There’s been a lot of talk (again) this year post-Oscars about how boring the show is. Again we’re regaled with sub-standard humor, dance routines and music that do not mix well, tedious self-congratulatory waffling and many, many unrequired time fillers. The Oscars, the pinnacle of the US awards season, is the single most important of all the ceremonial moments in a calendar year to recognise the various films on release. With all that money, all that raw talent and history at the Academy’s disposal, how then do the Oscars rank on the entertainment scale somewhere alongside a cavity search?

(more…)

And so the Oscars are done with for another year. Ultimately uninvolving, only slightly interesting to see if James Cameron and Katherine Bigelow might duke it out Balboa style in the aisle (anybody else notice that the organisers slotted Cameron into the seat immediately behind his ex wife?) and genuinely devoid of any real controversy. Although, the story on the pushy producer who stole the microphone from Music By Prudence director Roger Ross Williams only gets louder the more you think about it. In light of the magnificent performances and artists involved, I thought I’d jot down some random, chronologically inept thoughts on the ceremony we’ve just witnessed.

Twin hosts Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin fared okay, although most of their humour wasn’t the riotous laugh-out-loud stuff many previous hosts have given us. For goodness sake, bring back Whoopi, or even give Robin Williams a shot. I really enjoyed their somewhat forced opening duologing, targeting those celebrities in the audience who were awaiting their fate. But their “hosting” job felt shoehorned into the programme, they came and went on stage individually with barely a murmur, save to introduce the next star to traipse up and read the nominees. Martin, who I usually find as funny as a fart in an elevator, showed moments of genius (“I wrote that guy’s speech” for one flabbergasted and stuck-for-words winner was hilarious) but was overwhelmingly undone by the awkward looking Baldwin. I admit, I thought Baldwin was a great coup for the show, but I went unrewarded by what looked like a slightly inebriated (and ill-timed) host.

Generally, the Oscars this year went off with almost no surprises, at least in the major categories. Sandra Bullock won, described by Channel 9 “entertainment reporter” Richard Wilkins as a “career Oscar”. Boo, you wanker. Christoph Waltz got Best Supporting Actor, sweet as. Jeff Bridges won his own “career Oscar” for Crazy Heart, and almost cried. Almost. At least Sandra did cry. Mo’Nique was favourite to win Best Supporting Actress, and she won with aplomb.

Miley Cyrus and that other young chick did okay presenting for Best Original Song, but she looks so out of place at the Oscars! Stand up straight dear! So to Twilight’s Kirsten Stewart (minus R-Pat) and Taylor Lautner show up to do an homage to Horror films, which is kinda nifty if a little kitsch for Oscar. Nice to see bits from some modern stuff, as well as the tired old Carrie/Rosemary’s Baby/Exorcist reels trotted out. How Jaws became a horror film is beyond me, though. Not sure what Spielberg thinks of it.

Ben Stiller brought the evenings only true pastiche of the show to life, as a blue-hued parody of the characters from Avatar: James Cameron seemed to enjoy it, although we’ll never know what Sascha Baron Cohen would have brought to the moment. Could have sparked some life into it. I normally find Stiller a mildly bearable comedian, but considering the dearth of real laughs for the show, his was a highlight.

Speaking of celebrities being pissed off, what the hell was wrong with George Clooney? Looked like somebody just raped his cat! Cheer up fella, if you’re going to sit in row A at the Oscars, at least have the decency to smile and clap like the rest of them. I think I even saw a death-stare in there as Baldwin laid into him! There was a smile later, but it felt conciliatory.

Didn’t like: the multiple Best Actor and Actress introductions by various celebrities. Went on way too long, and some of those people speaking were appallingly ill advised in their comments. My favourite, however, was Tim Robbins anecdotal reminiscing of his time on set with Morgan Freeman, who was nominated for his role in Invictus. Sean Penn, who re-read the nominees for Best Actress, delivered some half-baked apology to the Academy that confused everyone in the room, and was so totally ad-libbed I can only imagine the hair-pulling backstage.

Didn’t like: The extended John Hughes obit, which carried on way too long, instead of the normally reserved and respectful obit sequence later in the show for all those who have left us. I know Hughes had a great legacy, but really? A full ten minutes?

Did like: Michael Giacchino’s score for UP. Loved his win, although the massive dance routine featuring segments of nominated scores was a complete “what the…?” The dancing was in no way related to either the music or the films the music was from. Some guy I saw doing street crumping to a jazz-inspired piece from UP, a film which in no way lends itself to urban street music. What on earth was Adam Shankman (who directed Hairspray, among other things) thinking when he put this shite together? Didn’t like that!

Bravo Win Moment: The Cove for Best Documentary. I saw a “making of” piece about this film a year or so ago, and thought it could be a serious contender. Glad to see it made it. Awful issues the film raises, but well made, by all accounts.

Did like: Neil Patrick Harris’ opening number was dynamite and hilarious, although there appeared to be some sound issues because it was hard to make out what he was saying at times. Love his work in How I Met Your Mother, and so not expecting him to open the Oscars. Great surprise.

Sigh, I do miss those film parodies Billy Crystal used to do.

Aside from feuding producer/directors storming the stage, this years Oscar ceremony went almost as everyone predicted: winners and all. There were virtually no surprises (aside from the sound guys from Hurt Locker winning over the more accomplished Star Trek, Transformers 2 and Avatar…. what the?) and consequently, the most unremarkable Oscars telecast yet. If this ceremony is remembered for only one thing, it’s Katherine Bigelow’s stunning win for directing Hurt Locker, the first female to do so in Oscars 80+ years. Our congratulations go to Ms Bigelow for this feat.

There’s my thoughts, random as they were.

Discuss.

The following artice was previously published on moviesmackdown.com, you can follow this link to the original version here. The article here is modified from the original version.

Article by Rodney Twelftree

There’s nothing more exciting than a throwdown between two cinematic juggernauts: in this instance, two of the most critically acclaimed (and financially successful) films of the last year. One, a revisionist look at a franchise thought to be on its last legs; the other, a return to film for mega-director James Cameron, utilising “game changing” effects and technology. Both acclaimed around the world in post-release fervour, both setting records at the box office, and both destined for “classic” status just as soon as enough time passes. But which of the two sci-fi blockbusters of this years cavalcade lays the knockout better? Set your phasers to stun, grab hold of your giant blue pseudo-body, and settle in for the battle between 2009’s cinematic giants: Avatar and Star Trek.

To find out which film is better, click here to keep reading!!!

Having recently upgraded the fernbyfilms.com home cinema to BluRay, I thought I’d give you my impressions on it as a format, for those of you who haven’t decided to embrace the new technology yet. My highly successful article on BluRay discs and associated stuff can be found here, and it’s worth a quick read if you don’t know what all the fuss is about.

When DVD came along, the significant difference between the new format and VHS was profound. An improvement in picture and sound fidelity offered film lovers and home cinema addicts a new level of entertainment: sharper picture and multi-channel digital sound could only serve to enhance the viewing experience. It was a similar improvement for CD over cassette tape. The era of digital technology was upon us, and as we all now know, DVD became the fastest uptake of any technology on the planet, in the history of the world. It has since become the de facto standard for movie releases to the consumer market.

So what about BluRay, the newfangled technology advertised on TV alongside DVD? Most people either don’t understand it, or don’t care. Fair enough, because it’s only been 13 years or so since DVD was launched, which by most peoples standards is still a “new”technology. Has the advent of high definition disc technology (parallel with HD streaming downloads from the Internet and other entertainment platforms) given us just another excuse to update our movie collection yet again, or is it a case of too much too soon?

To continue reading my thoughts on BluRay, click here!!

I don’t think Avatar should win the Oscar for Best Film this year. I know it’ll be nominated, but it shouldn’t win.

Cameron’s mega-budget sci-fi outing, which we’ve reviewed already on this site and pointed out it’s shortcomings, will go down as the least “besty” best picture should it take home the gong come March 7th. Personally, it’s one of those years when it’s likely Avatar will win based solely on technical and financial achievements, rather that an enduring legacy to film. Which is disappointing. Cameron’s ex-wife, Katherine Bigelow, should be the one to clap the loudest with her film, The Hurt Locker, having the lions share of critical praise: most pundits have her film as being the best of the year already. It’s this film that should rightly be favourite at the moment. Avatar isn’t among the top five films I’ve seen this year. I haven’t seen them all, either, but among those I have, I wouldn’t give the award to Avatar.

With the Golden Globes being run and won earlier this week, many will look to the cinematic entries’ performances as the key indicator as to who should win the little gold man in a few weeks. Avatar cleaned up the major award, as did Cameron for direction. The best result for me personally was Christoph Waltz for Best Supporting Actor for his role of a violent Nazi Jew-hunter in Tarantino’s Inglourious Basterds. We predict he’ll win the Oscar for the same category this year, and this one we think is actually earned. If he doesn’t, then we want Stan Tucci to get it for his (apparently) stunning turn in Peter Jackson’s The Lovely Bones. I’ve always loved Stanleys work in film (including Sidewalks of New York, Save The Last Dance, and The Devil Wears Prada). Michael Giacchino won for his score of Up, Pixar’s latest which should also clean up the Best Animated Film award come Oscar time.

We’ll get around to our Oscar tips after the nominations have been released later next month, but those are just a few of our initial thoughts. Remember, this years Best Picture category is going to be a swollen one this time, as the Academy has decided to allow 10 nominees for the grand prize. Whether this reduces or enhances the stature of those ten film remains to be seen, although considering the Dark Knight debacle last time out (when the film wasn’t nominated, and should have been) it may reduce the inherent discomfort for the Academy getting it wrong.

In any case, we’ll stand by our initial statement. Avatar should not win for Best Picture. It’s not the best picture.

Johnny Depp as Captain Jack Sparrow....

Came across this news article online today, which stated that Johnny Depp has accepted a deal to star in the 4th Pirates Of The Caribbean film, On Stranger Tides. The tone of the article suggested that this figure is grossly disproportionate to what the film would be worth, and I have to say, I disagree strongly.

Johnny Depp’s name alone will draw in a profit for this film, although this might prove invalid if the film does poorly, considering teen-scream heartthrob Orlando Bloom, and female co-star Keira Knightley will not be reprising their roles this time around. The lure of Orlando was thought to have propelled the original Pirates film to success, although in recent times, the series has focused more on Depp than anything else.

While many may scream that this is an outrageous amount of money to throw at somebody to accept a role, it goes without saying that the film will make buckets, and so, Depp should stand to reap the reward for his effort. I don’t deny that perhaps the best part of that salary would be better served to feed the poor or some other noble cause, but since we live in a world of commercial gain and demand vs cost, then I am not surprised. However, should the film tank, then that will be a different story.

Unfortunately, too much emphasis is placed on how much a film cost to make, or how overpaid the stars were, or other nonsense, which often detracts from how good or bad the film actually is. Remember Waterworld? People wrote the film off even before it’s release due to the fact the film cost the best part of a squillion dollars to make due to sets being destroyed, re-shoots, and other stuff like that. And Titanic, which cost half a billion dollars (at the time) to make and market? Okay, so my Waterworld argument doesn’t hold water (ha!) but just because a film costs a bazillion dollars, doesn’t automatically make it a crap film. And just because Tom Hanks or Tom Cruise or Johnny Depp can command that kind of price range for a film doesn’t make them any less competent actors.

So before we judge whether Depps price tag for Pirates 4 is worthwhile, lets actually see the film first!

****************************

“No, I’m Miiiiike Looooooowry.”

When Michael Bay unleashed Bad Boys upon an unsuspecting world back in 1995, little did we all realise just what an impact the filmmaker would eventually have on Hollywood, and a legion of filmmakers since. Bombastic, explosive, filled with humor both lowbrow and slapstick, Bad Boys set the tone for Bay’s career as a purveyor of epic widescreen action.Today, many would class Bay as the cinematic equivalent of Dan Brown in literary circles, Bay’s films more inclined to explosions and destruction at the expense of things like, oh, logic and plot. Many critics have taken pot-shots at Bay’s work throughout the years, describing it as anything from “inane” to “intellectually offensive”, barely pausing to recognise the merits of Bays work.
Merits? you ask incredulously, jaw gaping at the mention of the word in the same breath as Michael Bay. Yes, I say merits, for they exist in Bay’s current oeuvre. Might be hard to imagine, but the point of this article is to try and balance the ledger in favour of Bay as a filmmaker, in spite of the enormous negative energy directed his way by critics and internet hacks alike. Rather than subscribing to the energy and fun Bay tries to bring to his projects, many people seem more content to jeer and mock a man who has more talent in his little finger than most do in their entire body. I like think the only reason Roland Emmerich made 2012 was to ensure he kept the title of having destroyed the most earthly real estate on screen; after all, who’d want Bay to hold that honour?
Okay, so I am an unashamed fan of Bay’s work; and considering two of my all time favourite films are his, it goes without saying that I could possibly be Bay’s biggest defender, or biggest apologist. For the longest time, Armageddon was my number one film, although this was supplanted more recently by Transformers, a film that showed me just how much the director had grown since Bruce Willis saved us all. I remember thinking that The Rock, in which Bay purported a political agenda regarding military veterans and their treatment by the government, was one hell of an action film, a tour de force in action cinema that gave us the now classic line from Sean Connery: “You’re best? Losers always whine about ‘their best’! Winners go home and f*** the prom queen!” To which Nicolas Cage retorts in his petulant way, “Carla was the prom queen!”. Such dialogue and snappy banter is a trademark of Bay’s films, although the quality of such scripting appears to have waned in recent years in order to accommodate more explosions and effects. Bay has attempted on at least two occasions to deliver more sobering, patriotic and hard-edged filmmaking, with Pearl Harbor, and The Island, the former which was critically mauled at the time of it’s release, and appears to have become a mere footnote in Bay’s resume to this date.
Critics have derided his filmmaking ability since he came of age in Armageddon, flexing his cinematic muscles while simultaneously exploding logic into testosterone-fueled oblivion. But are they justified in their bile towards one of the industries most successful directors. In terms of his bankability, Bay ranks up alongside Peter Jackson, Steven Spielberg and James Cameron for an ability to draw a crowd based upon his name alone. There are few directors working today who can claim such success. But if his film appear to herald a glimpse into the gaping maw of cinematic sewerage, as so many critics and fanboys seem to think, why do his films keep being successful? Think about it. Bay has never had a flop, although Pearl Harbor comes about as close as he ever has to one. Both Transformers films blew records out of the water, The Island was a success (if only in the home cinema market) and even Bad Boys II, a film which, to be honest, I didn’t like all that much, was a financial winner. A filmmaker who thrives on explosions and frenetic chases and gunplay must surely be at the lower tier of Hollywood elite, right?

So how does a former music-video directing man-child go from directing Meatloaf in “I’d Do Anything For Love” to Transformers: Revenge Of The Fallen? What is the arc that takes us on this journey, and is it a good one, regardless of financial success? After all, here is a man famous for his on-set ferocity and bullish work ethic, both of which have garnered praise and condemnation from cast and crew on his films. Is a temperament like Bay’s a guarantee of success? Is it conducive to a good working environment, as long as the result is achieved? And what journey does Bay take us on over the course of his career to date? We’ll attempt to find out as we take a look at Bay’s films, his legacy and his failures.

To continue reading, click here for more BAYHEM!!!