Oscar Watch: Trumbo (2015)

Hello, Bloggers, welcome to another episode of my Oscar Watch where I discuss trailers for upcoming Oscar contenders. For this post, I will delve into the upcoming biopic Trumbo starring Bryan Cranston as blacklisted screenwriter Dalton Trumbo.

The film deals with how Dalton Trumbo, along with other Hollywood figures, was blacklisted for his political beliefs and fought both the government and the Hollywood system over the war of free speech.

Given the subject matter of fighting for free speech, it is very timely as there have been horrific events taking place recently over the right to free artistic expression. The prime example being the Charlie Hebdo incident in France. So it'll be interesting to see whether the film can transition its time period.

As of right now, I have Bryan Cranston on my Best Actor predictions. Mainly because he is playing a real-life person (which they love) and since the majority of voters are old white dudes who have probably lived in the blacklisted era depicted here, this one might have them feeling nostalgic. But I do think Cranston looks like he is doing a fantastic job. He also has a great cast surrounding him including Diane Lane, Helen Mirren, Louis C.K., John Goodman, Elle Fanning, and Alan Tudyk. The only drawback to its potential awards campaign is that the film is coming from a relatively new distributor known as Bleecker Street. Usually, the big wigs have an easier time sneaking in so who knows how that'll effect this one's prospects.

So those are my thoughts on the trailer for Trumbo. Please feel free to write your thoughts in the comments section on whether you think this looks like a viable Oscar contender and whether you think it looks as promising just as a film. Thanks for reading!

2010 Film Guy Awards

2010 was one of the darkest periods for those invested in the Oscars. In a year full of rich and eclectic films and nominees, the Academy once again decided to play it safe by awarding the sentimental yet way too traditional British biopic The King's Speech. While it isn't a bad movie and in fact is perfectly fine, it pales in comparison to its competition which has a much stronger showing here along with plenty of those that were completely under the radar. This is the 2010 Film Guy Awards. Enjoy!

* indicates the winner

Best Picture:
Animal Kingdom
Black Swan
Inception
Scott Pilgrim vs. The World
The Social Network*

Best Director:
Andrea Arnold, Fish Tank
Darren Aronofsky, Black Swan
David Fincher, The Social Network*
David Michod, Animal Kingdom
Christopher Nolan, Inception

Best Actor:
Michael Cera, Scott Pilgrim vs. The World
Leonardo DiCaprio, Shutter Island
Jesse Eisenberg, The Social Network*
James Franco, 127 Hours
Christos Stergioglou, Dogtooth

Best Actress:
Katie Jarvis, Fish Tank*
Jennifer Lawrence, Winter's Bone
Julianne Moore, The Kids Are All Right
Natalie Portman, Black Swan
Emma Stone, Easy A

Best Supporting Actor:
Christian Bale, The Fighter
Michael Fassbender, Fish Tank
Ben Mendelsohn, Animal Kingdom
Mark Ruffalo, The Kids Are All Right
Michael Shannon, The Runaways*

Best Supporting Actress:
Amy Adams, The Fighter
Patricia Clarkson, Easy A
Mila Kunis, Black Swan
Rooney Mara, The Social Network
Jacki Weaver, Animal Kingdom*

Best Original Screenplay:
Animal Kingdom
Dogtooth
Fish Tank 
Inception*
The Kids Are All Right

Best Adapted Screenplay:
127 Hours
It's Kind Of A Funny Story
Scott Pilgrim vs. The World
The Social Network*
Toy Story 3

Best Film Editing:
Black Swan
Fish Tank
Inception
Scott Pilgrim vs. The World*
The Social Network

Best Cinematography:
Animal Kingdom
Black Swan*
Fish Tank
Inception
The Social Network

Best Original Score:
Black Swan
Inception
Shutter Island
The Social Network*
Tron: Legacy

Best Costume Design:
Alice in Wonderland
The King's Speech
The Runaways
Scott Pilgrim vs. The World
Shutter Island*

Best Production Design:
Alice in Wonderland*
Inception
Scott Pilgrim vs. The World
Shutter Island
Tron: Legacy

Best Makeup:
Alice in Wonderland
Shutter Island*
The Wolfman

Best Visual Effects:
Alice in Wonderland
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part I
Inception
Scott Pilgrim vs. The World*
Tron: Legacy

Best Sound:
Black Swan
Inception
Scott Pilgrim vs. The World*
Shutter Island
Tron: Legacy

Best Original Song:
"Pimps Don't Cry" from The Other Guys
“Garbage Truck” from Scott Pilgrim vs. The World
“Threshold” from Scott Pilgrim vs. The World*
“We Are Sex Bob-omb” from Scott Pilgrim vs. The World
“We Belong Together” from Toy Story 3

(subject to change)

Retro Review: The Princess Bride (1987)

                       

         
                     'The Princess Bride' Sits On A High Throne
   
          It would make sense that Christopher Guest would have a part in this since the humor in this film manages to lie in the characters much like in his movies.

     Story:
    The Princess Bride follows the story of a kid (Fred Savage) whose grandfather (Peter Falk) reads him a story about a princess named Buttercup (Robin Wright) and the farm boy named Westley (Cary Elwes) that tries to capture her heart.

    Ups:
   To me, what makes this film so funny is that the humor lies in the characters. A few in particular that stood out were the bumbling outlaw Vizzini, played by Wallace Shawn, and his accomplice Inigo Montoya, played by Mandy Patinkin, who is seeking revenge against the six-fingered man that killed his father. I thought a lot of the characters were very colorful, but those two stole the film. I also loved how the character of Buttercup was written. They made her very lovelorn yet also very witty and Robin Wright makes you realize why Westley would fall in love with her as both she and Cary Elwes have such rich chemistry.

    I also appreciate the film for its self-awareness in terms of its fantasy genre and how it toys with the typical conventions of ig like the way the hero attempts to save the girl and the banter between two characters as they sword fight and all that.

     Downs:
     NIL.

      Consensus:
     Overall, The Princess Bride is an imaginative fantasy that is also a hilarious romp. It features colorful characters and toys with the conventions of its genre without losing sight of it.

     Would I Recommend It?:
     Absolutely. Watch it with the whole family. It's a classic.

Grade: A

Topic Of The Day: Josh Trank Controversy

Hello, Bloggers, welcome to another episode of Topic Of The Day. For today's topic, I will delve into the bad publicity surrounding Fantastic Four director Josh Trank and why he serves as a cautionary tale, or Ghost of Christmas Present, for anyone aspiring to make it into the film industry.

For those of you who aren't familiar with this whole controversy, Josh Trank recently took to Twitter to say how a year ago, he had a fantastic version of the latest reboot of the Fantastic Four franchise until the studio meddled with it. Not only that, but there reports of Trank being difficult on set, costing him a directing gig for an upcoming Star Wars spinoff movie. Now, it might seem difficult for Trank to get work.

The reason that I bring this up is to warn anyone trying to make it into film that if you want to make it in Hollywood: You Got. To Play. Ball. You could be a novice screenwriter and write the best screenplay in history. Yet the suits don't care how amazing it is. If they see a film with a profit, they'll either pick it up or potentially meddle with it so that they see a film with a profit. If the latter were to happen, then it would be very frustrating, I know. But in order to get your foot in the door, you would have to let them meddle so that your name doesn't become mud right off the bat. Hollywood is a very tight-knit community. Any small word of an actor or director clashing with his or her collaborators can spread like wildfire within that community.

To further prove my point, I'll bring up two actors that serve as cautionary tales. Take, for example, Mo'Nique. She may have won every award thrust at her for Precious. But because of her refusal to campaign, this soured her relationship with the Hollywood community, according to her Precious director Lee Daniels.

You also have Edward Norton. He's a great, great actor. There is no denying that. But he slowly had trouble getting work because of how he fought for creative control over the projects he started in, meddling with the studios. Since the films he meddled with never brought in huge box office numbers, he slowly resorted to doing Verizon commercials until Wes Anderson took him under his wing and he got brought back to Oscar's good graces with Birdman. If he was difficult yet still put butts in the seats, the suits likely wouldn't care because in Hollywood, it's all about the money. With all the bad publicity surrounding Josh Trank and the poor receipts Fantastic Four is getting, it's unlikely that Trank will direct such a huge studio property any time soon.

So to anybody that reads this and looks to make it in the film industry, I urge you to heed this warning and go into the business with both eyes open. As you try to get your foot in the door, you want to always, not sometimes, ALWAYS make sure you play nice. If you write a script or star in a movie and write one of the best scripts ever or give the performance of your life, the suits don't care as long as your film rakes in dough and/or win awards. If they don't see a film that is commercial when reading it and try to make it commercial, you will have to let them so that the film can potentially make a profit. I may not be in the film business myself, but I get how hard it'll possibly be to stick to your own original vision. But if they wanted to meddle with it, you might just have to play along so that you can build relationships and thrive in the industry in the long run.

If you agree or disagree with my thoughts on the whole Josh Trank controversy and "playing the game" in Tinseltown, please feel free to write your thoughts in the comments section. Thanks for reading!

Oscar Re-Do Blogathon!

Hello, Bloggers, I've decided to, for the first time ever, create my own Blogathon. Since a huge portion of my blog is devoted to the Oscars, my first blogathon will be based on those. For this blogathon, you guys pick one of your favorite films over any particular year that didn't get a lot of Oscar love and to make up for that injustice, nominate it across the board. The rules are fairly simple:

1. You must only pick one film from one year.

2. When nominating it in different categories, you must take out one actual nominee to make room for yours.

Ex: Shame (2011)

Best Picture
-Who goes off: Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close

Best Director (Steve McQueen):
-Who goes off: Woody Allen for Midnight in Paris

3. After including it in each category you chose, give a short blurb as to why you would've entered it in the different categories that you chose and why you would've nominated it over the nominees that you replaced.

4. It can be a film that is already nominated. But one that only has about one or two.

5. After posting on your blog, you can post the link in the comments section of this page or tweet me @filmguy619.

You guys have two weeks to take part in this blogathon and I look forward to what you guys come up with. Have fun!

Topic Of The Day: Edward Norton's Oscar Proposal

Hello, Bloggers, welcome to another episode of Topic Of The Day. For today's topic, I will delve into some comments made by Edward Norton about the whole awards campaigning process. I think he is very on point with his thoughts. I do have some minor reservations, but I certainly get where he's coming from and would even like to expand upon his ideas. Here we go:

First off, here is a link to an interview where he offered his proposal:

http://www.indiewire.com/article/edward-norton-has-a-solution-to-the-moetization-of-the-oscars

According to Norton, they should put a ban on For Your Consideration ads which apparently only solicit awards. I agree to a certain extent because there are films that don't really need that kind of promotion. All the films by the bigwigs (Universal, Dreamworks, Weinstein Co., etc.). He thinks that any films that spend money on those types of ads should be disqualified. But they could have a certain criteria for films that send out ads. One thing that I personally think they could do is only have films with budgets of about $10 million or less send out ads. Films that need the exposure more than the Lincolns, 12 Years A Slaves, American Sniper's, and Les Miserables' that don't need the buzz and the limited release treatment. That way, the effort and money put into the ads for these smaller films feels more paid off since they might not have a big distributor on their shoulders. I also think that they should have a rule prior to Nomination Day stating that any film with a budget of about $20 million or above and any individual performer in a film with a $20 million budget or above that puts out FYC ads for themselves before nominations are announced gets automatically disqualified from the race. Strict, I know. But there are a lot of films that could never make it to the Oscars that could benefit from FYC ads a lot more. Plus, it could save the big studios some money because that is the biggest factor in the Oscar race. It is all about money spent on screenings, screeners, ads, etc., which is very unfortunate.

Another part of Norton's proposal is that he thinks that a lot of the guild awards and shows like the Golden Globes shouldn't be televised. I do agree to a certain extent because audiences don't really care about those. Most of them probably just want to see the big show. Although the Globes rely on ratings so who knows how it'll affect them. But by not televising the guild awards, it might actually create some suspense on Oscar night. Since the masses that rely on the televised awards shows to figure out the winners on Oscar night won't really know who they are, they could have an easier time tuning in so they can wonder. As I have mentioned before, one of the biggest flaws with the Oscars is their predictability and them making sure the same names mentioned throughout the season are called up to the stage. But without the precursors being aired, Oscar voters might not be easily swayed by public opinion.

Although, I do have some minor reservations about Norton's proposal. One is that, by letting the AMPAS decide who they want to vote for without studios influencing their decisions, it could potentially allow voters to continue their preferential buddy system. That's another one of their biggest flaws. Although we could see some interesting and out of the box choices, I worry that we could still see the same names pop up. Not only that, but if studio films don't send out FYC ads, then who knows if the studio genre films that the masses pull for will be much of a factor in the Oscar race. While I did offer up my own restrictions as to what films can and cannot create ads, at the same time, there are plenty of studio films that we want to see make it to the Oscars that wouldn't be there without an aggressive campaign.

So those are my thoughts on Edward Norton's proposal to change the Oscar campaigning process. Whether you agree or disagree with his thoughts and whether you agree or not with my own proposal based on his, please feel free to write your thoughts in the comments section. Thanks for reading!

The Film Emotion Blogathon!

Hello, Bloggers, Connor from Conman At The Movies has started his own Blogathon which centers around the latest animated film Inside Out. The rules of this one are that you have to pick five films that make you feel the five different emotions in the film. Then you have to write one paragraph on each film, post them on your blog, and send the link to Connor in the comments section of the link that I have hyperlinked for you above. Here are the five emotions to base your five films off of.

Joy: First, go with a film that makes you happy, whether it'd be a musical or a comedy or a family film.

Sadness: Then any film that makes you feel sad or depressed.

Fear: A film that of course makes you scared and even gives you nightmares. It can be a horror film or anything that your bones cringe by the end credits.

Anger: A film that rattles your cage just thinking about it. One that you absolutely hate with every fiber of your being.

Disgust: This one is more open-ended. It could be a film that makes you squirm because it is so gross or something that makes you feel like dirt when you watch it and has you go "Yeesh, people suck!" (i.e., Schindler's List).

Anyways, here are my five films:

Joy: Wedding Crashers. This is an absolute treat to watch. Every time I turn it on, I always get a kick out of the witty banter from Owen Wilson and Vince Vaughn, who are like a match made in comedy heaven. Also, Isla Fisher STEALS the movie as the sex-crazed bridesmaid Gloria and both Rachel McAdams and Owen Wilson have amazing romantic chemistry. But this one is a real comedic riot!

Sadness: Dancer In The Dark. Normally when seeing a Lars Von Trier movie, I never expect the film watching experience to be all peaches and cream. But this one just broke me. Don't let the fact that it is a musical fool you because even the musical numbers have an underlying tragedy. Even when I listen to the song "New World" by Bjork that plays at the end credits, I slowly become one big emotional wreck because it brings me back to my experience watching this.

Fear: Compliance. Originally, I was going to go with a horror film. But I figured I'd think outside the box. Even though this isn't categorized as horror, it is so terrifying because this is based on true events. Plus, it shows how ordinary human beings can be capable of pure evil. They can force fast food workers to humiliate themselves while engaging in harmless acts while talking over the phone. Absolutely chilling.

Anger: August: Osage County. This is an easy one. Lord, do I hate this movie. Ever since I saw it, the more I thought about it, the more I dislike it. It was painful watching the actors try to ACT their hardest while playing characters I wanted to strangle over the course of a film with glacial pacing and a trite and cliched storyline. Never. Again.

Disgust: The Human Centipede. I honestly couldn't even finish this one. I love horror films and usually don't mind the blood and guts. But what I don't like are horror films that are gross for the sake of being gross. Seriously, what is the whole point or message behind creating a human centipede other than the cliched "mad scientist" routine? Ugh, horror films like these are like abnormal experiments themselves.