The Gay Parisian

Data
Title: "The Gay Parisian"
Year: 1941
Length: 20 minutes
Director: Jean Negulesco
Starring: Ballet Russe de Monte Carlo
Music: Jacques Offenbach
Distinctions: Oscar nomination for Best Short (two-reel)

My reaction
Synopsis: a lot of people just sort of show up somewhere and dance and vaguely want to get with each other
How I saw it: on video (Maltese Falcon bonus feature), yesterday
Concept: Terrible. I mean, really, of all the wonderful things in the world you could put on film, an Offenbach ballet?
Story: Terrible. I don't think there is one.
Characters: Terrible.
Dialog: n/a
Pacing: Indifferent.
Cinematography: Good.
Special effects/design: Bad. It would be good design if it were a period drama. But you can't actually see a lot of the dancing through all the costumes.
Acting: Bad. Look at that face. How could I not give any acting points to a face like that?
Music: Bad.
Subjective Rating: 3/10 (Bad). Apart from a couple impressive jumps, it's not even very good dancing...
Objective Rating: 1.0/4 (Bad).

Hiawatha's Rabbit Hunt

Data
Title: "Hiawatha's Rabbit Hunt"
Year: 1941
Length: 8 minutes
Director: Friz Freleng
Writer: Michael Maltese
Starring: Mel Blanc
Music: Carl W. Stalling
Distinctions: Oscar nomination for Best Animated Short

My reaction
Synopsis: [see title]
How I saw it: on video (Maltese Falcon bonus feature), yesterday
Concept: Indifferent. Someone's hunting Bugs Bunny and he has to outsmart him? A quick glance at Elmer Fudd's character page on the IMDb confirms that, yes, that was just about as original in the 1940's as it would be now.
Story: Bad.
Characters: Indifferent.
Dialog: Indifferent.
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Indifferent.
Special effects/design: Good. Great backgrounds.
Acting: Indifferent.
Music: Great. Carl F***ing Stalling. (Wait, that doesn't start with W...) It doesn't stand out as far as Carl Stalling scores go, but still, it's Carl Stalling - without a doubt the single best composer of film scores in the history of the universe ever.
Subjective Rating: 5/10 (Indifferent). A few classic gags, a few unfunny gags, a bad Elmer Fudd rip-off, and quite a lot of awkward tension from waiting for something racist to happen.
Objective Rating: 2.4/4 (Okay).

Meet John Doughboy

Data
Title: "Meet John Doughboy"
Year: 1941
Length: 7 minutes
Director: Robert Clampett
Writer: Warren Foster
Starring: Mel Blanc
Music: Carl W. Stalling

My reaction
Synopsis: a spoof of WWII newsreels consisting mostly of bad puns and cultural references
How I saw it: on video (Maltese Falcon bonus feature), yesterday
Concept: Bad. Might have been fine in 1941, but in 2010 it hardly even makes sense.
Story: Terrible. No story, just puns.
Characters: Terrible. No characters, just puns.
Dialog: Bad. Did I mention the puns were bad? Because they are horrible. I typically like bad puns, but these are really, really bad puns.
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Great.
Special effects/design: Great. It looks like they made this quickly and cheaply, but ironically it couldn't have looked much better if they'd tried.
Acting: Indifferent. Um... puns.
Music: Great.
Subjective Rating: 4/10 (Eh). It's like, the narrator will say, "Here's a spitfire plane," and then they'll have a plane spitting fire. That's not funny.
Objective Rating: 2.2/4 (Okay).

The Maltese Falcon

Data
Title: The Maltese Falcon
Year: 1941
Length: 101 minutes
Director: John Huston
Writer: John Huston, based on the novel by Dashiell Hammett
Starring: Humphrey Bogart, Mary Astor, Gladys George, Peter Lorre, Sydney Greenstreet, Elisha Cook Jr.
Music: Adolph Deutsch
Distinctions: Oscar nominations for Best Picture, Best Screenplay and Best Supporting Actor (Greenstreet); currently #83 on IMDb's Top 250

My reaction
Synopsis: Humphrey Bogart, solving a mystery and loving every minute of it
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), yesterday
Concept: Good.
Story: Indifferent. I expected something twisty and turny. The movie's more about how Bogart's character copes with having no idea what's going on than it is about the "mystery." Which would be fine, but it still goes through all the motions of being a detective story.
Characters: Great.
Dialog: Good. Often corny, as it should be, but unfortunately not over-the-top corny.
Pacing: Indifferent. Too fast.
Cinematography: Great.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Good.
Music: Good.
Subjective Rating: 7/10 (Good). Excellently directed and adapted, but the plot just isn't all that compelling.
Objective Rating: 3.1/4 (Very good).

25th Hour

Data
Title: 25th Hour
Year: 2002
Length: 135 minutes
Director: Spike Lee
Writer: David Benioff, based on his novel
Starring: Edward Norton, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Barry Pepper, Rosario Dawson, Anna Paquin, Brian Cox
Music: Terence Blanchard

My reaction
Synopsis: a drug dealer's last day before going to prison
How I saw it: in the theater, 2003 (I think); on video several times (have on DVD), most recently yesterday
Concept: Great.
Story: Great.
Characters: Great.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Great.
Special effects/design:Great.
Acting: Great.
Music: Great. Possibly the all-time greatest score in the ancient tradition of plagiarized film scores. If you can listen to the opening credits without feeling anything, then you are dead inside.
Subjective Rating: 9/10 (One of my favorites). Pretty much a perfect movie. (How is it that this is still the only Spike Lee movie I've seen?) There's a lot I want to say about it, an essay I'd like to write, but try as I might I just don't have the writing ability.  There's a reason this blog has the format it does.
Objective Rating: 4.0/4 4.1/4 (Great).

awesome people part 7: Oscars edition

Here are a few people who happen to be awesome. I’m just saying.

Pete Docter
Evidence:
- Monsters, Inc., 2001 (co-director/co-writer)
- Wall-E, 2008 (co-writer)
- Up, 2009 (co-director/co-writer/Kevin)

Christoph Waltz
Evidence:
- Inglourious Basterds, 2009 (Col. Hans Landa)

Carey Mulligan
Evidence:
- "Blink" from season 3 of Doctor Who, 2007 (Sally Sparrow)
- An Education, 2009 (Jenny)

Michael Giacchino
Evidence:
- The Incredibles, 2004 (composer)
- Lost, 2004-2010 (composer)
- Up, 2009 (composer)

Wes Anderson
Evidence:
- Rushmore, 1998 (director/co-writer)
- The Royal Tenenbaums, 2001 (director/co-writer)
- Fantastic Mr. Fox, 2009 (director/co-writer/co-songwriter/Weasel)

The Truman Show

Data
Title: The Truman Show
Year: 1998
Length: 103 minutes
Director: Peter Weir
Writer: Andrew Niccol
Starring: Jim Carrey, Laura Linney, Noah Emmerich, Natascha McElhone, Ed Harris
Music: Burkhard von Dallwitz, Philip Glass (and non-original music)
Distinctions: Oscar nominations for Best Director, Best Original Screenplay and Best Supporting Actor (Ed Harris); currently #247 on IMDb's Top 250

My reaction
Synopsis: a man doesn't know that his life is a TV show
How I saw it: on video several times, most recently (rented from Netflix) yesterday
Concept: Great.
Story: Great. It's pretty simple and straight-forward, but also very effective.
Characters: Bad.
Dialog: Indifferent. I can't help noticing how bad the TV show's writers are at maintaining their lie.
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Good.  One of the few movies where the camera is part of the movie that actually obeys its own rules.
Special effects/design: Good. Great design, mediocre special effects.
Acting: Good.
Music: Great. Dallwitz does the score for the movie, which is great. Glass does the score for the TV show inside the movie, which is cornball crap but exactly what it should be, and it works perfectly in context.
Subjective Rating: 8/10 (Great). If I think about it critically after the fact, it doesn't really hold up all that well. But while I'm actually watching it, it seems like a remarkably great movie.
Objective Rating: 3.2/4 (Very good).

Doctor Who #137: The Twin Dilemma

Data
Title: Doctor Who: "The Twin Dilemma"
Year: 1984
Network: BBC
Episodes: 4, at 25 minutes; the last story (of 7) from season 21
Creators: Sydney Newman, C.E. Webber, Donald Wilson
Director: Peter Moffatt
Writer: Anthony Steven
Starring: Colin Baker, Nicola Bryant
Music: Ron Grainer (theme); Malcolm Clarke

My reaction
Synopsis: the Doctor's regeneration has gone horribly wrong, and some kids are kidnapped by evil aliens
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), yesterday
Concept: Indifferent.
Story: Bad.
Characters: Terrible. It introduces Colin Baker's Doctor; even if the other characters weren't all crap (and they are), that would be enough to earn a "terrible" rating.
Dialog: Indifferent.
Pacing: Indifferent.
Cinematography: Bad.
Special effects/design: Terrible. Again, it's the introduction of Colin Baker's Doctor - the single worst costume in television history.
Acting: Terrible. Really quite remarkably terrible.
Music: Bad.
Subjective Rating: 3/10 (Bad). It's not completely unwatchable, but any enjoyment to be had comes strictly at the show's expense.
Objective Rating: 1.0/4 (Bad).

Food, Inc.

Data
Title: Food, Inc.
Year: 2009
Length: 94 minutes
Director: Robert Kenner
Writers: Robert Kenner, Elise Pearlstein & Kim Roberts
Starring: Eric Schlosser, Michael Pollan
Music: Mark Adler
Distinctions: Oscar nomination for Best Documentary Feature

My reaction
Synopsis: the writers of Fast Food Nation and The Omnivore's Dilemma tell you where your food actually comes from
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), yesterday
Concept: Good.
Story: Bad. There's no story, just a lot of stuff to be said. As long as they get it all in before the movie's over, it would seem to be all the same to them.
Characters: Indifferent. It's really not about people, and when it takes the time to get to know someone, it's a tedious distraction.
Dialog: Great. It's a difficult balance to strike the right tone with this sort of subject, and they nailed it.
Pacing: Indifferent.
Cinematography: Bad.
Special effects/design: Bad.
Acting: n/a
Music: Bad.
Subjective Rating: 4/10 (Eh). Pretty good when it comes to being informative and educational, but not so much when it comes to being a movie.
Objective Rating: 1.9/4 (Eh).

Crazy Heart

Data
Title: Crazy Heart
Year: 2009
Length: 112 minutes
Director: Scott Cooper
Writer: Scott Cooper, based on the novel by Thomas Cobb
Starring: Jeff Bridges, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Robert Duvall, Colin Farrell
Music: Stephen Bruton & T-Bone Burnett
Distinctions: Oscars for Best Actor (Bridges) and Best Song ("The Weary Kind"); Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actress (Gyllenhaal)

My reaction
Synopsis: an alcoholic country singer/songwriter who used to be big doesn't write anymore
How I saw it: in the theater, yesterday
Concept: Indifferent.
Story: Good. Not a very satisfying ending. It's realistic, but anticlimactic.
Characters: Great.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Good.
Cinematography: Bad. It probably doesn't help that the theater was showing it slightly out of focus, but whatever, I can only react to what I actually see.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Great. Solid performances all around, but I suspect that if Bridges wins the Oscar, it will be largely because he was on screen for almost the entire movie.
Music: Great. Never in my life have I seen so much of the audience stay to the end of the credits.
Subjective Rating: 7/10 (Good). Comparisons to The Wrestler are unfair. Both movies are character studies, and the two characters are very different. With that in mind, I have to say The Wrestler is almost certainly the better movie. Although this one has a lot going for it - the music, for instance. And Colin Farrell's eyebrows.
Objective Rating: 3.2/4 (Very good).

The Three Caballeros

Data
Title: The Three Caballeros
Year: 1944 (Mexico), 1945 (US)
Length: 71 minutes
Director: Norman Ferguson
Writers: Homer Brightman, Ernest Terrazas, Ted Sears, Bill Peet, Ralph Wright, Elmer Plummer, Roy Williams, William Cottrell, Del Connell & James Bodrero
Starring: Aurora Miranda, Carmen Molina, Dora Luz, Sterling Holloway, Clarence Nash, Joaquin Garay, José Oliveira, Frank Graham, Fred Shields
Music: Edward H. Plumb, Paul J. Smith, Charles Wolcott (directors)
Distinctions: Oscar nominations for Best Score (musical) and Best Sound Recording

My reaction
Synopsis: Donald Duck learns about Mexico and South America, and suffers a libido-induced psychotic breakdown
How I saw it: on video (have on VHS), yesterday
Concept: Bad.
Story: Bad. The synopsis above is not snarky or sarcastic. That is literally what this movie is about. And there is no resolution. I say it's "bad" instead of "terrible" because before Donald completely snaps, there are some little side stories that are perfectly nice. Needless to say, by the time Donald loses all grip on reality, I found myself missing the quiet storytelling of "Professor Holloway" quite a bit.
Characters: Bad.
Dialog: Indifferent. Between the three main characters (the only characters with substantial dialog apart from narrators), two have thick accents, and one is Donald Duck, so I can't really say I heard all the dialog. But I'm sure I'm not missing much.
Pacing: Bad. Exhausting.
Cinematography: Indifferent.
Special effects/design: Indifferent. The quality of the art and animation is very uneven; sometimes it's really cool, other times it just barely has what it needs to get by. With some exceptions, the seams between live-action footage and animated footage are clearly showing.
Acting: Indifferent. The voice acting is fine. I feel like some good acting in the character animation might have gone a long way to explaining (or at least acknowledging) the confusing mess that the second half of the movie devolves into.
Music: Good.
Subjective Rating: 4/10 (Eh). What were the folks at Disney smoking? Did they even bother storyboarding this? And didn't someone sober have to approve it?
Objective Rating: 1.7/4 (Eh).

note: You'll notice that under my "distinctions" field, I'm now including nominations as well as wins.  While my wife has been watching the Olympics, I've gone back through all my past posts to add and tag that info.  Not that that's of interest to anyone other than myself, but myself finds it interesting.  I've also recently updated past posts with an estimated "objective rating" using my current grading system (also not interesting to you unless you're me, but you might be me - I'm pretty sure me will be reading this).

Grand Canyonscope

Data
Title: "Grand Canyonscope"
Year: 1954
Length: 7 minutes
Director: Charles A. Nichols
Writers: Milt Schaffer & Nick George
Starring: Clarence Nash, Bill Thompson
Music: Oliver Wallace

My reaction
Synopsis: Donald Duck is an obnoxious tourist at the Grand Canyon
How I saw it: on video (20,000 Leagues Under the Sea bonus feature), yesterday
Concept: Indifferent.
Story: Bad.
Characters: Good.
Dialog: Good.
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Good.
Special effects/design: Great. The backgrounds are wonderful. And you've got to love Donald's costume.
Acting: Good.
Music: Good.
Subjective Rating: 6/10 (Okay). Cute.
Objective Rating: 2.8/4 (Good).

20,000 Leagues Under the Sea

Data
Title: 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea
Year: 1954
Length: 127 minutes
Director: Richard Fleischer
Writer: Earl Felton, based on the novel by Jules Verne
Starring: Kirk Douglas, James Mason, Paul Lukas, Peter Lorre
Music: Paul J. Smith
Distinctions: Oscars for Best Art Direction/Set Decoration (color) and Best Special Effects; Oscar nomination for Best Editing

My reaction
Synopsis: three 19th-century men are captured by a mad submarine captain
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), yesterday
Concept: Good.
Story: Indifferent. A basically good story, but it could have been more focused.
Characters: Good.
Dialog: Good.
Pacing: Indifferent.
Cinematography: Good.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Good.
Music: Bad. The score is pretty good, but between "A Whale of a Tale" and Nemo's blaring organ music, I just have to take points off.
Subjective Rating: 7/10 (Good). Surprisingly dark for a Disney movie. It could have been a lot better, though; the dramatic tension almost disappears once they get on board the Nautilus.  My wife (who just read the book) says the changes they made are frustrating.
Objective Rating: 2.7/4 (Good).

Batman

Data
Title: Batman
Year: 1989
Length: 126 minutes
Director: Tim Burton
Writers: Sam Hamm & Warren Skaaren, story by Hamm, based on characters by Bob Kane
Starring: Michael Keaton, Jack Nicholson, Kim Basinger
Music: Danny Elfman, Prince
Distinctions: Oscar for Best Art Direction/Set Decoration

My reaction
Synopsis: an origin story for The Joker
How I saw it: on video many times (have on DVD), most recently yesterday
Concept: Good.
Story: Indifferent.
Characters: Good.
Dialog: Bad. Lots of fun, but pretty stupid.
Pacing: Good.
Cinematography: Indifferent.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Indifferent. Nicholson's good, Keaton's okay, and Basinger's bad.  And as much as I think Nicholson and Keaton are cool, this has got to be some of the worst casting ever.
Music: Good.
Subjective Rating: 9/10 (One of my favorites). It's cheesey and cartoonish, but I don't care; it's the Batman I grew up with. Going back to watch this after Nolan's movies, it really becomes clear how this is just one level of campiness above Adam West. Also, what's with Batman killing people left and right? And the city thanking him for it? 1980s morality is f***ed up.
Objective Rating: 2.7/4 2.8/4 (Good).

A Single Man

Data
Title: A Single Man
Year: 2009
Length: 99 minutes
Director: Tom Ford
Writers: Tom Ford & David Scearce, based on the novel by Christopher Isherwood
Starring: Colin Firth, Julianne Moore, Nicholas Hoult, Matthew Goode
Music: Abel Korzeniowski (and non-original music)
Distinctions: Oscar nomination for Best Actor (Firth)

My reaction
Synopsis: months after the death of his partner, a 1960s gay man decides to kill himself
How I saw it: in the theater, yesterday
Concept: Good.
Story: Good. I've got to admit, I don't understand the significance of where the protagonist's relationship with his student went in the end. But overall, the story is very engaging.
Characters: Great.
Dialog: Great. They managed to get in a lot of literary density, without ever distracting from the plot or coming across as pretentious.
Pacing: Good.
Cinematography: Great.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Great. I haven't seen Crazy Heart yet, but I will be (pleasantly) shocked and amazed if Bridges is better than Firth.
Music: Great.
Subjective Rating: 7/10 (Good). Only a 7, but a highly-recommended 7.
Objective Rating: 3.6/4 (Great).

Children of Men

(update of a previous post - original is here)



Data
Title: Children of Men
Year: 2006
Length: 109 minutes
Director: Alfonso Cuarón
Writers: Alfonso Cuarón, Timothy J. Sexton, David Arata, Mark Fergus & Hawk Ostby, based on the novel by P.D. James
Starring: Clive Owen, Michael Caine, Julianne Moore, Clare-Hope Ashitey
Music: John Tavener (and non-original music)
Distinctions: currently #184 on IMDb's Top 250
Distinctions: Oscar nominations for Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Cinematography and Best Editing

My reaction
Synopsis: people try to survive in a dystopian near future
How I saw it: on video several times (have on DVD), most recently today
Concept: Good.
Story: Good.
Characters: Good.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Good.
Cinematography: Great. Best cinematography ever.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Great.
Music: Great.
Subjective Rating: 9/10 (One of my favorites). So very intense. An amazing movie in almost every respect.  And it gets better every time I see it.
Objective Rating: 3.6/4 3.7/4 (Great).

Doctor Who #5: The Keys of Marinus

Data
Title: Doctor Who: "The Keys of Marinus"
Year: 1964
Network: BBC
Episodes: 6, at 25 minutes; the fifth story (of 8) from season 1
Creators: Sydney Newman, C.E. Webber, Donald Wilson
Director: John Gorrie
Writer: Terry Nation
Starring: William Hartnell, William Russell, Jacqueline Hill, Carole Ann Ford
Music: Ron Grainer (theme); Norman Kay

My reaction
Synopsis: a well-meaning mad scientist forces the Doctor's companions to retrieve four "keys" which he's hidden around his world
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), yesterday
Concept: Indifferent.
Story: Terrible. Oh my goodness, so very terrible.
Characters: Bad.
Dialog: Indifferent.
Pacing: Bad. On the one hand, it's boring because it's so badly written. On the other hand, it moves too fast to have time to bother with covering up plot holes.
Cinematography: Indifferent.
Special effects/design: Terrible. Don't let the awesome still of Gary up there mislead you, this story looks like crap. There's a bonus feature on the DVD which basically consists of the set designer apologizing for ten minutes about how bad this story is. (He also happens to mention some evidence of how appallingly clueless both the writer and director were.)
Acting: Bad.
Music: Bad. It's good music when it's there, but much of the story takes place in an awkward silence.
Subjective Rating: 3/10 (Bad). Possibly the worst story I've seen yet from Doctor Who outside of the 1980s.  It doesn't help any that the Doctor's only in three of the six episodes (with no explanation as to why, naturally - Terry Nation doesn't go in for that whole "making sense" thing).
Objective Rating: 1.1/4 (Bad).

The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Data
Title: The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Year: 2005
Length: 109 minutes
Director: Garth Jennings
Writers: Douglas Adams & Karey Kirkpatrick, based on Adams' book
Starring: Martin Freeman, Mos Def, Sam Rockwell, Zooey Deschanel
Music: Joby Talbot

My reaction
Synopsis: one man is rescued from the destruction of the Earth
How I saw it: in the theater, 2005; on video several times (have on DVD), most recently yesterday
Concept: Great.
Story: Indifferent. Between squeezing three hours of material into a movie, and forcing a half-assed love story into it on top of that, it doesn't have much chance.
Characters: Great.
Dialog: Good. It has an annoying habit of leaving out the punchlines of the jokes, which must be confusing for people who don't know the source material and are expecting humor. But there are still quite a few great lines.
Pacing: Bad.
Cinematography: Good.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Good.
Music: Indifferent.
Subjective Rating: 7/10 (Good). The adaptation seems to miss the point most of the time, leaving out jokes and replacing them with Hollywood cliches. So, it's not anywhere near as funny as it should be. But it's still pretty fun. One thing it keeps intact is the sense of wonder; between the amazing special effects and Adams' ridiculously huge ideas (which the mediocre script doesn't quite squish in spite of itself), it can be pretty impressive - for the right audience. I can only imagine it would be a confusing mess to someone who hasn't read the book, or (like me) listened to the original radio drama a million times.
Objective Rating: 2.9/4 (Good).

Fraggle Rock: The Animated Series

Data
Title: Fraggle Rock: The Animated Series
Year: 1987
Network: NBC
Episodes: 13, at 25 minutes
Creator: Jim Henson
Director: Ray Lee
Writers: John Semper, Cynthia Friedlob, Barry O'Brien, Betty G. Birney, Alan Swayze, Larry Parr, Misty Stewart-Taggart, Mel Gilden, Bill Prady, Anthony Adams, Kathryn Mullen, Dennys McCoy, Pamela Hickey, Pam Dovale, Jack Enyart, Marv Wolfman, Donna Kuyper, Mark McClellan
Starring: Bob Bergen, Townsend Coleman, Barbara Goodson, Michael Laskin, Mona Marshall, Rob Paulsen
Music: Robert J. Walsh

My reaction
Synopsis: tiny, fun-loving creatures live underground
How I saw it: on video (have on DVD), over the past few weeks
Concept: Great.
Story: Terrible. Absolutely horrible writing.
Characters: Bad. How can they be bad when they're the same characters as in Fraggle Rock? I don't know, but they manage it.
Dialog: Bad. Usually terrible, but every now and then there will be something that's okay.
Pacing: Good.
Cinematography: Bad.
Special effects/design: Bad. Reasonably okay character design, but the animation quality is awful.
Acting: Terrible. With the notable exception of Rob Paulsen, who does Boober's voice - the only contribution to this show that isn't complete crap.
Music: Bad.
Subjective Rating: 2/10 (Terrible). This is the sort of thing that I might love even if it's bad, just because it's associated with Fraggle Rock. If I'm saying it's terrible, something is really wrong here.
Objective Rating: 1.2/4 (Bad).

Bambi

Data
Title: Bambi
Year: 1942
Length: 70 minutes
Director: David Hand
Writers: Perce Pearce & Larry Morey, with Vernon Stallings, Melvin Shaw, Carl Fallberg, Chuck Couch & Ralph Wright; based on a novel by Felix Salten
Starring: Hardie Albright, Stan Alexander, Peter Behn, Tim Davis, Donnie Dunagan, Sam Edwards, Sterling Holloway, Bobby Stewart, John Sutherland, Paula Winslowe, Will Wright
Music: Frank Churchill & Larry Morey (songs); Edward H. Plumb (score)
Distinctions: Oscar nominations for Best Score, Best Song ("Love Is a Song") and Best Sound Recording

My reaction
Synopsis: the first year of a deer's life
How I saw it: on video (have on VHS), yesterday
Concept: Indifferent. It's a fairly novel idea, but not exactly compelling.
Story: Bad.
Characters: Indifferent.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Bad.
Cinematography: Great.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Good.
Music: Indifferent. Not bad songs, but the musical sequences are pointless and boring.
Subjective Rating: 6/10 (Okay). The animation is absolutely amazing - one of the most visually impressive animated films I've ever seen. But there's no story, so it's really boring to watch.  Also, it bothers me that none of the animals in this forest eat each other.
Objective Rating: 2.5/4 (Okay).

Doctor Who: The Specials

Data
Title: Doctor Who: The Complete Specials [but not really - just the specials since season four ended]
Year: 2008-2010
Network: BBC
Episodes: 5: 1 at 65 minutes, 3 at 60 minutes, 1 at 75 minutes
Creators: Sydney Newman, C.E. Webber, Donald Wilson
Directors: Euros Lyn (2 episodes), Andy Goddard (1), James Strong (1), Graeme Harper (1)
Writers: Russell T. Davies (5 episodes), Gareth Roberts (1), Phil Ford (1); with characters by Kit Pedler, Gerry Davis and Terry Nation
Starring: David Tennant
Music: Ron Grainer (theme), Murray Gold

My reaction
Synopsis: a mysterious, lonely alien travels through space and time
How I saw it: youtube, over the past couple years; on video (have on DVD), over the past few days
Concept: Great.
Story: Great.
Characters: Great.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Indifferent.
Special effects/design: Good.
Acting: Great.
Music: Good.
Subjective Rating: 10/10 (Favorite of my favorites). Prior to this set, the Christmas specials had always been some of my least favorite episodes. I'd much rather watch a smaller-scale show that's well done than a big spectacle-infused event that tries too hard to impress you. But these usually manage to have the best of both worlds. Yeah, the finale does try way too hard, but at the same time, it always comes back down to character.  And there's Wilf. (If you don't know the show, just take my word for it: Wilf is the s**t.)
Objective Rating: 3.6/4 3.7/4 (Great).

The Cove

Data
Title: The Cove
Year: 2009
Length: 92 minutes
Director: Louie Psihoyos
Writer: Mark Monroe
Starring: Richard O'Barry
Music: J. Ralph (and non-original music)
Distinctions: Oscar for Best Documentary Feature

My reaction
Synopsis: documentary about an attempt led by the dolphin trainer from Flipper to gather evidence of Japanese dolphin killing
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), yesterday
Concept: Bad. Oh, mass murder of dolphins... That sounds fun.
Story: Good.
Characters: Good.
Dialog: Good.
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Good. It's kind of sad that hidden spy cameras are getting better shots than you see in most big budget films.
Special effects/design: Good.
Acting: n/a
Music: Indifferent.
Subjective Rating: 6/10 (Okay). It's put together very effectively. It's emotionally wrenching, and the storytelling is compelling. That said, they're not ultimately trying to make art with this film; they're trying to horrify you - to horrify you for a good reason, sure, but still. It's kind of like that elevator scene in The Shining, only real. I don't want to see that.
Objective Rating: 2.7/4 (Good).

An Education

Data
Title: An Education
Year: 2009
Length: 95 minutes
Director: Lone Scherfig
Writer: Nick Hornby, based on the memoir by Lynn Barber
Starring: Carey Mulligan, Peter Sarsgaard, Alfred Molina
Music: Paul Englishby (and non-original music)
Distinctions: Oscar nominations for Best Picture, Best Adapted Screenplay and Best Actress (Mulligan)

My reaction
Synopsis: a teenage girl falls in love with an older man
How I saw it: in the theater, yesterday
Concept: Bad. It sounds like it would be painful and awkward to watch. (It's not, though, probably thanks to Mulligan's performance. We see things from her character's perspective, so she never comes across as a victim unless she's aware of it herself.)
Story: Good.
Characters: Great.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Good.
Cinematography: Good.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Great.
Music: Great.
Subjective Rating: 7/10 (Good). Definitely worth seeing. Great actors playing great characters, in an intelligent (if not mind-blowingly interesting) story.
Objective Rating: 3.3/4 (Very good).

In the Loop

Data
Title: In the Loop
Year: 2009
Length: 106 minutes
Director: Armando Iannucci
Writers: Jesse Armstrong, Simon Blackwell, Armando Iannucci & Tony Roche, with Ian Martin
Starring: Peter Capaldi, Tom Hollander, Gina McKee, James Gandolfini, Chris Addison, Anna Chlumsky
Music: Adem Ilhan (and non-original music)
Distinctions: Oscar nomination for Best Adapted Screenplay

My reaction
Synopsis: minor politicians and their assistants deal with a possibly-impending war
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), yesterday
Concept: Indifferent. It depends what you consider the concept for this movie to be. If the concept is the plot, then it's crap. If the concept is Peter Capaldi creatively insulting everyone around him, then it's great.
Story: Bad. Structurally, it's tightly written. But it's just not an interesting story.
Characters: Great.
Dialog: Great. Oh my goodness. I'm pretty sure this is the best dialog ever put on film.
Pacing: Indifferent. It's exhausting to watch. Then again, if they'd taken any time to breathe, the world would have been robbed of that much more dialog.
Cinematography: Bad. Hand-held cameras for no apparent reason. Because The Office is popular, maybe?
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Great.
Music: Indifferent.
Subjective Rating: 8/10 (Great). Hilarious. But why is this screenplay nominated for an Oscar? It must be sheer volume of words. Or sheer volume of obscenities. It's kind of like in one of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy books, where there's an award for The Most Creative Use of the Word F*** in a Serious Screenplay.
Objective Rating: 2.8/4 (Good).

Dexter: Season One

Data
Title: Dexter
Year: 2006
Network: Showtime
Episodes: 12, at c. 54 minutes
Creator: James Manos Jr. (developer), from a novel by Jeff Lindsay
Directors: Michael Cuesta (5 episodes), Robert Lieberman (2), Tony Goldwyn (2), Steve Shill (1), Adam Davidson (1), Keith Gordon (1)
Writers: Daniel Cerone (3 episodes), Melissa Rosenberg (3), Drew Z. Greenberg (2), Tim Schlattmann (2), James Manos Jr. (1), Clyde Phillips (1), Lauren Gussis (1), Kevin Maynard (1)
Starring: Michael C. Hall, Julie Benz, Jennifer Carpenter, Erik King, Lauren Vélez, David Zayas
Music: Rolfe Kent (theme), Daniel Licht

My reaction
Synopsis: a serial killer kills other killers, and does crime scene forensics by day
How I saw it: online (streaming from Netflix), over the past few days
Concept: Good.
Story: Great. It's the sort of show where once you start, you need to know what happens next. It took an act of willpower to not just stay up all night and watch the whole thing in one sitting.
Characters: Good.
Dialog: Good.
Pacing: Great.
Cinematography: Bad. With the notable exception of the wonderful opening title sequence, it looks like crap. Maybe the streaming quality is at fault.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Good.
Music: Good. Although, there's an annoying tendency to break into spontaneous mambos.
Subjective Rating: 8/10 (Great). As great as it is, I'm a little baffled by how long it's been running. It really felt like he should have died at the end of this season, despite the presence of a second season proving otherwise. How much show can you make about a serial killer without him ever getting caught?
Objective Rating: 3.2/4 (Very good).

Gran Torino

Data
Title: Gran Torino
Year: 2008
Length: 116 minutes
Director: Clint Eastwood
Writer: Nick Schenk; story by Dave Johannson & Schenk
Starring: Clint Eastwood, Christopher Carley, Bee Vang, Ahney Her
Music: Kyle Eastwood & Michael Stevens
Distinctions: currently #84 on IMDb's Top 250

My reaction
Synopsis: a racist Korean War vet has a sweet car; or, The Inverted Karate Kid
How I saw it: on video (rented from Netflix), yesterday
Concept: Great. The character is more-or-less the whole concept, and the character is great.
Story: Great.
Characters: Great.
Dialog: Great.
Pacing: Good.
Cinematography: Indifferent.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Indifferent. Eastwood is good, but everyone else kind of stinks.
Music: Terrible. It takes the prize for Funniest Closing Credits away from Rambo II.
Subjective Rating: 7/10 (Good). My memory of everything good about the movie was very nearly erased as soon as Eastwood started singing, but not quite.
Objective Rating: 3.0/4 (Good).

82nd Academy Award nominees

Here they are in their entirety. I'm writing this before I've read anything today other than the list of nominees.

Best Picture:
- Avatar. Completely absurd that it's nominated. If it wins anything other than special effects, I'll probably be turned off of the Oscars entirely for a few years.
- The Blind Side. I haven't actually seen it, but seriously? The Blind Side? Either the Academy is on crack, or this movie is a lot better than its horrible, horrible trailer would have me believe.
- District 9. Okay, I can see that. Doesn't have a chance to win, and I don't think it will stand up to time for more than a couple years, but it's nice to see That Kind of Movie get some recognition. Geeks are no doubt dancing in the streets.
- An Education. Haven't seen it. Really want to see it, but what can I do, I live in central Washington.
- The Hurt Locker. I'll be surprised if it doesn't win.
- Inglourious Basterds. This is the one I'll be rooting for. I don't think it has a chance, but whatever.
- Precious. Expected and deserved, but I don't think it has much chance in this category.
- A Serious Man. Another good one, but won't win.
- Up. All I've got to say is: FINALLY.
- Up in the Air. Again, expected and deserved. Might have an outside chance.

Now, if they still only had five nominees for Best Picture, which ones would have made the cut? Certainly Hurt Locker. Probably An Education and Up in the Air. I'd like to think Basterds and Up might have been the other two, but Precious and A Serious Man would be more realistic. Sadly, based on how much I've disagreed with the Academy's taste in the past, I think either Avatar or The Blind Side, or both, would actually have made the cut. With that in mind, the whole ten nominees thing is pretty sweet. We've got science fiction, action, a cartoon... No straight up comedy, but there weren't any great comedies this year. Well, I guess you could call a number of films on that list comedies, but they're not comedy comedies, you know? Except for Basterds, they all take themselves fairly seriously.

Anyway, will the extra nominees change the end result?  It doesn't seem like a great year to judge that.  The Hurt Locker doesn't really have any similar competition for its voters to be split with.  If anything, the extra nominees will split the Avatar vote and minimize the chances of an upset there.  Or at least I can hope they will.

Maybe the Directing award clues us in on who the alternate-universe five Picture nominees would have been:
- James Cameron for Avatar
- Kathryn Bigelow for The Hurt Locker
- Quentin Tarantino for Inglourious Basterds
- Lee Daniels for Precious
- Jason Reitman for Up in the Air
Again with the Cameron - what the hell. I'm rooting for Tarantino. In my mind, it's between him and Bigelow. But my mind is very far away from a group of people that nominated f***ing James Cameron.

Both Actor categories are pretty much exactly as expected, so I haven't got anything to say there. Except to wonder futilely where Sam Rockwell is. The Actress categories have a couple surprises, but it doesn't really matter to me as frankly I didn't see a lot of great female acting this year with the exception of Precious (mind you, I've only seen three of the eight movies nominated for female acting).

Writing (Adapted Screenplay):
- District 9. Great concept, but I thought the script was a bit crap.
- An Education. Again, still need to see this.
- In the Loop. I don't think I've even heard of this one.
- Precious. Yeah, okay.
- Up in the Air. I expected it to be nominated, but personally I thought it was flawed.

Writing (Original Screenplay):
- The Hurt Locker. Great movie, but not because of the writing.
- Inglourious Basterds. Oh hell yes. Doesn't have a chance, but I can hope.
- The Messenger. Haven't seen it yet.
- A Serious Man. A likely winner.
- Up. Great movie, and great ideas, but the story is far from perfect.
I knew it wouldn't happen, but I had been holding out hope that Moon might have gotten a nomination here. That movie's writing runs circles around most of those nominees.  Most years, the writing categories are like my own personal Best Picture; the well-written movies are the movies I love.  This year they seem like Best Picture Part II more than ever - almost the same list of titles, except the two crap films, Avatar and The Blind Side, are replaced.

Maybe it sounds like I'm being too harsh on Avatar.  I did like it.  Or at least I enjoyed it.  But it's just action/spectacle, with no intelligence.  It is not great cinema.  It's just not.

And, the category that never fails to piss me off, and which I only mention because it pissed me off, Best Score:
- James Horner for Avatar
- Alexandre Desplat for Fantastic Mr. Fox
- Marco Beltrami and Buck Sanders for The Hurt Locker
- Hans Zimmer for Sherlock Holmes
- Michael Giacchino for Up
Horner and Zimmer have standing nominations, so it's no surprise to see them there regardless of whatever crap they've been turning out (except for last year, of course, the one time Zimmer was actually involved in something good). The Hurt Locker's only there because people love The Hurt Locker. I don't know how Desplat and Giacchino managed to sneak in; they actually wrote a couple of the year's best scores. It's outrageous that The Informant! wasn't nominated. Personally, I liked Where the Wild Things Are, but I don't know if that was even eligible. Of the nominees, Giacchino deserves to win.  Horner will probably get it, though (he says because he's a grumpypuss this morning).

Now, for my own convenience, a list of movies with major nominations that I need to see:
- The Blind Side. I can't say I'm in any hurry with that one...
- An Education. Might actually be showing this weekend, depending on which screen it's on (the only nearby theater that shows independent movies has a tendency to put them on a screen where the sound doesn't work).
- Crazy Heart. The Wrestler part 2? Can probably wait for DVD.
- A Single Man. There's nowhere convenient to see it, so it'll have to wait for DVD.
- Invictus. Looks like this just recently stopped showing. DVD it is.
- The Messenger. Same scenario as An Education. I think this one is less likely to be on a working screen, though.
- The Last Station. Has to wait for DVD.
- The Lovely Bones. Is a movie that's so universally panned worth seeing just for a supporting performance?
- Nine. Really, really do not want to see that one.
- In the Loop. Queued!
- The Princess and the Frog. Could still see it in the theater, but it doesn't really look that great.
- The Secret of Kells. Never heard of it. Don't know if it's going to the theater first or straight to DVD, but either way I'll have to wait.
- And, of course, the entirety of the Foreign Film category (as if it would be possible to actually see any of those movies...) and the Documentary category (a few of those are on DVD).

I Often Dream of Trains

Data
Title: Robyn Hitchcock: I Often Dream of Trains. A Concert Film.
Year: 2009
Network: Sundance Channel
Length: 89 minutes
Director: John Edginton
Starring: Robyn Hitchcock
Music: Robyn Hitchcock

My reaction
Synopsis: a Robyn Hitchcock concert film
How I saw it: on video (have on DVD), yesterday
Concept: Bad. It doesn't make any sense to film this concert. It's slow and quiet with no spectacle; there's nothing gained by seeing it rather than just hearing it.
Story: n/a
Characters: n/a
Dialog: Good.
Pacing: Indifferent.
Cinematography: Terrible.
Special effects/design: Bad.
Acting: n/a
Music: Great.
Subjective Rating: 3/10 (Bad). Amateurish film of a great (but bad-for-filming) concert. Completely pointless.
Objective Rating: 1.7/4 (Eh).

Mary Poppins

Data
Title: Mary Poppins
Year: 1964
Length: 139 minutes
Director: Robert Stevenson
Writers: Bill Walsh & Don DaGradi, based on books by P.L. Travers
Starring: Julie Andrews, Dick Van Dyke, David Tomlinson, Glynis Johns, Karen Dotrice, Matthew Garber
Music: Richard M. Sherman & Robert B. Sherman
Distinctions: Oscars for Best Actress (Andrews), Best Song ("Chim Chim Cher-ee"), Best Score, Best Visual Effects and Best Editing; Oscar nominations for Best Picture, Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Cinematography (color), Best Score (adaptation or treatment), Best Art Direction/Set Decoration (color), Best Costume Design (color) and Best Sound

My reaction
Synopsis: Edwardian children get a magic nanny
How I saw it: on video a couple times (have on VHS), most recently yesterday
Concept: Good.
Story: Terrible. I'm not sure there is one.
Characters: Indifferent.
Dialog: Good.
Pacing: Bad.
Cinematography: Indifferent.
Special effects/design: Great.
Acting: Good. I guess, on average. But a lot of it is bad.
Music: Bad. Andrews sings well, and there are a couple nice tunes, but mostly it's incessantly-catchy crap. This is the sort of movie I have in mind when I say I don't like musicals.
Subjective Rating: 5/10 (Indifferent). They sing and dance, then they sing, then they dance, then they sing some more, then Dick Van Dyke might do something funny, then they sing and dance... and so on.
Objective Rating: 2.1/4 (Okay).