Sunday, January 30, 2005

trying Hello...


Trying out Blogger's Hello program for image-hosting. I dunno... Isn't it *really* awkward and *really* weird to have to use an IM client to post images to your blog? I've complained about this in an earlier post, and I'm still annoyed. Posted by Hello

ARRUG! And there's no way to specify a title! And it puts that annoying Hello icon above in the post! Damn it.

EDIT: oops, okay, so you can tell Hello to not put that icon there. That's nice. Still annoyed at the non-title though.

Saturday, January 29, 2005

Blake's, etc.

I went to Blake's for the first time tonight. When presented with the opportunity, I figured I should at least go to Blake's once during my tenure at Berkeley. We went downstairs and listened to The Cheats playing. They weren't very good, and their music ranged from incredible loudness and messiness with all members masturbating on their instruments to quiet parts with a trembling guitar line once in a while. Yuck.

And why do you need to tip the bartender anyway? This guy gets an amazing amount of tip for doing nearly no work. I wish I were a bartender.

Wait, no I don't.

Super Short Movie Reviews

I'm so behind on my movie reviews, so here are short ones of the films I saw recently:

Closer (9/10) -- Everything about this film is nearly perfect. The performances were superb -- stunning, even, in the cases of Clive Owen and Natalie Portman, who exceeded herself in Garden State. The film shows four ruthless and selfish people in absurb love triangles. Interestingly, we never get to see them being happy. All we see are the beginning -- when one woos another away from someone else -- and the end -- when one leaves another. Both are the most painful parts of relationships in general, and we never see the supposedly happy things in the middle. Might as well -- this is a film not so much about relationships as it is about how we break them down, tear them up and abuse them to fulfill our absurd and desperate fear of loneliness. To that end, it serves up an amazing brew. The film was adapted from a play, and it shows. Characters spew hyper-intelligent lines at superhuman speed, and the way they talk is dazzling and frightening. Of course, this kind of stagey dialogue suits me just fine -- I'm not all that interested in reality anyway, as you may have gathered. The film basically moves from one fight/courtship scene to another, and boy are they spectacular! A fight between Clive Owen and Julia Roberts and a courtship between Clive Owen and Natalie Portman are two of the most breath-taking scenes all year long. Some take issues with there being no likeable characters. I would argue the point (I thought Natalie Portman's character was quite adorable), but it's true -- if you can't stand movies that don't have any character that you can like or relate to, Closer is not for you. Me? I'm just having too much fun watching them slash each other down in the most dazzling ways possible. There's love for ya.

A Very Long Engagement (9/10) -- Jean-Pierre Jeunet and Audrey Tautou -- director and actress of the adorable Amelie -- reunite in this beautiful film on one girl's search for his fiance, who was lost (and presumed dead) during his service in France for World War I. Yes, it's a war movie -- it's much heavier and less lyrical than Amelie, and Jeunet tones down his cinematic tricks to bring gravity to the subject matter. But the film is still one of the best-looking movies of the year, and the cinematography is just outstanding. Critics argue that it's too whimsical for the subject matter, and it may be, but we are not at all spared of some horrible and graphic war images. The plot is extremely complicated -- that it was adapted from an even more complex book guarantees this -- and sometimes difficult to follow. But even if you don't understand absolutely every detail in the first viewing, you'll still enjoy it at a more intuitive level. And, though it does have its light-hearted moments, it's the saddest movie of the year.

The Life Acquatic with Steve Zissou (8/10) -- This is, for me, the funniest movie of 2004. Coming from the quirky Wes Anderson, whose previous films -- Rushmore, The Royal Tennanbaums -- earned nothing but smiles from me, I expected little more than a few chuckles. But from the first scene, I was laughing like a mad man. It may be just me -- there were several moments when I was the only one laughing in the theater -- but Bill Murray gives such a funny and awkward performance that I feel like laughing every time he's on screen. Anderson also shows off a bit in a spectacular, emotionally-heated scene toward the end that is at once shocking and breath-taking. Great stuff.

Bad Education (8/10) -- Pedro Almodovar -- America's favorite Spanish director, last year nominated for Talk to Her -- has made a sumptuous film here. The plot is complicated and interesting, and the way he juggles multiple timelines and varying degrees of reality is brilliant. No plot details are necessary -- you should just watch it. I've never seen a Almodovar film, and I am very impressed. Once interesting note, though -- it is rated NC-17. WHY? For the record, as far as I can remember, this film has absolutely NO NUDITY. There are plenty of sex scenes -- the film is notorious for it -- but none of them show any private body parts. The only thing that this film differs from other, more explicit, R-rated films, is that the sex scenes are between two men. Is this reason enough to push it to NC-17? If there are other reasons, I'd love to know. Otherwise, this is completely ludicrous.

The House of Flying Daggers (7/10) -- For those who thought Hero was visually spectacular but emotionally hollow, this film is director Zhang Yimou's response. It has (thankfully!) fewer fight scenes, and none as dazzling as the leaves fight in Hero, but it actually has a real plot now, and one filled with real characters. Yes, it still feels pretty hollow, and I still don't really care much about the characters, but at least I'm not bored. And the beautiful fight scenes -- especially the one in a bamboo forest -- certainly elevate it above your typical martial arts film. Now that Zhang Yimou has gotten all these cool-fight ideas out of his system in Hero, he was finally able to craft a better film that's more than a rack on which to hang his fight scenes. It's unfortunate that he's not making another wuxia film -- at least not yet -- because next time, he might actually focus on the characters.

Finding Neverland (6/10) -- It's fine Hollywood yarn. Johnny Depp was fine, and Kate Winslet was fine. The plot was fine (if not a little trite) and the direction was fine. But it's sugary and a tad manipulative towards the end, and in general just not all that spectacular. There is very little magic as James Mathew Berrie writes his masterpiece, Peter Pan, compared moments from other literary films like Shakespeare in Love or The Hours. And Berrie's "boundless imagination" could've been presented with a little more imagination. But still, there's nothing terribly wrong with it. It's fine.

Tuesday, January 25, 2005

Oscar nominations are in!!!

Yes it's been a month, who cares?

The Oscar nominations are in!

Inclusions that made me ecstatic:


  • Clive Owen, Closer, Best Supporting Actor -- He was deliciously chauvinistic and deserves to win.
  • Kate Winslet, Eternal Sunshine, Best Actress -- Eternal Sunshine was locked for screenplay, but its wonderful to see Kate Winslet getting a nod.
  • Virginia Madsen, Sideways, Best Supporting Actress -- She looked stunning in the film and brought it such tender humanity. Her speech about why she loves wine is gold.
  • Natalie Portman, Closer, Best Supporting Actress -- Her first role as an adult is the performance of her lifetime. Yes, better than Garden State. She really completely disappears into this weak/strong and (arguably) the only lovable character from the film. Her and Owen's nominations bring a smile to my face.


Inclusions that made me mad:

  • Ray and Finding Neverland for Best Picture. You know my hatred for Ray, and Finding Neverland is the Chocolot of 2004 -- goes down easy, syrupy sweet and not at all nutritious. Both don't deserve to be here. I was hoping the Academy would surprise me with Eternal Sunshine, but I was dreaming indeed.
  • Johnny Depp, Finding Neverland, Best Actor -- Come on. Yes, he was fine, as Depp always is. But his presence here and Paul Giamatti's absence here indicates that, even though the critics are going crazy for Sideways, Hollywood really doesn't share the love.


Omissions that made me sad:

  • Paul Giamatti, Sideways, Best Actor -- I was really rooting for him here for his great funny-sad performance. But this was a really great year for male performances.
  • Eternal Sunshine or Closer for Best Picture -- two of the greatest films of the year, snubbed. Not that they were favored to be included at all, of course; both were too offbeat to be considered at all. But sad nonetheless.
  • Jim Carrey, Eternal Sunshine, Best Actor -- Wow, the Academy must *really* hate Jim Carrey; first Truman Show, and now this. At least Kate Winslet got a nod.
  • Wes Anderson, Life Acquatic, Original Screenplay -- Okay, that's the stuff dreams are made of.


This sucks; I'm not too excited about any of the best picture nominees. It's looking like an Aviator sweep, and it may very well take the thing, unless Million Dollar Baby catches fire in the coming month (and it could). The Aviator was a fine movie, though a little to flashy and hollow for my taste; I really don't think it's best picture material. I have not seen MDB, though, and will soon. Sideways has no chance -- Paul Giamatti's exclusion from Best Actor basically kills its chances here. Ray and Finding Neverland can only sit at the sidelines here as the top two battle it out.

Jamie Foxx will (easily) take the Best Actor nod for Ray. The only threat here is Clint Eastwood, but I don't think so. Everyone else can go home.

God I would love to see a double win for Closer in the supporting categories for Clive Owen and Natalie Portman, but it seems unlikely. Morgan Freeman is looking great for supporting actor, though the supporting actress round seems pretty open. I'm torn though; Natalie Portman or Virginia Madsen? I loved both so much.

Hilary Swank has a near lock on Best Actress. Looks like she's going to snatch the Oscar away from Annette Bening again, like she did a few years ago for her performance in Boys Don't Cry versus Bening's in American Beauty.

The Incredibles will win best animated feature. Shrek 2 *may* threaten, but I don't see it as an even remote possibility, even with Shrek 2 doing tremendous business.

Clint Eastwood will probably get the best director nod, though the Academy may finally decide to honor Martin Scorsese. In fact, my bet is that MDB and Aviator will split the best picture and the best director Oscars; the more likely scenario in my head is the Aviator getting best picture, and Eastwood getting best director.

I'm really really rooting for Eternal Sunshine for best original screenplay. Charlie Kaufman's been nominated three times for writing, and it's time for him to win. The Aviator, though might unfairly interrupt.

Adapted Screenplay? MDB. Maybe it'll go to Sideways, but unlikely.

DISAPPOINTING. What a boring Oscar race!