The Hurt Locker did all that it realistically could achieve at the BAFTAs, sweeping to six awards, including the big one - Best Film - and Best Director for Kathryn Bigelow.
The Iraq bomb disposal drama also won: Original Screenplay (a bit of a surprise); Cinematography; Editing; and Sound.
And thus Avatar was vanquished, limping away with just two gongs for Production Design and Special Visual Effects.
But the poorest performer on the night was An Education with just one win from its eight noms – but what a win for Carey Mulligan, taking the Leading Actress award. Upon reflection, none of the other Leading Actress nominees stood a chance. Other big losers were Inglorious Basterds and District 9, departing Covent Garden with one win and nothing respectively.
Another welcome surprise on the night was Colin Firth’s defeat of Clooney and Bridges for Leading Actor; his stunning performance in A Single Man is justly rewarded.
There were other righteous British winners, too: Duncan Jones, director of Moon, winning the Outstanding Debut; and Fish Tank securing Outstanding British Film, for example.
Elsewhere, BAFTA went with the flow: Up In The Air, Adapted Screenplay; Up, Animated Film and Music; A Prophet, Foreign Film; Christoph Waltz, Supporting Actor; Mo’nique, Supporting Actress; and The Young Victoria, Costume Design, Make-up & Hair.
The only question arising from this year's ceremony is: "How much of an indicator of Oscar success are the BAFTAs?" Roll on 7 March.
Sunday, 21 February 2010
Thursday, 18 February 2010
Review: A Single Man
A Single Man not only features a superb performance from Colin Firth, but also highlights Tom Ford as a director of some considerable potential. This tale of a gay British teacher, George Falconer, long-exiled in LA in 1962 and how he handles his grief over the death of his lover is a work of exquisite precision.
Firth’s titular hero could so easily have been a stiff upper lip miserablist, and yet Firth and Ford allow him so much depth and scope; we see Falconer as a man, teacher, friend, lover, and recovering widower. Firth underplays the character, showing a lightness of touch and a real warmth so often absent in his and other English actors’ performances. Particularly noteworthy (and surely the clip they’ll use to illustrate his performance at the BAFTAs and Oscars) is the scene in which Firth collapses from content and confident to a hollow wreck upon receiving the news of his lover’s death: this is seriously great acting.
It’s a cliché, but it must be said that it’s all in Firth’s eyes and face and his subtle expressions; he completely becomes the character. His journey from depression to suicide attempt to realisation that life is worth living is a joy to watch – although a sense of restraint is always there.
I concede that the character’s fastidiousness appeals to me: others may simply see an obsessive/compulsive stuffed shirt. And for a film about overcoming grief, A Single Man is surprisingly humourous, especially Falconer’s suicide attempt: the precision by which he has lived his life is also the key criteria by which he decides where and how to end his life.
One of Falconer’s anchors is his friend, neighbour, fellow exiled-Brit and former lover Charley, played predictably brilliantly by Julianne Moore. Charley is perhaps more the type of character that I thought Falconer would be: miserable, self-obsessed, etc. Moore has just enough scope to make her character more than just a cipher.
Matthew Goode (Ozymandias in Watchmen) is suitably charismatic as Falconer’s dead lover, seen in flashbacks.
Ford directs with a keen eye, knowing when to go long and when to go close and intimate. Every frame is lovingly composed, such that a freeze-frame of any scene would hang beautifully on any wall. And therein lies a slight criticism: so many scenes look like fashion shoot stills come to full motion life (and some distinctly more so than others), and there are at least two scenes of staggeringly clichéd gay iconography that stick out like sore thumbs.
Another slight criticism is Ford’s decision to ‘flush’ his scenes and characters when they meet people whose company they enjoy. These shifts from sharp monochrome to Technicolour do highlight the move from emotional restraint to openness, but arguably not subtly enough. The repeated use becomes a little jarring, as if Ford wanted to add some extra ‘style’ to the film’s ‘substance’. If I were making the film, I’d shift the palette over the course of the entire film, not constantly back and forth.
As this is a Tom Ford film, ‘style’ is everywhere – but crucially not at the expense of substance. Set dressings and fashions were apparently handled by the same people that do so for Mad Men: Falconer’s home is the very essence of chez GQ circa 1962, his suits and blazer are expertly and flatteringly tailored, and his Mercedes is simply gorgeous. It truly is a beautiful film to look at.
But more than Ford, this is Firth’s film.
Score: 7.5/10
Firth’s titular hero could so easily have been a stiff upper lip miserablist, and yet Firth and Ford allow him so much depth and scope; we see Falconer as a man, teacher, friend, lover, and recovering widower. Firth underplays the character, showing a lightness of touch and a real warmth so often absent in his and other English actors’ performances. Particularly noteworthy (and surely the clip they’ll use to illustrate his performance at the BAFTAs and Oscars) is the scene in which Firth collapses from content and confident to a hollow wreck upon receiving the news of his lover’s death: this is seriously great acting.
It’s a cliché, but it must be said that it’s all in Firth’s eyes and face and his subtle expressions; he completely becomes the character. His journey from depression to suicide attempt to realisation that life is worth living is a joy to watch – although a sense of restraint is always there.
I concede that the character’s fastidiousness appeals to me: others may simply see an obsessive/compulsive stuffed shirt. And for a film about overcoming grief, A Single Man is surprisingly humourous, especially Falconer’s suicide attempt: the precision by which he has lived his life is also the key criteria by which he decides where and how to end his life.
One of Falconer’s anchors is his friend, neighbour, fellow exiled-Brit and former lover Charley, played predictably brilliantly by Julianne Moore. Charley is perhaps more the type of character that I thought Falconer would be: miserable, self-obsessed, etc. Moore has just enough scope to make her character more than just a cipher.
Matthew Goode (Ozymandias in Watchmen) is suitably charismatic as Falconer’s dead lover, seen in flashbacks.
Ford directs with a keen eye, knowing when to go long and when to go close and intimate. Every frame is lovingly composed, such that a freeze-frame of any scene would hang beautifully on any wall. And therein lies a slight criticism: so many scenes look like fashion shoot stills come to full motion life (and some distinctly more so than others), and there are at least two scenes of staggeringly clichéd gay iconography that stick out like sore thumbs.
Another slight criticism is Ford’s decision to ‘flush’ his scenes and characters when they meet people whose company they enjoy. These shifts from sharp monochrome to Technicolour do highlight the move from emotional restraint to openness, but arguably not subtly enough. The repeated use becomes a little jarring, as if Ford wanted to add some extra ‘style’ to the film’s ‘substance’. If I were making the film, I’d shift the palette over the course of the entire film, not constantly back and forth.
As this is a Tom Ford film, ‘style’ is everywhere – but crucially not at the expense of substance. Set dressings and fashions were apparently handled by the same people that do so for Mad Men: Falconer’s home is the very essence of chez GQ circa 1962, his suits and blazer are expertly and flatteringly tailored, and his Mercedes is simply gorgeous. It truly is a beautiful film to look at.
But more than Ford, this is Firth’s film.
Score: 7.5/10
Sunday, 14 February 2010
Review: Invictus
Invictus is a curious beast – and one of those very rare movies from Clint Eastwood that is less than compelling.
Clearly, the audience knows the outcome going into the movie – so dramatic tension is left wanting. In that case, the film should focus on the tensions between the black and white communities – which unfortunately it completely fails to do.
And of course, that’s classic Clint: he’s well known for not changing scripts, for not demanding or handling his own rewrites – if he likes the script when he reads it, then he shoots it as is. So if there are issues, those issues are in the original script.
Also Clint’s ‘deliver the movie on time, under budget’ method for once lets him down here: many scenes, though all shot by Tom Stern who did such great work for Clint on Changeling and Gran Torino, seem rushed, and shot with available light; there’s greyness to the film.
The script is indecisive about who the main character is: Mandela or Pienaar – neither are fleshed out enough, and thus Morgan Freeman (in a role he was born to play) and a pumped up Matt Damon have little to play with. Nor does the film draw together the successfully the similarities of the two characters: a president not fit (in terms of political experience) to be president, and a rugby captain who was a hair’s breadth from losing his job; a black president having to win over the whites and control his own people, and a rugby captain having to win over the blacks and control his own team.
The socio-political landscape is addressed with nothing more than a sideways glance in the depiction of the black and white security teams working together.
The rugby scenes falter at first, but improve as the film goes on – the crunching tackles become more realistic as the film goes on – suggesting they were shot in sequence.
Internet chatter suggests there are some historical inaccuracies, but these may be down as much to creative licence as to Clint’s penchant for revisionism.
Now all that probably sounds like I didn’t like it, but that wouldn’t be a fair assumption. Freeman’s accent drops now and then, but, as ever, the gravitas he brings to the role enobles Mandela’s surmonising still further. Damon underplays Pienaar nicely. And the film doesn’t bang you over the head with lectures about racism.
Ultimately, it’s just a sports movie.
Score: 6/10
Clearly, the audience knows the outcome going into the movie – so dramatic tension is left wanting. In that case, the film should focus on the tensions between the black and white communities – which unfortunately it completely fails to do.
And of course, that’s classic Clint: he’s well known for not changing scripts, for not demanding or handling his own rewrites – if he likes the script when he reads it, then he shoots it as is. So if there are issues, those issues are in the original script.
Also Clint’s ‘deliver the movie on time, under budget’ method for once lets him down here: many scenes, though all shot by Tom Stern who did such great work for Clint on Changeling and Gran Torino, seem rushed, and shot with available light; there’s greyness to the film.
The script is indecisive about who the main character is: Mandela or Pienaar – neither are fleshed out enough, and thus Morgan Freeman (in a role he was born to play) and a pumped up Matt Damon have little to play with. Nor does the film draw together the successfully the similarities of the two characters: a president not fit (in terms of political experience) to be president, and a rugby captain who was a hair’s breadth from losing his job; a black president having to win over the whites and control his own people, and a rugby captain having to win over the blacks and control his own team.
The socio-political landscape is addressed with nothing more than a sideways glance in the depiction of the black and white security teams working together.
The rugby scenes falter at first, but improve as the film goes on – the crunching tackles become more realistic as the film goes on – suggesting they were shot in sequence.
Internet chatter suggests there are some historical inaccuracies, but these may be down as much to creative licence as to Clint’s penchant for revisionism.
Now all that probably sounds like I didn’t like it, but that wouldn’t be a fair assumption. Freeman’s accent drops now and then, but, as ever, the gravitas he brings to the role enobles Mandela’s surmonising still further. Damon underplays Pienaar nicely. And the film doesn’t bang you over the head with lectures about racism.
Ultimately, it’s just a sports movie.
Score: 6/10
Saturday, 6 February 2010
Avatar: the all-time greatest...
Avatar has succeeded where generations of heavy weight boxers have failed: it holds all the major titles.
Cameron’s Smurf movie beat Titanic’s US box office record on Tuesday 2 February; it stood at $606m at close of play Thursday. There is some irony that it will likely come second at this weekend’s box office – after seven weeks at number 1 – to a teenage girl-skewing romantic weepie (which would be an apt description of Titanic) as most males will be watching the Super Bowl.
Avatar adds the US title to its international and worldwide records: just shy of $1.5bn and $2.1bn respectively.
Internationally, Avatar’s top 10 markets are (with Titanic’s hauls in brackets):
• China $127m ($43.9m)
• UK $103.5m ($114m)
• Germany $102m ($129.9m)
• France $101m ($129m)
• Russia $98.8m ($5m)
• Japan $91.1m ($201.3m)
• South Korea $86m ($17m)
• Australia $81.9m ($38.9m)
• Spain $79.5m ($44m)
• Italy $53m [after only three weeks] ($69.9m)
It will beat Titanic’s all-time UK record this weekend or by the middle of next week (at least in dollar terms). Last weekend (29-31 January, its seventh week of release) Avatar brought in $7.7m, a fall of just 6% from the previous weekend. Its previous three weekend-to-weekend comparisons were -7%, +16%, and -20%. Its displayed similarly astonishing legs in every major market.
With nine Oscar noms and the potential for two key wins, Avatar will continue to raise the box office bar still further.
Cameron’s Smurf movie beat Titanic’s US box office record on Tuesday 2 February; it stood at $606m at close of play Thursday. There is some irony that it will likely come second at this weekend’s box office – after seven weeks at number 1 – to a teenage girl-skewing romantic weepie (which would be an apt description of Titanic) as most males will be watching the Super Bowl.
Avatar adds the US title to its international and worldwide records: just shy of $1.5bn and $2.1bn respectively.
Internationally, Avatar’s top 10 markets are (with Titanic’s hauls in brackets):
• China $127m ($43.9m)
• UK $103.5m ($114m)
• Germany $102m ($129.9m)
• France $101m ($129m)
• Russia $98.8m ($5m)
• Japan $91.1m ($201.3m)
• South Korea $86m ($17m)
• Australia $81.9m ($38.9m)
• Spain $79.5m ($44m)
• Italy $53m [after only three weeks] ($69.9m)
It will beat Titanic’s all-time UK record this weekend or by the middle of next week (at least in dollar terms). Last weekend (29-31 January, its seventh week of release) Avatar brought in $7.7m, a fall of just 6% from the previous weekend. Its previous three weekend-to-weekend comparisons were -7%, +16%, and -20%. Its displayed similarly astonishing legs in every major market.
With nine Oscar noms and the potential for two key wins, Avatar will continue to raise the box office bar still further.
Tuesday, 2 February 2010
Oscars nominations 2010
Surprise, surprise: Avatar and The Hurt Locker are set to duke it out for the Oscars. Both have secured nine nominations.
Unsuprisingly, Avatar’s nods lean heavily towards the technical; the only big awards it is up for are Best Picture and Best Director. The Hurt Locker also scores in both categories, but as well as a fistful of technical nods, it has also garnered recognition for its script and for Jeremy Renner as its hero.
Next up is a surprise: Inglorious Basterds with eight noms, including Best Picture, Director and Original Screenplay. Christoph Waltz secured his nom for Best Supporting Actor – and must be considered the outstanding favourite for that category.
Up In The Air and Precious both picked up six noms, with no real surprises, although it’s heartening to see Jason Reitman nominated for his directing as well as his script for Up In The Air.
Up scored five noms, intriguingly being listed for both Best Picture and Best Animated Picture. What chance of it scooping both?
Three films picked up four noms: Nine, District 9 and Star Trek. With the expanded Best Picture list (10 as opposed to five), the latter was thought to have a good chance of scoring in that category, but instead it’s got to settle for technical nods. Nine, the greatest underperformer both critically and financially (at least against expectations), managed to ensnare nods in the technical categories and for Penelope Cruz (Best Supporting Actress); Cruz must now be considered an Oscar darling like Meryl Streep and Kate Winslet – whatever she does, she will get nominated.
District 9’s success is possibly the most unexpected, its four nods being a pair of technicals, plus Best Picture and Best Original Screenplay.
An Education scored three noms: Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Film and Best Actress for its break-out star Carey Mulligan. Another ‘female’ movie doing well is The Blind Side. Now in its 11th week on release (the only film with better legs is Avatar), its BO total in the US stands at nearly $238m, which makes it the most successful film in the US led by an actress. The Blind Side is shortlisted for Best Picture and Best Actress for Sandra Bullock.
Notable stat: only half of the Best Picture nominees can be seen on screen now; the other half are already on DVD.
So, predictions… Avatar probably will win Best Film (not that I want it to, you understand); Kathryn Bigelow should grab Best Director for The Hurt Locker (and thus become the first woman to win in that category); Best Actor favourite must be Jeff Bridges for Crazy Heart, but Morgan Freeman as Mandela in Invictus looms large; Best Actress will surely be Bullock, although her luminescent performance in An Education makes Carey Mulligan a good outside bet; Waltz will, er, waltz off with Best Supporting Actor; and Best Supporting Actress will see a three-way tussle between Cruz, Vera Farmiga for Up In The Air, and (inevitably) Mo’Nique in Precious (although the film’s harrowing nature may harm it in all categories).
The winners will be announced on 7 March.
Unsuprisingly, Avatar’s nods lean heavily towards the technical; the only big awards it is up for are Best Picture and Best Director. The Hurt Locker also scores in both categories, but as well as a fistful of technical nods, it has also garnered recognition for its script and for Jeremy Renner as its hero.
Next up is a surprise: Inglorious Basterds with eight noms, including Best Picture, Director and Original Screenplay. Christoph Waltz secured his nom for Best Supporting Actor – and must be considered the outstanding favourite for that category.
Up In The Air and Precious both picked up six noms, with no real surprises, although it’s heartening to see Jason Reitman nominated for his directing as well as his script for Up In The Air.
Up scored five noms, intriguingly being listed for both Best Picture and Best Animated Picture. What chance of it scooping both?
Three films picked up four noms: Nine, District 9 and Star Trek. With the expanded Best Picture list (10 as opposed to five), the latter was thought to have a good chance of scoring in that category, but instead it’s got to settle for technical nods. Nine, the greatest underperformer both critically and financially (at least against expectations), managed to ensnare nods in the technical categories and for Penelope Cruz (Best Supporting Actress); Cruz must now be considered an Oscar darling like Meryl Streep and Kate Winslet – whatever she does, she will get nominated.
District 9’s success is possibly the most unexpected, its four nods being a pair of technicals, plus Best Picture and Best Original Screenplay.
An Education scored three noms: Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Film and Best Actress for its break-out star Carey Mulligan. Another ‘female’ movie doing well is The Blind Side. Now in its 11th week on release (the only film with better legs is Avatar), its BO total in the US stands at nearly $238m, which makes it the most successful film in the US led by an actress. The Blind Side is shortlisted for Best Picture and Best Actress for Sandra Bullock.
Notable stat: only half of the Best Picture nominees can be seen on screen now; the other half are already on DVD.
So, predictions… Avatar probably will win Best Film (not that I want it to, you understand); Kathryn Bigelow should grab Best Director for The Hurt Locker (and thus become the first woman to win in that category); Best Actor favourite must be Jeff Bridges for Crazy Heart, but Morgan Freeman as Mandela in Invictus looms large; Best Actress will surely be Bullock, although her luminescent performance in An Education makes Carey Mulligan a good outside bet; Waltz will, er, waltz off with Best Supporting Actor; and Best Supporting Actress will see a three-way tussle between Cruz, Vera Farmiga for Up In The Air, and (inevitably) Mo’Nique in Precious (although the film’s harrowing nature may harm it in all categories).
The winners will be announced on 7 March.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)