that lead role. As the critics said on Slate's Spoiler Specials (you can find the podcast on iTunes), Django would have been a different movie without Foxx or any of the chosen actors.
I just hope there is more from Tarantino and he continues to cast his favorites and newcomers.

"Gentlemen, you had my curiosity. But now, you have my attention."

"Pitch Perfect" and "Ted"

I went a little cable crazy these last few days. For the record, the next movie I'll see in theaters will still be "Django Unchained" or maybe "Lincoln," but what's a girl with some time off work to do in the meantime?
I chose "Pitch Perfect," based on a Kay Cannon interview on Hollywood Prospectus, and then "Ted" based on some recommendations from my peeps.
Cannon, of "30 Rock" and "New Girl" fame, wrote the a cappella college chick flick starring Anna Kendrick, Rebel Wilson and Brittany Snow.

Kendrick plays Beca, a beautiful and talented college freshman who can't quite fit in on campus. Enter Snow (Chloe) and Anna Camp (Aubrey) as the leaders of The Bellas, an a cappella group seeking to reboot and win nationals. I won't ruin the reason why The Bellas need another chance, but Doug Benson says it's not for people with emetophobia.
Other than those scenes, I will say "Pitch Perfect" is pretty cliche. Andy Greenwald and Chris Ryan lauded the film for Anna Kendrick's performance and the music choices - but couldn't get over the fact that they are performed a cappella. I can agree with the Hollywood Prospectus hosts there and, considering the overused references to "The Breakfast Club," the film fell flat for me. Cannon did produce a witty script from Mickey Rapkin's book, also favored by Greenwald and Ryan, but it just wasn't enough.
So if you're looking for more of a sure thing appealing to men and women alike (I kind of can't believe I am saying this), try "Ted."
I wasn't skeptical of this film, starring Mark Wahlberg and Mila Kunis, because who could really stop and think that much about a story focused on a talking teddy bear?
In the end I liked it and even found myself laughing out loud during a few scenes.
Wahlberg plays John, a man/boy hanging on to his childhood toy he wished one day would become his best friend. But the toy Ted (voiced by Seth MacFarlane), gets in the way of John having an adult life and hanging on to his girlfriend Lori (Kunis).
Part of the appeal of "Ted" is it's so silly, it's funny and the strong cast (Giovanni Ribisi and Joel McHale with in supporting roles) helps too.
I do like films that make you think and to analyze, but sometimes you need to take things at face value and remember they're about entertainment too.

"Thunder buddies for life!"

Silver Linings Playbook

I spent a lot of time at the movie theater this weekend. I work at one now and get to see movies for free! Friday and Saturday I was tearing tickets and working with all things popcorn, sweeping it, "slinging" it during busy concession times, and then scrubbing the maker at the end of the night.

Today I ate some while watching "Silver Linings Playbook" with my sis, and did I mention it was free? 

Okay, down to business. With all the buzz about SLP it has been on the top of my list of films to see. It was hard to pick just one, but with the Golden Globes a couple of a weeks away and the Oscars not far behind, I will focus on the films with nominations.

Bradley Cooper, co-starring with Jennifer Lawrence, has nods already for acting that I am sure will carry on to the Oscars. Lawrence, as young widow Tiffany, also is nominated for a best actress Golden Globe. 

The David O. Russell ("The Fighter") project is also in the running for best picture and screenplay. 

Cooper steps up his acting as Pat Solatano, a school teacher recovering from a betrayal in his marriage and resulting fight with his wife's lover that sent him on a court-ordered trip to a mental hospital. 

His father is Pat Sr. (Robert DeNiro) and balancing-act mother is Dolores (Jacki Weaver). 

Lawrence's character is thrown in the mix pretty early in the film after Dolores works out a way for Pat to be released from the hospital and live at their home in Philadelphia again. 

It's a relatively simple plot, but with complex characters. David O. Russell throws the viewer right into the story and it's (unnecessarily, I think) fast-moving. 

Because of that and the shift in focus from the Solatano's family dynamic to sports to romance to Pat's struggles with his past, I sometimes couldn't tell what genre the film is supposed to be in. 

It's not a drama for the most part and Zach Baron on Grantland described it as a "romantic comedy."

He also says it's a sports movie, but not really a sports movie. At least it wasn't another "Moneyball."

Baron's statement below put together the missing pieces I needed and made me feel a little bit better about not quite "getting" the film's messages:

"The ways in which Pat, in his pitiable mix of out-of-control rage and deranged optimism, is a product of his struggling underdog city and the maddening football franchise that it hosts will probably be obvious to most readers of this site and lost on a solid percentage of non-sports fans who go see the movie. You have to know Philly, know the Eagles to really get it, how each of these characters is simultaneously badly scarred and up for more punishment. Silver Linings Playbook is a few different movies at once, but one of those movies is about the complicated interplay between a city's sports teams and a city's citizens, the way that over time the two start resembling one another."

I can see how the average viewer may miss some of the Philadelphia references and connections to the plot, unless they read about the film or the novel in advance, but it's good to know I wasn't the only one who saw several movies in one. 

Overall, I enjoyed the scenes where everything and everyone slowed down a bit. Tiffany and Pat had the most heart-to-hearts, and Pat Sr. comes in the mix there too. Chris Tucker, as Pat's buddy from the hospital, was a key sidekick character. DeNiro and Weaver had good chemistry on-screen and their acting was the most polished. 

Cooper will get there as long as he continues to choose his roles wisely.

I haven't seen enough of the other award contenders to say if I think "Silver Linings Playbook" is the best movie of the year, but it should be on the list. I also feel like it would be exciting for Cooper and the film to win in their categories now because they may be underdogs when the popularity contest Oscars are on in February.

Next up: "Django Unchained."

Happy New Year!!!!!

Safety Not Guaranteed

"Safety Not Guaranteed" is a shining example of why I looooooovee mooooovies. Time travel back to 2001? Why not? Fake ears? Sure. Aubrey Plaza and Mark Duplass as a couple? Yes please.

It's one of those films that lets you escape from life for 90 minutes and come out of it feeling a whole lot better. No worrying about how I am going to shovel my car out of 15 inches of snow tomorrow in order to drive to the office for at least a 10 hour work day.

But it would all be better if when I got there I came across a classified ad from a man seeking a partner to time travel with and my editor allowed me to go on a road trip with coworkers to get the story. 

That's the premise of "Safety Not Guaranteed," written by Derek Connolly and directed by Colin Trevorrow. The cast also includes Jake Johnson ("The New Girl"), Karan Soni, Jeff Garlin, Kristen Bell and Mary Lynn Rajskub.

Darius (Plaza), Jeff (Johnson) and Arnau (Soni) are given the O.K. by their Seattle magazine editor to pursue the time travel story and find out who placed the ad. 

Their journey results in self discovery for everyone, including Kenneth (Duplass) who has the time travel mission. 

Kenneth doesn't take well to having Jeff as his partner, but Darius connects with him and is chosen to go along after extensive training.

There is something mysterious about Kenneth and Darius and her team can't figure out if he's crazy or actually able to build a time machine.

The question also is why does he want to go back in time? Why does Darius want to go with him?

Why would anybody want to go back in time? To do things over again and right the wrongs of your past, of course. Maybe there is someone you would never have the opportunity to see again without hopping in a time machine with a slightly off, but cute and endearing fellow. 

You won't know unless you try and unless you watch this movie. Like now!

It's smart, romantic, and unique in its story. If I have to watch a film with any science fiction in it (while I did really like "Looper") this would be my choice. 

"Safety Not Guaranteed" makes time travel as a metaphor for taking risks in life to find what makes you happy. I like, of course, that everyone wins out in the end and it's all happy happy happy. 

So the only choice you need to make is to watch this movie, and hopefully I've convinced you. 

Now, back to reality. There are at least two cars stuck in the parking lot of my apartment building right now and I've been listening to the sounds of tires spinning and shoveling all day. It's gotten so bad that my neighbors are cursing the landlord for not having the driveway plowed.

I am going to time travel to last year's winter when this didn't happen. Over and Out.

Killing Them Softly

Wait a minute, "Killing Them Softly" is based on a novel? I guess I shouldn't be surprised. I am not saying that is a bad thing, but I wish I would have known this fact before seeing the film.
I am listening to a Grantland Hollywood Prospectus podcast about it now and have at least two bookmarks online to read about the mob caper set in time with Barack Obama's 2008 election and a financial crisis in the United States.
Writer and director Andrew Dominik uses audio and video of speeches by Obama and George W. Bush talking about the crisis throughout the film. Without reading the book I am not exactly sure what to make of the commentary, but basically the same political dilemmas happening in the United States are playing out in the world of hit men like Brad Pitt and James Gandolfini.
Pitt, as Jackie, is the enforcer sent to take out "kids" who step into business they shouldn't be in. The "kids" Frankie (Scoot McNairy of "Argo") and Russell (Ben Mendelsohn) hold up a card game run by Markie (Ray Liotta) thinking he will be blamed for it.
The same thing happened years back at one of Markie's games and no one ever knew who did it. There was the theory that Markie set up a robbery of his own game thinking he would never get caught.
Honestly, I don't know if I am spot on with the plot here, but I did get that much from the beginning of the film. Without throwing in any spoilers, it is best to just leave it at that.
While Jackie is the enforcer on the killing side of things Richard Jenkins, known as Driver, seems to be a kingpin on the business end.
Jackie calls in Mickey (James Gandolfini) when he gets a job tied into the robbed card game but it turns out he has to do it all on his own. Mickey is washed up and on probation and more interested in drinking and girls than doing the work.
When it comes down to it, Jackie is working like the rest of America and wants to be paid what he deserves.  It all comes full circle in his end monologue about capitalism with Driver in a bar as yet another Barack Obama snippet airs on the television.
Again I will say I didn't quite get the purpose of the commentary - not ever thinking it was unnecessary - and  decided just to take it out of the equation when deciding whether I liked the film or not.
It didn't really matter when I considered factors such as the acting, writing and visuals.
For me, Pitt made the film anyway in his performance as Jackie. As a fan of Jenkins, his role sweetened the deal for me. Overall the cast is well-rounded with Gandolfini, Vincent Curatola (also of"The Sopranos" fame as Johnny Sacramoni), and even Max Casella from none other than "Doogie Howser."
I've also decided to follow Scoot McNairy more closely now. He's got a long resume, but clearly is in the limelight more now having three big titles out this year. I know I'll be seeing his next film, "Promised Land" by Gus Van Sant and of course starring Matt Damon.
Okay I think I've digressed enough now.
I've come to the conclusion that "Killing Them Softly" is a strong film for the acting and I think it's very unique, love it or hate it.
I think it will definitely be one way or the other for audiences who choose to see it. Just please don't bring your kids, which happened during the showing I went to. This movie is very violent and I don't know what about the word "killing" in the title is not clear enough to show that.
Which does bring me to my one definite complaint about the film. I am a bit squeamish about violence so the realistic and tortuous scenes as the victim awaited his unavoidable death were hard for me to watch. There were also scenes where the violence is depicted off screen with hints to the viewer like blood splatter or gunshots. I thought both types of scenes fit in with the film artistically, but then I was lost when effects that looked more like a video game came into play.
I would have preferred the more realistic scenes - even if I had to look away half the time - but the filmmakers should have just picked one way or the other instead of mixing up the effects styles.
I will add "Killing Them Softly" to my list to see again and try to take more away from the meaning.
Heck, maybe I'll even read that book when I finish the four others I am in the middle of.
Any weekend is a good movie weekend, but with the snowpocalypse rumors flying around again in Minneapolis, maybe you'll want to stay in.
If you have cable, I see the Ken Burns documentary "Central Park Five" is available now as well as "Beasts of a Southern Wild."
Both are on my list, but I am going to try to venture out for a ladies night and a few cocktails tonight if the world doesn't end.
Then tomorrow - MOVIES!

"A Late Quartet"

Despite the complexity of the characters and Beethoven's Opus 131, "A Late Quartet", is a simple film. You can watch, take in the music and understand the struggles of the quartet members all while looking at snapshots of a New York City winter.
Christopher Walken plays the eldest member and cellist in the quartet, Peter Mitchell. He helped raise Juliette Gelbart, the violist played by Catherine Keener. Philip Seymour Hoffman is Juliette's husband Robert, and plays the role of second violin. The dark horse, while he has long-time ties to the rest of the quartet, is Daniel Lerner (Mark Ivanir) on first violin.
At the start of the film the quartet is embarking on its 25th season performing together, primarily in New York City. Mitchell then receives the news he is diagnosed with Parkinson's Disease, which is devastating to the rest of the quartet, especially Juliette.
The diagnosis serves to push the emotions, and in some cases impulses, everyone in the quartet has over the edge.
They're like a family, which director Yaron Zilberman says in a Los Angeles Times interview is not all that uncommon for an orchestra quartet.
Zilberman sets the film against the backdrop of the Opus 131, which is said to be one of the most challenging pieces for a quartet to play.
As Mitchell describes to a class of young orchestra hopefuls, it is seven connected movements that are to be played without pause. The players cannot rest, or tune their instruments. "Our instruments must in time go out of tune, each in its own quite different way," Mitchell says.
He talks to the class reading a poem, "Four Quartets," by T.S. Eliot.
"Was he maybe trying to point out some cohesion, some unity between randoms act of life?" Mitchell continues: "What are we supposed to do, stop or struggle to continuously adjust to each other up to the end even if we are out of tune?"
The struggles are Mitchell's illness, of course, but also lies, infidelity and ego between four people with a passion for music.
The Gelbarts' grown daughter Alexandra - also a musician - is a fifth to the quartet in a way. She is in Mitchell's class and also taught by Lerner. I think she struggles to know if she should be a musician just because her parents are and to have her own identity.
At times, though it was minimal in the scheme of the whole film, I think the strife between the characters was taken too far and at others not far enough.
The relationship between Juliette and Robert has the most strain, and love as we learn in the end, and I think that story needed to be the focus just a little bit more.
It's hardly a flaw of the film, especially with the cast assigned to play out these roles. A lot of Robert's struggle is tied to being second violin - both literally and in his relationship with Juliette - and I think Hoffman did the best standing out in his role.
Walken plays the subdued personality of Mitchell - despite his struggle perhaps being the worst of them all -  perfectly to balance the clash between Juliette, Robert, Daniel and even Alexandra.
Mitchell does break at one point, requiring Walken to escalate a bit, which he also does perfectly.
When the strife between the quartet - with Alexandra in the mix - goes too far it is mostly with her character.
But that's nothing negative about Poots' performance. If nothing else, I hope there are some acting nominations from this film when the big award season hits.
The script is deserving of recognition too with its seamless style following the continuity required in Beethoven's Opus 131. There are times when the focus is on one character more than the other, but Zilberman and co-writer Seth Grossman bring all the parts together for closure in the end.
Viewers can take away as little or as much as they want from "A Late Quartet," even just by listening to it in the background.
It reminds me of one of my favorite films, "Lost in Translation," in that regard.
As with most movies, I recommend giving "A Late Quartet" a try.
However, I do suggest watching it at home. You can crank up the volume, which was a big problem in the theater my sister and I went to, and not deal with the annoyances of the audience around you.
Bravo, I say, Bravo!

Looper

Slate.com

"How's your French? Slow."
"How's the coffee? Burnt."

There are so many good lines in "Looper" but, for some reason, I remember that one between waitress Beatrix and Joe.
First things first, I really do need to see this movie again.
I was finally able to listen to the Hollywood Prospectus podcast about the movie, which I knew there would be spoilers in, and Andy Greenwald dropped a very interesting Easter Egg that he thought he saw during an early scene.
How did I not see that? This movie better be playing at the budget theater, stat. That's not to say it wouldn't be worth paying full price, even twice in a row, but who can really afford that? Not me.
Luckily I have enough thrill from the film's magic and plot to analyze for a while.
I was expecting an action flick with a time-travel theme and for it to definitely be good. I love "Brick" by writer/director Rian Johnson and his episodes of Breaking Bad so I just knew I was in for a treat.
But it's so much more. The visual effects, the wit, the mystery, Emily Blunt, Old Joe, Young Joe, Jeff Daniels, and a kid that can be cute and creepy at the same time.
Basically, the plot you need to know is listed on sites like IMDB:

"In 2074, when the mob wants to get rid of someone, the target is sent 30 years into the past, where a hired gun awaits. Someone like Joe, who one day learns the mob wants to 'close the loop' by transporting back Joe's future self."

Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt with a fake nose) is the Looper who eventually encounters his future self to close out his career and move to France. The nose is to make Joe look like Bruce Willis/Old Joe.
It works once you get used to looking at it, but still never really made a match between the two actors for me. Maybe it was the eyebrows.
Gordon-Levitt's performance, along with Emily Blunt's and Daniels' stood out in the film. Johnson made some smart casting choices. One shortcoming, while I can't think of another actor who could have played Willis' role, is I feel like I've seen his performance before in other films.
Once Joe and Old Joe have their first encounter, the film is a chase through time that challenges two versions of the same person against each other. It's an internal battle as much as it is an external battle with people who control the Loopers closing in as they try to fix everything the way they want it.
Joe, at least initially, wants his silver and the next 30 years of his life after closing the loop. Old Joe is not ready to let go yet and has some unfinished business.
What is at risk is what stands between him and his younger self and people who Joe has developed relationships with in his life outside of being a hitman. Or, he could develop relationships with them in the future.
Joe (the younger one) I think, is ultimately in control. He just has to decide what he is willing to give up in the present at the risk of ruining his future plan.
There is some confusion in the plot, as can be expected with any futuristic story that explores time travel, , but Johnson brings it full circle.
I didn't know how long "Looper" would last in the theater, not because it's a bad movie, but because people who don't absolutely love science fiction, someone in the cast or the director may not give it a chance.
Now having seen it I recommend people -- no matter what your taste in movies is -- take that chance.
Johnson has managed to take a film with so many components and genre samples and make it for a universal audience.
I am feeding off the Hollywood Prospectus podcast again here, but I do need to stress how Emily Blunt's performance really took the film to another level. It was the component to the film that, I think, makes it accessible for everyone to have a benefit in their viewing experience.
I've liked all of Blunt's roles, but this one will push her more into leading lady territory.
Johnson clearly has it together when in charge of a script and behind the camera and I also want to see more from him. He doesn't appear to have any titles on the way, but that's okay with me. "Looper" is worth a second, and maybe even third look.

Argo

Hey! I'm back!
I've missed my blog and going to the movies, and I really have no excuse for falling behind. I paid the price in having to choose from all the movies out there I want to see right now, like right this second, like all in one day.
"Looper," "Seven Psychopaths," and yes, I admit, "Pitch Perfect" are all on my list. And that's not including the fare at the budget theater I didn't make it to the first time around. There is "Lawless" and maybe "The Bourne Legacy." Sadly "Beasts of a Southern Wild" escaped before I could see that one in the theater.
But, all that is okay because I am very happy with my choice today: "Argo."
I am still a little on edge because of it, but in a very good way. Ben Affleck's done it again. He's got it down when it comes to turning true events, lives and cities into a film as a star, director and producer.
This time he chose the Iran hostage crisis from 1980 and focusing on the rescue of six U.S. embassy workers who escape when the building is raided. They take refuge in the home of the Canadian ambassador, waiting for their way out.
Meanwhile, moving from the end of the 1970s into 1980, the CIA is trying to devise a solution that will safely bring one man, Tony Mendez, in and out of the tumultuous country with six hostages on his arm.
Mendez, lauded by the CIA and government for his mission, staged the production of a movie and pretended the six Americans were his crew. It all happened in two days as the Iranian people were starting to learn there were six people who escaped from the embassy, who they were, and where they were hiding.
That was the intense part that literally made my hands shake during the movie. But there was some relief from those tense moments too. Affleck had the opportunity to mix in some dark humor as John Goodman (John Chambers) and Alan Arkin (Lester Siegel) helped Mendez navigate making a fake science fiction movie seem realistic for the reason to ensure security in the world and the reputation of the CIA.
I wondered how Affleck decided what the balance would be between the two very closely-knit story lines and how to break down a worldwide crisis into two hours. I have read about some criticism of the film's inclusion of all the history, but I still think Affleck's storytelling is effective and true of heart.
Overall, I don't really think there is a target audience for "Argo."
"Looper" may draw in more science fiction fans and those who are intrigued by the film because Joseph Gordon-Levitt is in it (me).
Surely "Pitch Perfect" is marketed to the ladies, but it was actually Andy Greenwald who I heard rave about that movie.
So, if you find yourself in a dilemma of what to see at the multiplex, try "Argo."
Ben Affleck wasn't always one of my favorite actors but he is growing on me, especially when he pulls off a triple threat like this film or "The Town."
I enjoy his casting choices too and familiar faces showing up in his films. Take one of the hostages, Lee Schatz, for example. Who is he? None other than Lucas from "Empire Records."
That's a fun fact (at least for me)  totally unrelated to "Argo," but it goes back to Affleck's smart choices down to roles for key players and extras.
I would only make one request, and maybe it's a risk of "too much of a good thing," but I think it would be really interesting to see Affleck and Matt Damon work together again. It would have to be the absolute right movie but based on what I've seen and their choices of late, it can be done.

The Emmys

I haven't seen any movies lately, so how about those Emmys? What would happen if Jesse Pinkman were real and he actually received one of those heavy gold statues?
It was hard not to see some of how I imagine the "Breaking Bad" character would react on Aaron Paul's face when his name was announced last night in the supporting actor category. The man behind the mask of Jesse is much more classy (he did not shout "yeah bitches!" as I would have hoped) but in some way the accomplishment, even the second time around, seemed to mean as much to Paul as it would for Mr. Pinkman to have his wildest dream come true.

Maybe it would be to actually be respected by Mr. White instead of being called ridiculous, or have a career as an artist (I am watching season one again right now). I digress a little, but my point is that Paul's look and speech were my favorite moments of the Emmys. I didn't catch it right away, but my second favorite clip from the show is the moment between Paul and runner-up in the category, Giancarlo Esposito (Gus on Breaking Bad.)
It's nice that the Emmys is the kind of show you can watch while working, in my case on a last minute story to turn in Monday morning, and know when to turn your attention to the tube.
I did see the intro with Jimmy Kimmel and some of my favorite actresses in the bathroom, and it was funny, but once the late-night host got on stage his performance was just so-so and the presenters had more wit in their lines.
Steve Buscemi should have threatened Kimmel with a trip to the wood chipper for the joke about his weight, but whatever.

My other highlights were Julia Louis-Dreyfus' win for her role in "Veep" and the nods to Louis C.K. I think the lead comedy actress category had some of the toughest competitors this year, and I am happy "Elaine" took the statue home.
"Girls," both in the acting of Lena Dunham and as a comedy series, didn't get anything this year but I think the show will get its much-deserved award attention one day.
There are some shows, however, with moments in the limelight that may have passed. Mad Men, with 17 nominations last night, did not receive any awards.
It's not like the ad-agency drama over at AMC has an empty shelf collecting dust, but it is a little bit surprising an Emmy from 2012 won't be there.
I think the loss for Jon Hamm in lead acting, and for the series in best drama, is mainly because of the new kids on the block and a little bit about the most recent season of the show.
"Homeland" is the new kid taking home the actor and actress and best drama awards, and "Mad Men's" hiatus of more than a year between seasons four and five is perhaps equal to the popular jock the majority of people don't think is cool anymore.
I am not one of that majority, as I thoroughly enjoyed season five, but it may have been the one misstep for "Mad Men" and the television academy saw something better.
I can't argue one way or another about "Homeland" because I haven't seen it yet, but it is definitely on my short list. "Mad Men" will bounce back in its final two seasons, I think. It will be interesting to see if the academy then renews its faith in the show, but from now on I don't think winning is everything for "Mad Men."
Apparently it is for "Modern Family."
Eric Stonestreet, one of four actors from the ABC sitcom in the comedy acting category, and Julie Bowen earned awards and the show also won the best comedy series nod.
Enough already. I have liked the show overall, although I did not finish last season, but it's just too predictable now on all accounts.

I tuned out the Emmys' miniseries and reality-show categories, that is until Tom Berenger showed up on stage. No offense, but Jake Taylor is not looking so good these days.
But he is still in the acting game, apparently, with his winning role on the "Hatfields & McCoys." The miniseries earned several nominations and another win by Kevin Costner.
Looking at the full list of Emmy nominees and winners, it is obvious I haven't seen a majority of the good, bad and the ugly shows and performances on it. But now I know what to add to my list ("Boardwalk Empire" or "The Good Wife," for example) and what future award hopefuls to continue watching.
From here I'll turn my thoughts to Andy Greenwald's recap. It's what I would strive to say if I could land a job watching television and movies and writing about them.

Sleepwalk With Me

Mike Birbiglia.

I've learned to accept my flaws, or at least one of them, of late. I can prepare all I want to, but if I have the opportunity to speak to someone I admire and there is a big group of people there as well, it's just not going to happen. Words have yet to be exchanged between myself and Anthony Bourdain, David Carr and now Mike Birbiglia because of it.
For my job, while I do have to prepare and sometimes work up the confidence to do it, I can ask the important questions. Unfortunately none of the aforementioned superstars (in my book) have been at events I need to cover for work.
But just listening to what they have to say is enough for me. I actually just became a fan of Mike Birbiglia with all the buzz about his movie "Sleepwalk With Me." And, through my extensive research in the last week or so, I found out he would be doing a Q&A at the Uptown Theater during its grand opening weekend.

Uptown Theater.

The theater was renovated during the last year, thank goodness, and opened to sold out shows of Birbiglia's film based on his off-Broadway show of the same name. He wrote the screenplay with Ira Glass (This American Life), Joe Birbiglia (brother), and Seth Barrish, who also co-directed the film. Birbiglia starred in the film alongside Lauren Ambrose, Carol Kane, James Rebhorn, and comedians Kristen Schaal, David Wain and Marc Maron.
Due to my shyness I won't know why he acted in the film as the character Matt Pandamiglio, although it is pretty funny name, instead of just using his own.
That just doesn't fit because the film portrays such a personal story about Birbiglia's relationship with his girlfriend Abby (played by Ambrose), the start of his career as a comedian, and his sleepwalking disorder.
But I can't even complain about that because I loved, loved, loved this movie so much.
Birbiglia breaks up the story with his narration and commentary, which gives the viewer a real understanding of what he was going through.
I wouldn't go so far as to say I could relate to him, but that's not a bad thing, it's just a sign of how personal the story is. And I admire Birbiglia for that. It's one thing to do a comedy show about something where, even if everyone in the audience is not a fan, most of them probably bought tickets knowing what they were getting into.
Films go out to mass audiences, such as the parents of a film student sitting next to me, or a 12-year-old boy the next row over (who did have the guts to ask Birbiglia a question, sigh).
I wanted to ask Birbiglia, if for that reason, was it difficult to decide to make a film about a personal story versus a fictional piece?
But, because I'm a chicken, I'll just have to assume Birbiglia was meant to make this movie, not something else.
The 12-year-old boy asked Birbiglia if he had a problem with sleepwalking as a kid. Others in the audience asked what his family thought of the movie and why he decided to narrate the story in the past tense.
He did sleepwalk as a kid, "but not like this," Birbiglia said, and his family liked the film. He said he was nervous about that more than anything else because in the past they have not liked any of his work.
If you want to know more about Birbiglia, I recommend listening to his interviews on "The Nerdist."
He talks there about his now ex-girlfriend's input on the film, the relationship themes it touches on, as well as using truth in comedy.
Comedy is a way for both the performers and audience to laugh about what makes them uncomfortable or tough situations in life, Birbiglia has said (also on The Nerdist).
Birbiglia didn't get any laughs for his jokes about the Cookie Monster, but when he did a bit about not wanting to get married until he was sure nothing else good could happen in his life, audiences started to chuckle.
Since I started following Birbiglia on Twitter and liked him on Facebook, I learned the films "High Fidelity" and "Once" also inspired him in the making of "Sleepwalk With Me" into a movie.
Both those stories are also about the mix of career goals, the obstacles of life, and relationship reality.
As I said before, I admire Birbiglia. Why? Because he put a very personal story out there for mass audiences to critique. Not surprisingly, I have yet to hear anything bad about it.
People coming out of the show as I waited in line were saying, "that was so good" and, "that was awesome." One woman even said it was her second time seeing the film in just two days.
"Sleepwalk With Me" is actually available to order on cable already, but I had to see it in the theater knowing Birbiglia would be there. It was surreal to see him in real life minutes after he was just on film in front of me.
I am hoping he comes back to the Twin Cities on tour. I doubt it will be in the 'burbs where I work, but maybe I'll use my press badge to force myself to speak to him.