Tuesday, February 7, 2012

The Hurt Locker -2009




The Hurt Locker directed by Kathryn Bigelow and starred Jeremy Renner as Sgt 1st Class William James, Anthony Mackie as Sgt JT Sanborn, Guy Pearce as Staff Sgt Matt Thompson, Ralph Fiennes as Contractor Team Leader, David Morse as  Colonel Reed, Evangeline Lilly as Connie James and Christian Camargo as Colonel John Cambridge.  The Hurt Locker won 6 Oscars out of 9 nominations.  Of all the movies I have blogged about, this one is probably the most controversial as far as awards go.

Of the nine nominations, 3 of them landed the movie on my list.  A Best Actor, Best Director and Best Picture nomination.  It seems a lot of people I have read or heard comment find it surprising that it was nominated for Best Picture or Best Director.  Many have very strong feelings on that as well.  I can see why some feel the way they do, but I will get to that in a bit.

The movie follows Sgt 1st Class William James and his team through a tour in Iraq.  James team is responsible for disarming IED's (Improvised Explosive Devices).  James comes to the team after the team leader in charge of disarming before him had been killed.  His unorthodox methods and reckless behavior do not make Sgt JT Sanborn very happy and there is quite a bit of tension between the two of them.

The synopsis is short and sweet, but I think it doesn't give much away.  The one thing that I really liked about this movie is that it really isn't a political statement about the war.  This despite the many comments by Bigelow being against the war.  It doesn't really make that type of statement.  However, it does explore or attempts to explore why some people seem to 'enjoy' war.  For that matter it explores the psyche of a guy that seems to have a hero complex and is very reckless.  Despite his recklessness he is very serious about his job, so serious that there are some repercussions.  The main one being the belief that he is needed and the only one that can do the job that he is doing.  It is an obsession with him.

Personally I can't understand it.  I am as Patriotic as they come and am very supportive of the service men.  However, I don't get these hero types and the ones that seem to be so gungho, they border on psycho.  I knew a guy in college who was in the ROTC and he scared me.  He didn't scare me in the way that I was afraid to be around him or that he might try to harm me.  His Rambo delusion is what scared me.  Here was a guy who if everything went as he planned, was going to be an officer in the Army.  I had no doubt that this guy if given the opportunity would get a lot of men killed, because he had hero issues.  It seems to me that for every guy that really doesn't want to be there fighting, there are a few more of these crazies.  I don't suppose it was a coincidence that this guy was short.  No disrespect to the vertically challenged, but the "Napoleon Complex" is not make believe in my opinion.

I guess that should lead me in to my discussion of the Best Actor nomination.  Jeremy Renner was nominated for his role.  He was competing with the following.

I have blogged on every movie on this list except A Single Man.  So if you have read any of those blogs you are aware that Jeff Bridges won and that I really don't have an issue with that win.  What can I say, Bridges plays a drunk very well.  Despite Bridges winning I think Renner was superb and definitely worthy of the nomination.  I think he is fantastic in helping to explore and portray a soldier who while unorthodox wants to do his best.  Also he does a very good job in trying to show how a guy like him ticks and although he upsets some of his comrades with his actions, he isn't doing it just to be different.

His obsession with finding out exactly how each IED works seems to drive him, almost to compulsion.  He saves all of the triggers from every bomb he has disarmed.  To me it seemed to be a weird dichotomy of a souvenir but also an understanding into the mind of those who are trying to kill him.  Almost an expose on how brilliant the human mind can be, even though the brilliance is shown in new and creative ways to trigger a bomb used to kill as many people as it can.

To me his best scene though is after he gets done with his tour and is finally home.  Yet he longs for a return to Iraq.  Even though he is home with his wife and child.  Clearly he feels he is needed in Iraq more than he is at home.  It was sad, sickening, and selfless all at the same time.  Some may agree with me and others may not, but that is how that scene made me feel.

Next I will tackle the directing nomination.  Bigelow was competing with the following directors.  One which was her ex husband.

I will start with Avatar.  I find it somewhat funny that BigelowCameron didn't win, but not because the movie was anti war.  Frankly I feel the nomination was more based on all of the technology he used and developed for the movie, more so than his actual craft at directing.

I haven't seen Precious so I can't really comment on Daniels job, but in my opinion Tarantino should have won, not Bigelow.  Many people agree with me that Bigelow didn't really do a great job even if they may not agree with me about Tarantino.  Regardless, the guy can flat out direct, and his writing makes his job as a director that much easier.  To me he is like Woody Allen in some ways.  To me both of their strength is dialogue and they know how to shoot the dialogue, how to frame it.  Tarantino got screwed in my opinion.

Finally on to the Best Picture nomination.  The Hurt Locker won and was up against these other movies.

  • Avatar
  • The Blind Side
  • District 9
  • An Education
  • Inglourious Basterds
  • Precious: Based on the novel Push by Sapphire
  • A Serious Man
  • Up
  • Up in the Air
As I mentioned, The Hurt Locker won.  Now I have heard people say it is the worst best picture winner in awhile.  Now I don't know if I'd go that far, Inglourious Basterds is a far superior movie in all ways.  Maybe that is my bias, because I like Tarantino.  Although I am not so blinded to realize that he can produce a pile of shit, because Jackie Brown meets that criteria in my opinion.  Either way at least Avatar didn't win.  Did I like Avatar?  Sure I did, but see my earlier comments.  I am not impressed by bells and whistles. 

Either way I can live with The Hurt Locker winning even if I think another movie deserved it.  Mainly because it was probably at worst the third best movie nominated.  I am more surprised that The Blind Side didn't win.  Touching movie and usually the sappy type of stuff that wins, but hardly the Best Picture.

So in the end  I would have to say I liked the movie quite a bit.  I found it very interesting how despite his unorthodox methods and a general distrust of William James, they began to respect him.  It really made me wonder if there are more people out there like him, actually in Iraq and Afghanistan.  A death wish perhaps.  I'd be inclined to think they are out there, as evidenced by my earlier example.  I'd give The Hurt Locker 4 out of 5 stars.
Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, February 2, 2012

Shanghai Express - 1932





Shanghai Express is to date the oldest movie that I have watched.  The film was directed by Josef von Sternberg and starred Marlene Dietrich as Shanghai Lily/Magdelon, Clive Brook as Captain Donald "Doc" Harvey, Anna May Wong as Hui Fei, Warner Oland as Henry Chang, Eugene Pallette as Sam Salt, Lawrence Grant as Mr. Carmichael, Louise Closser Hale as Mrs. Haggerty, Gustov van Seyfferitz as Eric Baum, and Emile Chautard as Major Lenard.

I have not mentioned it previously, but watching the older movies for me is a huge struggle.  Not because they are bad, but because I hate black & white.  I hate everything about it and I especially dislike when modern film makers do a film in black & white.  Sure, I understand why some do it, Like Schindler's List, but it doesn't mean I wouldn't find the movie as effective if it was in color.  I can understand the art argument to a certain extent, but we are living in the 21st century now, there really is no need for black & white movies anymore.

What I have noticed as I watch many of the older classics is that some have been lovingly and painstakingly restored and others have not.  Perhaps the original quality on some has an effect too as does age.  I just recently watched The Pumpkin Eater, which was black & white and the picture quality was amazing.  Granted the movie was done in '64 so that may have had something to do with it.  This film wasn't all that bad in terms of picture quality, so it made it more watchable than other black and white films.

Shanghai Express is a love story set during the Chinese revolution.  The cast of characters is travelling via train to Shanghai.  Most are more interested in the fact that Shanghai Lily is aboard the train rather than the fact that the revolution may cause a delay or some danger to their trip..

Shanghai Lily is what is known as a "Coaster", technically she is not a prostitute, but she is a woman who lives and survives on her wits.  If sex is required, then she will use it to get what she needs.  As it turns out, Doc Harvey and Shanghai Lily were once in love.  Years ago, well before she became a "Coaster".

The movie really tells the tale of the rekindling of their love while on the train.  Throw in the train being stopped by revolutionaries and lovers needing to save each other and you have the general idea of what happens.  I could go into further detail, but then I would be giving away the action in the movie.

Shanghai Express made it to my list by virtue of two of the three nominations it received.  It is important to note that this movie was nominated during the time when the nominations covered a two year span.  In this case they covered 1931 and 1932.  The two nominations in question were for Directing and Best Picture.

The movie was directed by Josef von Sternberg, an Austrian who got his start working cleaning film prints in Fort Lee, NJ.  He began his career directing silent films.  He is credited with making Marlene Dietrich an international star.  Not only did he work with her on several films but he also had a romantic relationship with her as well.  They collaborated on several films but there last film was a flop which coincidentally began Sternberg's decline as a director.  Shanghai Express was his second and last nomination for Best Director.  The other movies nominated at the time were.

I really do not know why there are only 3 nominees back then.  I tried to do some research but there really isn't a definitive answer that I could find.  Regardless, Sternberg did not win, the statue went to Frank Borzage for Bad Girl.  I have yet to see either film so I really have nothing to compare.  What I did notice though is that Sternberg was very adept at capturing light and was very good with the dialogue.  I did find the few outdoor scenes to not be as crisp.

The other nomination was for Best Picture, which back then was called Outstanding Production.  There were seven other nomination in that category.  From all the reading I have done regarding the Outstanding Production, this was really more a competition between studios and didn't always have the best movie in mind, but considered the whole ball of wax.  The other nominees were.

  • Arrowsmith
  • Bad Girl
  • The Champ
  • Five Star Final
  • Grand Hotel
  • One Hour With You
  • The Smiling Lieutenant
Grand Hotel took home the honor and again, I have yet to see any of the other films.  I can't really discuss if Shanghai Express got screwed in the deal.

It should be noted that it did win an Oscar for cinematography and in that respect, I can't argue that the movie didn't excel.  It was quite good and Sternberg seems to have been considered a master in that respect.  I thought the movie was quite good, despite the poor quality of the film.  I did not find myself waiting for the movie to end, like I have with some during this process.  I would give Shanghai Express 3.5 Stars.
Posted by at No comments:

How Can You Go Wrong with Rugby? Invictus 2009


Invictus is a movie directed by Clint Eastwood and stars Matt Damon as Francois Pienaar, Morgan Freeman as Nelson Mandela, Tony Kgoroge as Jason Tshabalala, Patrick Mofokeng as Linga Moonsamy, Matt Stern as Hendrick Booyens, Julian Lewis Jones as Etienne Feyder, Adjoah Andoh as Brenda Mazibuko, and Marguerite Wheatley as Nerine.

Having played rugby in college this was a movie I was really looking forward to seeing.  Even though I knew the outcome of the game I was very interested.  The movie begins with Nelson Mandela taking power in South Africa.  I must admit that living during the time that South Africa was practicing Apartheid I was not really aware that rugby was considered the game of the ruling white minority and that soccer (football) was the game of the majority black population.  So, that was an enlightening part of this movie.

Mandela was a very shrewd person and if this movie is historically accurate he certainly knew what he was doing.  He recognized that the minority whites biggest fear was that Mandela would deny and remove any vestige of the white culture would only anger them and push the country farther apart rather than unifying them.  He did this despite the fact that given the atrocities that this white ruling class had perpetrated on the blacks for years made many feel he would have been justified in doing so.

The movie follows the South African National Rugby team as they prepare for the Rugby World Cup that will eventually be held in South Africa.  Anyone who follows rugby is aware that the Springboks end up winning the cup.  I wonder would this movie have been made if the Hollywood ending would not have been realized.  If it wouldn't have it would have been a real shame because it was an eye opening view of South Africa.

The movie gets its name from a poem by William Ernest Henley and is a poem that Mandela would read during his imprisonment.  Mandela shares the poem with Pienaar to give him some strength and motivation.  Here it is.

Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.
In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.
Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds and shall find me unafraid.
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.

Invictus was nominated for two Academy Awards. Not surprisingly Morgan Freeman was nominated as Best Actor for his portrayal of Nelson Mandela and Matt Damon was nominated as Best Supporting Actor for his role as Francois Pineaar.  I have a theory about the Academy and portraying a real person.  It seems like it is almost an automatic nomination.  Ghandi, Lawrence of Arabia, Ray, Julie & Julia, Erin Brockovich and I'm sure you can think of plenty more.  I am not sure why this seems to happen, because to me acting is more about bringing life to a character, not trying to mimic a real persons behavior.  I am not an actor so I don't know, but to me doing an impression of someone is not nearly as impressive to me as taking a fictional character and making them appear real, but that is just my opinion.

Regardless Morgan Freeman was nominated for Best Actor for his role.  This was his fifth nomination and second for Best Actor.  His other three were for Supporting Actor and this was his first nomination since he won the Oscar for his role in Million Dollar Baby.  Which coincidentally was also a Clint Eastwood film.  Freeman was up against the following individuals for the Oscar.

I am up in the air on Freeman's nomination.  The only movie I have yet to see on this list above is A Single Man, but I must admit that the other three performances were far superior to Freeman.  If you have read any of my other blog entries (and you probably haven't) we all know that Jeff Bridges won the Oscar.  He was clearly the better choice over Morgan Freeman.

The other nomination went to Matt Damon, who owns an Oscar for his work on Good Will Hunting, but has not made the breakthrough on the acting side of things as yet.  He was nominated on his acting in Good Will Hunting, but won for writing.  Matt was nominated in the Best Supporting Actor role.  He was up against the following actors

As I alluded to above, Damon did not win the Oscar for his role and it really shouldn't come as a surprise.  Frankly, I thought the nomination really wasn't a good one.  Damon to me did not seem to excel in this role.  Was he good, sure, but I didn't come away from the movie thinking, wow Damon just knocked my socks off.  Waltz ultimately ended up winning the Oscar.

Did Waltz deserve it.  Probably.  I have yet to see the Last Station, so I can't comment on Plummer's performance, but Harrelson and Tucci were phenomenal in their roles as well.  I am ok with Waltz winning but I still think that Harrelson might have been given a bit of a snub.  I could have easily seen him winning.  If Waltz and Harrelson are 1a and 1b, then Tucci is not a very distant 2nd choice.

Overall, this movie did not disappoint me. Rarely does Clint Eastwood disappoint.  Of course the subject being rugby helped, but in the grand scheme of things this movie really isn't about rugby.  It is about racism and it is about forgiveness.  It is about looking past previous transgressions and moving on to bigger and better things.  All things that most of us wish we could do, but many of us struggle with on a daily basis.  Mandela was a remarkable man and this movie helps reinforce it.

I give it 4.5 Stars.
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)