Showing posts with label brad pitt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label brad pitt. Show all posts

Monday, January 2, 2012

Movie Rant: My Favourite Films of 2011

Michael Fassbender and Carey Mulligan in Shame
Another year has come and gone and, like every other film fan on the planet, I've decided to compile a list of my favourite films of 2011. Going through reviews from the past year, I realized that I hadn't seen enough truly great films to make a list of 10. So, instead, I'll have to settle for a list of eight.

Keep in mind I haven't seen the following films (some of which likely would have made the list had I seen them on time): The Descendants, The Adventures of Tintin, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, A Separation, Albert Nobbs and Warrior.


My Top 8 Films of 2011
1) Shame
Controversy over its explicit rating aside, Shame is a close study of the isolating nature of addiction -- that gradual separation from the tangible and the emotional. Some of the most revealing scenes in the film are often the ones with little or no dialogue and Michael Fassbender's performance is nothing short of astonishing. Shame will stay with you long after the final credits.


2) The Artist
It's a vibrant and richly texualized film. Although the idea may not be new and some may argue that the premise itself is a bit of a gimmick, it's an undeniable crowd-pleaser and a beautiful one at that. With its two charming leads at the centre, The Artist is, above all, a love letter to cinema's past.


Jessica Chastain in The Tree of Life
3) The Tree of Life
Audiences and critics alike will be hard-pressed to come up with a list of other films that are as ambitious, unique and full of meaning as Terrence Malick's latest. The Tree of Life is a bit of an enigma -- an often puzzling, yet incredibly powerful, film that deals with love, loss, death, nature and the universe. Without a linear narrative, the film includes long interludes of vivid cosmic and prehistoric visions. Spiritual and artsy, The Tree of Life challenges mainstream ideas of what a Hollywood film can achieve.


4) Hugo
One of the most visually beautiful films of the year, Hugo wraps you in a blanket of movie passion and nostalgia. Led by a wonderful ensemble cast, Martin Scorsese has created a haunting, yet whimsical, ode to the original pioneers of film.


5) Moneyball
There's no denying the long love affair that American cinema has had with the game of baseball. Moneyball is the best sports films to be released in years as it delves into the behind-the-scenes drama and inner workings of what it takes to build a winning team. Thanks to Brad Pitt's greatest performance to date, Moneyball reminds us that, despite the abundance of riches in professional sports, there are those who really do care -- for love of the game.


6) Martha Marcy May Marlene
Writer-director Sean Durkin has crafted a compelling debut feature that is ultimately a fascinating commentary on familial ties and paranoia. Elizabeth Olsen gives the kind of breakthrough performance that most up-and-comers can only dream about. She's quietly devastating and she makes it impossible to look away.


Michael Shannon and Jessica Chastain in Take Shelter
7) Take Shelter
With its slow-burning narrative, Take Shelter is a quietly unsettling indie hit that is more character study than apocalyptic thriller. In the lead role, Michael Shannon is remarkable. His quietly commanding performance is one of the highlights of the year and it's fascinating watching this gentle character battle his inner demons.


8) Midnight in Paris
With its commentary on the folly of nostalgia and the assumption that everything was a whole lot better "back in the day", Woody Allen has crafted a welcome escape from blockbusters and franchise sequels. Guided by Owen Wilson in the lead, the film takes a delightful, whimsical tour of Paris in the present day and the 1920s, where it once seemed as though only intellectuals and artists roamed the streets.

What are your favourite films of 2011?

Wednesday, December 14, 2011

Movie Rant: The debate over the SAG Award nominees

For me, this is the most wonderful time of the year. It's Christmas, hockey season and a prelude to all the upcoming film awards where I get to catch up on everything I've missed over the year. Nothing satiates my passion for cinema more than a good film debate.

I've enjoyed the SAG Awards in the past -- I often find them to the be the most accurate indicator as to which films and performances deserve the greatest accolades. The Golden Globes are a joke and the Oscars rarely get it right, which is why I've often relied on the SAG awards to set things straight -- well, kind of anyway. Moreso than the Oscars.

Not the case this year. Today's announcement of the 2012 nominees brought a lot of disappointment -- not just to me but all over the Internet, especially Twitter (you can see the full list of nominees HERE). A lot of people seem shocked at some of the obvious snubs in a what should have been a breakout year for smaller films and up-and-coming actors.

That being said, they did make some really great choices:
-Midnight in Paris (Best Ensemble): One of my favourite films of 2011, it's one of those feel-good whimsical gems with a ridiculously perfect (and charming) cast and a story that just sweeps you away. I was worried it'd get lost in the shuffle. Still not sure where it stands with regards to the Oscars, though.
-Brad Pitt (Best Actor, Moneyball): I'm not surprised they went with the audience-friendly baseball movie. Pitt has had a truly breakout year with diverse performances. He could very easily have been nominated for Tree of Life; however, his performance as Billy Beane in Moneyball truly carries the film into a whole new level in the sports genre. He won't win but in his case it will be an honour to have been recognized.
-Christopher Plummer (Best Supporting Actor, Beginnners): This nearly-forgotten indie from earlier this year boasted one of the finest performances of 2011. We should all be happy that they remembered Plummer's lovely turn as an older gentleman finally coming to terms with his homosexuality. His performance is a lesson in how to subtly convey a persons inner conflict without having to resort to scenery-chewing.

Here's where, in my opinionated opinion, the SAG Awards got it wrong:
-Jessica Chastain (Best Supporting Actress, The Help): Chastain has been the story of the year, the toast of Hollywood. When was the last time an actress had such an astounding breakout year? She co-starred in four films and has one more coming up (Coriolanus) to round out 2011. She gave two truly stunning performances in Tree of Life and Take Shelter. And while she was equally wonderful in The Help it's a shame that the obvious love-fest for the 1960s-era drama resulted in her receiving a nomination for one of her "lesser" performances. I'm shocked she wasn't recognized for Tree of Life or Take Shelter but I suppose we should just be grateful that she was recognized in the first place.
-Michael Fassbender for Shame: Probably the BIGGEST shock of them all -- a lack of Best Actor nomination for the finest male performance of 2011 (that I've seen so far). Fassbender is outstanding in Shame -- a raw, realistic and truly challenging role. The fact that the film was given the equivalent of a porn rating in the U.S. likely damaged his chance of being recognized for his work. Unfortunate.
-Carey Mulligan for Shame: Some may argue that she didn't have a whole lot of screen time -- but remember when Judi Dench won Best Supporting Actress in 1998 for clocking in only eight minutes in Shakespeare in Love? Mulligan was heartbreaking and more than held her own alongside Fassbender.
-Shame: I suppose the lack of a Best Ensemble nomination shouldn't be all that surprising. It likely had to do with the MPAA ratings. Still disappointing. There's no way Bridesmaids was the better film in this department. To those stuffy, uptight SAG members, Shame is obviously too hot to handle.
-Michael Shannon for Take Shelter: In many critics circles, his performance was voted the best of the year. There's really no excuse for his snub -- unless he's secretly anti-SAG or not a member. People may be torn over the film itself but Shannon was just so good that he should should have been considered an automatic nominee.
-Elizabeth Olsen for Martha Marcy May Marlene:  I think a lot of people expected her to be a shoo-in. In her breakout role she carries the emotional weight of the film on her shoulders and never lets the ball drop once. She'll make you forget there were ever other actresses with the last name Olsen. I look forward to more of her work. I can only hope she's recognized by the Academy.
-Andy Serkis for The Rise of the Planet of the Apes: I've been on his bandwagon since Day 1, when he first started doing interviews about why motion capture performance is still acting. It's amazing how many people just brush it off as "voice work." Recognition from the SAG or the Academy would go a long way towards opening peoples eyes to this different (but still legitimate) method of performance art. Serkis deserves his chance in the spotlight.

Which of the SAG nominations to you agree (and disagree) with?

Wednesday, October 19, 2011

Movie Review: Moneyball

Brad Pitt as Oakland A's GM Billy Beane
Moneyball (2011)
Directed By: Bennett Miller
Written By: Aaron Sorkin and Steven Zaillian
Based on the Book By: Michael Lewis
Starring: Brad Pitt, Jonah Hill and Philip Seymour-Hoffman

"It's hard not to be romantic about baseball." There's a lot of truth behind that quote, uttered by Brad Pitt in the lead role as Oakland Athletics General Manager, Billy Beane. There's no denying the long love affair that American cinema has had with the sport -- more than any other game it looks and sounds the best on the big screen, from those slow-motion pitches to the sharp crack of a bat. It's a sport filled with long and quiet lulls, punctuated by moments of euphoria and excitement, much like we experience in life.

Adapted from Michael Lewis' 2003 novel Moneyball: The Art of Winning an Unfair Game, director Bennett Miller's film closely examines the 2001-2 season of the down-on-their luck Oakland A's. As Billy (Brad Pitt) explains to his teams scouts, "There are rich teams and there are poor teams, then there's 50 feet of crap, and then there's us." Billy is, essentially, completely handicapped by the lowest salary constraint in the big leagues. Where teams like the New York Yankees boast millions of dollars to pick and choose from among the best prospects, the A's have a middling few hundred thousand to spend. When Billy recruits Peter Brand (Jonah Hill), an economics major from Harvard, as his new assistant GM, Billy risks alienating his entire staff as he and Peter play a strange numbers game in an attempt to lure cheap, seemingly mediocre players to fill their roster. Billy and Peter are under the assumption that they can assemble a playoff-worthy team under budget by using a computer-generated analysis created by a factory worker named Bill James to draft players. To the majority of scouts and owners, Billy has lost his mind and irresponsibly erases decades worth of how baseball franchises go about forming their teams.

Moneyball is one of the best sports genre movies released in years. It instantly made my top five favourite sports films list (which also includes baseball classics Bull Durham, Field of Dreams and A League of Their Own, along with the underrated soccer gem The Damned United). However, unlike the other films mentioned, Moneyball delves into the behind-the-scenes drama and inner workings of what it takes to build a winning team. There's more drama behind office desks than on the field.

Pitt and Hill as Billy Beane and Peter Brand.
With Aaron Sorkin and Steven Zaillian's sharp dialogue and expert pacing, Moneyball manages to take what, on paper, may read as a dull plot and crafts an inspirational saga about a team of underdogs.

The chemistry between Pitt and Hill is what really drives the fantastic script home. They have an instinctual knack for comedic timing, yet both demonstrate they have the dramatic chops to keep the film grounded. This odd couple carries the weight of the film on their shoulders, with occasional help from an excellent Philip Seymour-Hoffman in the small role of A's manager Art Howe.

This is Pitt's maturest performance to date -- he's subtle and nuanced, even in the lighter comedic moments. Whether spitting tobacco or tossing aside chairs, he's both a loving father and a quick-to-anger former athlete who loves the game of baseball. Billy is the outcast at the centre of a struggling sports franchise and, while all eyes are on him to turn things around quickly, he ultimately becomes the beating heart of the team. He doesn't just want to win, he wants it to mean something.

Moneyball examines the harsh realities that face major league teams when they are unable to take it all the way and the pressures that come with a restless fanbase and hovering owners breathing down your neck. Movies like Moneyball force us to remember that, despite the abundance of riches in professional sports, there are those who really do care -- for love of the game.

FINAL GRADE: A

Friday, July 1, 2011

Movie Review: The Tree of Life

The Tree of Life (2011) 
Starring: Brad Pitt, Jessica Chastain, Sean Penn and Hunter McCracken
Written & Directed By: Terrence Malick

Film critic Peter Bradshaw (of The Guardian in the U.K.) called director Terrence Malick's latest film, "cinema that's thinking big." Audiences and critics, alike, will be hard-pressed to come up with other films that are as unique and full of meaning as Malick's latest. "Thinking big" is just scratching the surface, really -- the film is thinking on a much larger plain.


The Tree of Life is a bit of an enigma -- an often puzzling, yet incredibly powerful, film that deals with love, loss, life, death, nature, spirituality and the universe in a two hour and 15 minute running time. But we would expect nothing less from Malick, the reclusive Texas director who spends years piecing together his films.

Tree of Life is without a linear narrative -- its plot not only moves into different periods in the life of its main protagonist, but also throughout the history of the world and, on a grander scale, the universe -- with long interludes of vivid cosmic and prehistoric visions.

When a friend recently asked me to describe the film, I said it was like a poem with moving images captured on celluloid. With very minimal dialogue (most of which is whispered), Malick has managed to inspire his audience to question the meaning of life and, ultimately, what our purpose is in the grand scheme of things. Because, at some point don't we all wonder: why are we here?

Jack O'Brien (Sean Penn) is at a crossroads in his life. What little we know about him is glimpsed through brief images -- a seemingly broken relationship and a corporate job that is heading nowhere. His overwhelming dissatisfaction with his life sends him down memory lane to his boyhood growing up in a small Texas town. In times of personal crisis we are often reminded of the past, which Malick illustrates by sending us back in time to Jack's youth (played by Hunter McCracken). With very little use of dialogue, other than soft and questioning whispers, the audience watches young Jack interact with his family in the 1950s -- his overbearing father (Brad Pitt) who is an often frightening blend of nurture and violence, his beautiful mother (Jessica Chastain) who is the heart and soul of the family and his two younger brothers, R.L. (Laramie Eppler) and Steve (Tye Sheridan).

Mrs. O'Brien (Jessica Chastain)
One of the most notable highlights of the film is the performances. Considering there is very little background given on the characters and very little dialogue in which they can use to interact, the cast does a remarkable job of conveying the myriad of emotions each of them goes through in the film.

Pitt is both terrifying and gentle as Mr. O'Brien and, as a result, this may be his greatest and most mature performance to date. A stiff, conservatively traditional man, O'Brien encourages his sons to learn to fight, while tenderly embracing them in some of their quieter shared moments. This disparity in his personal nature only makes him that much more human -- a man battling his own personal demons, whatever they may be, and taking them out on his loving family.

Chastain is the real revelation of the film. Her quiet performance is full of beautifully realized moments and interactions with her co-stars. She understands Mrs. O'Brien's connection to nature and motherhood and she's mesmerizing to watch, even if all she's doing is washing the dishes or watching her sons play outside. 

Penn rounds out the adult cast as older Jack and, despite the fact that he has very few scenes, his weary eyes and hunched posture suggests a man who, like his father, is battling a darker and melancholy side of himself. The three young actors who play the O'Brien boys are all wonderful -- their performances even more remarkable for the fact that Tree of Life is the screen debut for all three of them. McCracken is the standout, with the larger role of Jack. He has a maturity rarely seen in child actors and his scenes with Eppler, who plays his brother R.L., are some of the highlights of the entire film. 

Mr. O'Brien (Brad Pitt)
The Tree of Life is comprised of some of the most beautifully intimate human interactions ever captured on camera. How often do audiences get to see a toddler gaze down in wonder at his newborn baby brother, only to be punched lightly in the nose by his little fist? Or the scene where Mr. O'Brien cups his newborn sons little foot between his palms, marvelling at its tiny size? There are lovely moments between parents and children -- such as when Mrs. O'Brien playfully wakes up her three sons by putting ice cubes down their pyjama shirts. Or when Mr. O'Brien shows his softer side as his son, R.L., accompanies his piano playing with that of his guitar -- a wonderful little musical moment of father-son bonding. 

One of the most striking scenes of brotherly love is the moment when a chagrined Jack apologizes to R.L. for a particularly mean trick by softly kissing his younger brothers arm -- only to have the kiss wiped off by a still-upset R.L. Jack's perseverance ultimately pays off when, after a couple more arm kisses for his younger sibling, R.L. finally doesn't wipe Jack's affection off his arm. All is forgiven. 

It's moments like those that can make film fans and critics, alike, wish there were more directors out there like Malick, who challenge the mind while providing glimpses of smaller moments that happen in everyday life.

The Tree of Life is a challenging film and won't be to everyone's own personal tastes. It will likely require more than one viewing to fully appreciate. It's spiritual and artsy, challenging mainstream ideas of what a Hollywood film could be. While there are moments and sequences within the film that may be alienating, you still leave the film appreciating Malick's complex masterpiece. 

FINAL GRADE: A-

Sunday, August 15, 2010

30 Day Movie Meme: Day 7

Day 7: THE MOST SURPRISING PLOT TWIST/ENDING

Inglourious Basterds (2009)
Written and Directed By: Quentin Tarantino

There aren't too many movies out there that have had endings that surprised me. I knew the outcome of The Usual Suspects before ever having seen the film. It was the same case with both Se7en and The Shawshank Redemption. While I do remember being surprised by the ending of The Sixth Sense, I don't necessarily consider it a favourite twist. The same goes with Fight Club, which is one of my favourite films of the 1990s, but the ending doesn't stand alone as particularly awesome. It's more cool than shocking.

The most recent surprise twist that came to mind was Quentin Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds. As one of my favourite directors, I always trust Tarantino to bring the goods. When I first heard he was finally bringing this much-delayed script to the silver screen I had never imagined he'd literally change the outcome of the Second World War. Tarantino took revisionist history to a whole new level.

Set aside for a moment the already-surprising double-death face-off between the films heroine, Shoshanna (Melanie Laurent) and Nazi superstar, Frederick Zoller (Daniel Bruhl). I honestly never anticipated that Tarantino would kill off Joseph Goebbels and Adolf Hitler in a hail of bullets and flames in a movie theatre in France. Shoshanna's final act of vengeance against the Nazis coincided with the elaborate Operation Kino, which was under the control of Lt. Aldo Raines (Brad Pitt) and his Basterds. The end result was explosions and raining bullets, killing every person in the theatre (who had gathered to watch Nation's Pride, featuring Frederick's Nazi victory over a troop of Russians), while the image of Shoshanna laughs on the movie screen.

I was already surprised by the fact that Shoshanna died at the hands of her admirer, Frederick. It definitely was a bittersweet moment and I had never anticipated that Shoshanna and Frederick would wind up killing one another, let alone before they could both witness the destruction of the Nazi party. However, it's just like Tarantino to keep his audience on its toes when it comes to the fates of his characters, both good and bad. As it turns out, even historical figures have to watch their backs in a Tarantino feature.

Just when I thought it couldn't get any more outrageous, both plans by Shoshanna and Operation Kino take full effect and kill everyone trapped in the theatre, effectively changing the outcome of the Second World War and ending it well before 1945. In Tarantino's world, we have a young French woman and group of angry Jewish soldiers to thank for the end of the war.