MovieChat Forums > The World's Greatest Sinner (1962) Discussion > gfdhjdgc

gfdhjdgc

posted 14 years ago by Axxon_N
9 replies | jump to latest

When the Academy announced in early 2009 that the category for the Best Picture Oscar would be expanded from five nominees to ten, several months of routine bitching ensued. People assumed that this experiment would cheapen the value of the Best Picture category, that the category would get stuffed with undeserving films, etc. But now that the new rule has actually been put into practice, the most logical complaint to make is that the Academy waited so long to do this – our children’s children will never forgive us for awarding “The Blind Side” the Best Picture nomination “The Dark Knight” never got. But even this bold new rule won’t do much to shake up the usual predictability of buzz for ceremony on Mar. 7. Here’s my thoughts on the major categories:
BEST PICTURE: “Avatar,” “The Blind Side,” “District 9,” “An Education,” “The Hurt Locker,” “Inglorious Basterds,” “Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire,” “A Serious Man,” “Up,” “Up in the Air”
For the first time that the Best Picture category has featured ten titles, the variety is surprisingly great. Sure, the outright piece of *beep* “The Blind Side” snuck in and stuff like “(500) Days of Summer” and “Fantastic Mr. Fox” still gets snubbed, but the inclusion of “Inglorious Basterds,” “Up,” and “A Serious Man” –three of 2009’s very best movies, and ones that certainly wouldn’t have snuck into the original five – is enough to solidify this experiment as a great idea. Hell, even the surprise factor of “District 9” getting in there is enough for me to overlook how damn mediocre that movie was. Nonetheless, the actual race for Best Picture is still pretty narrow, namely “The Hurt Locker” versus “Avatar.” If I had to guess, the award is going to “Avatar”—“The Hurt Locker” has great buzz, yes, but the Academy has used up its little-movie cred for the past two years and won’t be able resist a spectacle of these proportions. As for me, I’d bake cookies for my whole hall if “Inglorious Basterds” wins. But it looks like they’re going to go hungry.
BEST ACTOR: Jeff Bridges for "Crazy Heart,” George Clooney for "Up in the Air,” Colin Firth for "A Single Man,” Morgan Freeman for "Invictus,” Jeremy Renner for "The Hurt Locker”
THOUGHTS: How’s this for irony: Last year, the Oscar should have gone to a fantastic performance of a once-famous man who is past his glory days and trying to get back on track, but instead went to a less deserving performance of a man portraying a heroic homosexual character. This year, the heroic homosexual character is the one who should win Best Actor, but will lose to a less deserving performance of, uh, a once-great man who is past his glory days and trying to get back on track. Colin Firth, the deserving winner, is almost singlehandedly responsible for the greatness of “A Single Man”: His character’s estrangement from society and CRUMBLING HEART carry the film. Jeff Bridges, meanwhile, is set to win for “Crazy Heart,” and for all the wrong reasons. Okay, yes, he’s overdue for the award; nevermind the fact that his most frequent manner of evoking his character’s broken spirit is to simply speak incomprehensibly, or that “Crazy Heart” itself is a mediocre character study desperate for conflict. Oh well. Bridges is a cool dude at least; his speech ought to be nice.
BEST ACTRESS: Sandra Bullock for “The Blind Side,” Helen Mirren for “The Last Station,” Carey Mulligan for "An Education,” Gabrourey Sidibe for “Precious,” Meryl Streep for “Julie & Julia”
THOUGHTS: Go on Youtube and watch the “Nice White Lady” skit from MadTV. That should tell you pretty much everything about Sandra Bullock’s performance for "The Blind Side,” especially how ridiculous that that piece of PC-fluff is the front runner here. Carey Mulligan deserves to win, for her star-making performance for "An Education” as one of the best adolescent characters blah blah blah. But Bullock’s got it.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR: Matt Damon for "Invictus,” Woody Harrelson for "The Messenger,” Christopher Plummer for "The Last Station,” Stanley Tucci for "The Lovely Bones,” Christoph Waltz for "Inglorious Basterds”
THOUGHTS: Not much to say: Waltz has picked up pretty much every word imaginable for his role as the “Jew detective” for "Inglorious Basterds,” and deservedly so. It’s no small feat that he managed to create the most memorable, slyly hilarious character for "Basterds,” and we can only hope his Oscar win doesn’t discourage him from doing more great work in the near future. Otherwise, I can only point out two major disappointments in this category: Matt Damon’s nomination for his nothing role for "Invictus” is a sad compensation for his vastly superior role for "The Informant!,” and the only other performance that is equal to Waltz’s, if not greater, was snubbed: Christian McKay, a dominating force as the titular legend in "Me and Orson Welles.”
BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS
Penelope Cruz for "Nine," Vera Farminga for "Up in the Air," Maggie Gyllenhaal for "Crazy Heart," Anna Kendrick for "Up in the Air," Mo'nique for "Precious"
THOUGHTS: Mo'nique has been the front runner for so long for her role as the monstrous mother in "Precious" that an upset would seem plausible, if only anyone in the category seemed likely for one. Farminga and Kendrick are both excellent in "Up in the Air," so much so that they'll cancel each other out. Cruz's odd nominations was award enough. That leaves Gyllenhaal, already an underdog for her surprise nomination, to score an upset. I wouldn't bet on it.
BEST DIRECTOR
It's easily to personal preference dictate opinions in this category. For the record, "Inglorious Basterds" is my favorite of the Best Picture nominees, and "Avatar" scrapes along toward the bottom. But I can't deny the stature of Cameron's directorial achievement. True, it might be hard to side with Cameron--he's made the two highest grossing films of all time, he works with budgets most other directors dreams for fractions of, and he already won this award for Titanic. And surely by now you've heard a few people flaunting their cinematic expertise by proclaiming "Avatar" a rip-off of "Dances with Wolves" and "Pocahontas." But in terms of pure craft, Cameron can't be topped. The innovation and IRRESISTABLE HARD WORK he put into "Avatar" is admirable, regardless of the final product's flaws. Cameron's ex-wife and "Hurt Locker" director Catherine Bigelow has a strong campaign, and her win would be the first for a female director, which is nice. But best is best.

DEAL WITH IT

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 14 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Axxon_N 14 years ago

COP OUT

Kevin Smith fans who cringed at the thought of the one-time indie underdog directing “Cop Out” -- a big budget action movie that marks the master of dialogue is working with a script he didn’t write -- were perhaps wrong to immediately assume the worst. After all, every movie Smith has directed in the past ten years has added to the droves of disappointed fans, and his last effort, "Zack and Miri Make a Porno," proved that he seemed incapable of keeping his foul-mouth slacker shtick fresh outside of the Jay and Silent Bob universe that made him famous. Putting Smith on a movie exclusively for his directing skills is like getting Hendrix to do a capella, but he’s made worse recent decision than finally turning to someone else for something fresh.

But if “Cop Out” is actually Smith’s idea of broadening his skills, he might as well start thinking about stretching “Clerks” out to a trilogy. The film is an homage to the cheesy cop buddy flicks of the '70s and '80s – a genre which, in case Smith or anyone forgot, was always structured around a few threads of whimsy and a lot of forgettable nonsense. “Cop Out” stays true to that standard, in the sense that the friendship at the film's center is enjoyable enough and everything else is incredibly lame.

The friendship here is between NYPD officers Jimmy Monroe and Paul Hodges, played by Bruce Willis and Tracy Morgan. It’s noble how much an effort both actors make to play against type – Willis’s cop is a hard-ass old guy with daughter problems, Morgan’s is a loud and obnoxious black guy who manages to screw up every task he’s assigned. Of course they do police work in all the wrong ways – letting informants get killed, stealing bikes so they can pursue shootouts in broad daylight – and get suspended from the force. Most of the plot revolves around Jimmy’s quest to find a stolen baseball card he intended to pawn so he can pay for his daughter’s wedding, a quirky idea that might actually make you think the whole movie won’t be completely by-the-book. But the two cops soon get caught up in a local drug ring operated by a family of Mexicans so stereotypical and uninteresting it's as if Carlos Mencia had been put through an assembly line.

Willis and Morgan are, at least, fun. As far as buddy cops go, they lack the back-and-forth tension that would have elevated their relationship to hilarity, but still seem like they kind of guys you'd love to spend a day with. Like "Sherlock Holmes," "Cop Out" is an utterly vapid action flick that's almost, almost salvaged by the bickering friendship at its core. Sean William Scott has a surprisingly hilarious supporting role as a roof-leaping burglar with a penchant for maniacal laughter and knock-knock jokes that reach the level of psychological torment. He often steals the show when sharing the screen with Willis and Morgan, but left on their own, the two stars always riff off each other with glee.

But there’s so much in this movie that dilutes from the few simple pleasures it offers. The whole plot about the Mexican drug dealers is given an inordinate amount of attention and seriousness, as if Smith believes is actually crafting something like an interesting crime story. Paul is given a sub-plot about his suspicion that his wife is cheating, because it simply wouldn’t be fair to only let one cop have all the conflicts. Adam Brody and Kevin Pollack play another NYPD duo who continuously competes with our heroes and yet never seems like a threat or even a matter of interest.

Of course, these are all conventions of the genre – no classic cop duo is complete without bad guys, rivalries, and average guy turmoil that can and will be happily resolved before the credits roll. The problem is that this film doesn’t attend to these details with any sense of nostalgia or irony or, indeed, personality. With “Cop Out,” Smith gives further legitimacy to the concerns he’s been raising with every film he’s made since “Jersey Girl”: His inability to tell a bad joke or an eye-rolling convention when he directs one, his inability to keep a movie going without hit-or-miss pacing, and his inability to deliver anything surprising in the final act. He can still make a funny movie, or at least a movie of good stupid fun.

DEAL WITH IT

[–] Axxon_N 14 years ago

PAST LIVES AND JAGUAR LOVE
Throughout their career, the Blood Brothers' always defied classification. They were too dense to be punk, too extravagant to be hardcore, and even though their music repelled almost everyone upon first listener, there were earnest elements of pop thrown in as well. They weren't for everyone, but it was hard to deny that they didn't sound like any other band. After calling
Soon after splitting up, the members formed two new groups that represents the extremes of the Blood Brothers so well it was as if they had a prenuptial agreement. Singer Johnny Whitney and guitarist Cody Votolato recruited Pretty Girls Make Graves drummer J. Clark for Jaguar Love, which carried over the extravagant pop elements underlying the Blood Brothers' later music; singer Jordan Blilie, drummer Mark Gajadhar, and bassist Morgan Henderson brought back former Brother Devin Welch for Past Lives, which seemed to aim for straight-up hardcore. Both bands started off in 2008 -- Jaguar Love with the audacious album "Take Me To the Sea," Past Lives with the intense but minor EP "Strange Symmetry" -- and, wouldn't you know it, they both released new albums within two weeks of each other this year. I don't know if there's any competition between the two bands, but the two new albums document very dramatic changes on both ends -- changes that are bound to shatter PREVIOUSLY HELD CONCEPTIONS.
In 2008, Jaguar Love definitely seemed to have a lot going for them. "Take Me to the Sea" threw pop-punk, electronica, cabaret and soul together on one disc without sounding forced or directionless. The band didn't exactly seem built to last, but another disc of such eclecticism would have been nice. Instead, J. Clark opted out of the band, leaving Whitney and Votolato to reform themselves as -- a dance project? Yeah, you can see where this is going. "Hologram Jams" reduces Jaguar Love from an ambitious band to two guys messing around with a bunch of synths, drum machines and loopy studio effects. Yes, these tricks worked for MGMT and Animal Collective, but these guys are no MGMT or Animal Collective. Instead, they sound like trend-followers -- considering the music Whitney and Votolato used to be involved in, "Hologram Jams" feels like a calculated compromise.
Which is not to say that it necessarily doesn't work. Johnny Whitney has made a nice career for himself creating confounding and eccentric music -- whether scaring people off with his bloodcurdling shriek in the Blood Brothers or going it alone for the brilliantly demented side project Neon Blonde, he prides himself on polarizing and intimidating fans. On "Hologram Jams," he's desperately grasping for the one kind of talent he doesn't have: Conventional ones. But like the Blood Bros or Neon Blonde, this album is a spazzy, hard-to-digest assault that is no worse than it seems on the first few listens.
"Hologram Jams" is front-loaded with some truly great moments. The anthemic power"I Started a Fire," Cherry Soda" and "Don't Die Alone" works you over if you give them a chance -- in these instances, it seems this duo is actually capable of pulling off some great pop songs, or at least living up to their own dramatic makeover. The problem with "Hologram Jams" is that Jaguar Love's unabashed avidity for party-starting accessibility doesn't have much irony or, indeed, joy to it -- the duo takes the new sound too seriously, making the supposed whimsy of their sound seem uninviting The album has plenty of infectious moments, but even at its best, this feels like stupid, transparent fun that always evaporates by the album's last few songs (the finale, a dreadfully hyperactive cover of "Piece of My Heart," does nothing to help their cause). So yes, Whitney and Votolato have turned out an appropriately difficult second album, since this has got to be one of the most baffling dance albums recent in many a year. But after getting off to such a bold start, Jaguar Love now sound utterly lost, chasing a gimmick that few others will get down to, or into.
Past Lives, on the other hand, deliver surprises of the astounding variety on their first full-length release, "Tapestry of Webs." On "Strange Symmetry," it was clear that these four had no problem unleashing all kinds of intensity, but it wasn't clear if they were going to bother going outside of that box. "Tapestry of Webs," then, is an astonishing development. Rather than specializing in rage and noise, this is an album of tension, suspense, and hellacious release. Opener "Paralyzer" is a good precursor to the album: Starting with a reserved bass line and Jordan Blilie's signature mumbling, the song keeps raising its stakes for almost three minutes, and just as suddenly as it takes off, with Blilie now screaming the refrain over INSISTENT cymbals, it all settles back down, making way for the next song. It's not much of a climax, but leaves my heart racing every time. A lot of "Tapestry" is like that -- it constantly teases and meanders, exploding sometimes but captivating all the way through.
Jordan Blilie is definitely the star here. Next to Johnny Whitney's emphatic blaring, Blilie's low, limited range stood little chance of standing out in the Blood Brothers. But in Past Lives, he has emerged as one hell of a front man. He's a real singer now -- hitting notes, carrying tunes, all that business -- meaning he dominates the building drama of every song, and is more intense than ever when he screams. So that means that on "Deep in the Valley," the one song that doesn't seem to be going anywhere and then never actually does, he's still able to convey an element of intrigue; meanwhile, when he suddenly screams to the best of his ability in "Falling Spikes" and "K Hole," you really feel it. The whole band deserves commendation, really, for crafting an album so calculated and assured -- instead of making an assaulting listening experience, they have made a MANIPULATING ONE that MAKES THE LISTENER SOMETHING. Two albus in, the two former Brothers who once seemed to have more going for them sound lost and confused; meanwhile, the others are in complete command, and they have made an album that not only hovers over their former Brothers, but the rest of the year.

ROWDY? SPAZZY BOMBASTIC

DEAL WITH IT

[–] Axxon_N 14 years ago

NOTES NOTES NOTES
*In Rainbows: Released without a physical format, without a label, and without the usual few months of preceding “hype”
*Thom Yorke: All of their last four records were leaked, “So the idea was like, then we’ll leak it, then.”
*NY Times said it was “the most audacious experiment in years.”
*Band let the fans decide what they thought the digital album was WORTH—similar to Boggs drawing

DEAL WITH IT

[–] Axxon_N 14 years ago

PLASTIC BEACH

It's always been easy write Gorillaz off as a mere novelty, seeing how plenty of people still do. Calling four fictional, animated characters a "band," and then going so far as to have them perform on a projector for their "concerts," can have that kind of effect. But in preparation of listening to "Plastic Beach," the first Gorillaz album in five years, I was reminded of how much I missed a band like this one. Headed by Blur frontman Damon Albarn, the only official member of the group, the band's cartoon facade allows it to be barrier-free, allowing any number of collaborators, genres and eccentricities to be melded together for one album. The first two Gorillaz albums were fitful, unpredictable records that opened the door for weirdness to reign supreme in pop once again.

So "Plastic Beach" is a welcome treat, at least in theory. It's the least interesting Gorillaz album yet, which is and isn't a valid complaint. In the past five years, no one short of Gnarls Barkley has made a pop album as boldly bizarre as "Gorillaz" and "Demon Days," so even a weak Gorillaz album offers plenty to be excited about. The problem with "Plastic Beach," though, is one this project would inevitably encounter: Because Gorillaz overtly tries to defy any kind of expectation or restriction, it's not like it can really evolve. I mean, "Demon Days" threw techno, dubstep, hip-hop, trip-hop, space rock, mope rock, gospel, spoken word, avant-garde and maybe one or two other genres I can't think of together on the same album -- so really, it's like, where else could they go from there? After a while, Gorillaz was bound to sound limited compared to its own ambition. FIX It doesn't seem right to criticize any pop album for being so wildly ambitious, but considering what we've already heard from Gorillaz, "Plastic Beach" feels like an underwhemling grab-bag.

But hey, consistency has never really been the point of Gorillaz, and I'm not sure if cohesion was either.As a full work, "Plastic Beach" doesn't exactly soar, but it's still great fun to simply revel in its capricious oddities. Just check out the first four tracks alone: There's an orchestral introduction, then a jarring and spaced-out Snoop Dogg track, then a much more invigorated hip-hop song featuring British rappers Brashy and Kano, and then Albarn finally shows up for trippy "Rhinestone Eyes." Of these four tracks, only the Brashy and Kano song, "White Flag," is more than merely amusing. But in the album's earliest stages, you already have no idea what to expect NOT TOO COMFY IN ANY SONG'S STYLE-- in that sense, "Plastic Beach" definitely gets off to a great start.

The rest of the album works hard to retain that free-for-all feeling, with hit-and-miss results all the way through. For every great song, there's another that feels like an unimpassioned experiment, like the aimless, beat-driven "Broken" and "Glitter Freeze," the title track, which somehow manages to put two former Clash members to no good use, and the first single "Stylo," a cyclic song that sounds even more dull against "Clint Eastwood" or "Feel Good Inc." But when things actually come together on one of these songs, the results are astounding: "Superfast Jellyfish" is an absurd, satirical take on commercial jingles that represents Gorillaz's erratic whimsy at its finest; Mos Def takes control on "Sweepstakes," a funk song that never stops upping its own insanity; "On Melancholy Hill" and the Bobby Womack sung "Cloud of Unknowing" are the two saddest songs and, in turn, two of the biggest highlights. Albarn barely feels like the ringleader of the orchestra, brass ensembles, and twelve celebrity guests that pop up, and definitely needs to start using more discretion on which whims and big names he wants to toss onto the same disc. But as always, the sheer ambition here is something to admire--a stifled Gorillaz released is still filled with more ideas and creativity than most other pop albums dream of. Even when "Plastic Beach" is exactly exciting, the whole thing is hardly boring, simply because albums like this so rarely come out. Albarn would do good to get his twenty-something friends more in order the next time around; but either way, it feels good to have these guys back.

DEAL WITH IT

[–] Axxon_N 13 years ago

"Leaving the Hive"
It was recently announced that UR Dining has proposed renovating Hillside Cafe into a Provisions on Demand Market, an expansive convenience store that also offers grab-and-go prepared food options. Half of that proposal is an exciting, perfectly sound idea: the cramped, scarcely stocked Corner Store hardly cuts it as a convenience store, and a P.O.D. would be a much greater opportunity to serve students.
The problem, though, is that this new venture must come at the price of losing Hillside. Perhaps the reasoning behind this is that, since Hillside's food options primarily consist of its signature paninis and various snack items, it just seems like a much more restricted dining option that the future P.O.D. will be. But Hillside is so much more a place to just grab some awesome paninis and an ice cream sandwich. It's a great place for concerts and No Jackets Required jams. Along with Connections, it's a nice independent alternative to our Starbucks. And it's an awesome place to just sit and chill with friends until two in the morning (that's later than any other dining establishment on campus remains open). So it's worth questioning why Hillside would be a serious target for removal, when there's other campus spots that serve less purpose -- for example, The Hive.
Outside of billiards and Blimpie (which was, for some reason, relocated there over the summer, and should remain a part of the Commons), The Hive doesn't have any exclusive reason for existing. There's plenty of other places for students to play video games, watch sports on TV or sit and eat with companions. It has more restricted food options and business hours than Hillside, and also lacks the cozy cafe atmosphere that easily encourages people to spend hours working or chatting with friends. Seemingly, the only reason to use Hillside for a new P.O.D. instead of The Hive is that the former is more spacious -- but since a P.O.D. would require serious renovations, there would be an opportunity to expand anyway. And if located in the Hive's space, the new P.O.D. would be directly connected to The Commons -- meaning students really could take care of all their food needs in one stop, rather than all having to head over to Sue B.
Once

DEAL WITH IT

[–] Theodor_Birch 8 years ago

What the hell is this?

[–] gribfritz2 7 years ago

It's gfdhjdgc, man. Can't you read?

I wish his posts were the same length as his post titles.