MOVIES

Netflix’d: Thief Movie Reviews

I’m of the opinion that anything is worth doing if you accumulate knowledge. I am therefore of the opinion that if nothing else comes from my Netflix’d column (money, career prospects, writing experience, etc.) then it will have all been worth it just to have had a better grasp on this fact: Netflix takes down movies and shows eventually. I had originally intended to have this article be a review of the brilliant British sitcom Peep Show, but unfortunately it would appear that it has been removed from instant streaming. In that case, I will be doing another movie review for this week, so make sure you catch Thief before it goes the way of Peep Show.

Title: Thief
Director: Michael Mann
Writer: Michael Mann
Year: 1981
Running Time: 122 minutes
Starring: James Caan, Tuesday Weld, Robert Prosky, Willie Nelson
Genre: Crime Drama, Neo-Noir, Heist flick
Similar To: Rififi, The Long Good Friday, Heat

Film maker Michael Mann has been going through a bit of a rough phase as of late. His last two films (Miami Vice, Public Enemies) received negative reviews, and his HBO series Luck was cancelled after one season not for it’s low ratings, but because of PETA concerns surrounding the fact that three horses had been killed during the show’s production. From his recent work, it can be hard to recall that at one point the director was seen as a very consistent and appealing director. Known for his strong visuals and keen ear for selecting memorable soundtracks, Michael Mann has had a really interesting film career, especially when you consider he was the first director to bring Hannibal Lecter to the big screen (Manhunter), as well as have Robert DeNiro and Al Pacino share a scene (Heat). The 70-year old filmmaker is actually rather under-appreciated when one thinks about how often his name is brought up compared to peers like Martin Scorsese, and I actually feel his first film, 1981’s Thief, may actually stack up as his very best picture

The film is a Chicago-set crime drama that is indeed about a thief. This time it happens to be a guy named Frank (James Caan), who runs a bar and car dealership, but It’s all a front for his real career as a professional jewel thief, Lately though, he’s been wondering about giving the game up, and he wants to start a family with his girlfriend (Tuesday Weld), and is trying to get the right amount of money to support it. His exploits eventually bring him to Leo (Robert Prosky), a Chicago mob leader who is looking to pull off a very lucrative heist in Los Angelas, and he enlists Frank to help him.

Certainly not the most original plot in the world, but like several other great crime thrillers, Thief is all about the presentation and execution. Mann has nearly every shot of this film bursting in splendor, particularly in the action heavy scenes. One scene early on where Frank pulls a gun out in a office makes particular use of clever camera work, using plenty of close ups that give us a claustrophobic sense. Of course, the heist scenes are even more impressive, and they’re 100% believable in terms of the technology and methodology we see on screen, and are filmed in a really effective manner. Completely free of the trappings of CGI, Mann has his actors use real blowtorches and safe crackers in the film. Lengthy, carefully paced, and light on dialogue, the heist scenes in Thief recall the legendary robbery sequence in Jules Dassin’s noir classic Rififi, which is saying a lot for a mainstream Hollywood film that was released in the 80s.

Thief is certainly a grade-A technical merit on Mann’s part, but James Caan also makes this his film as well. One would of thought that James Caan’s career would have really taking off after the Godfather, but he actually has been involved in plenty of lousy pictures throughout his decade spanning career. His performance in Thief remains a highlight for him, as he makes Frank quite an affable anti-hero. He’s a rugged and take-no-shit kind of guy, but there’s a real longing in him to go on to a life that actually means something. Some of the best scenes in the film involve Frank’s time with his love interest, such as scene when he’s yelling at her about how obvious it is that he’s a thief, while also asking her for sympathy. It’s probably the single funniest and sweetest scene that Mann has ever directed.

Flaws are few and far between, but there are some notables. A few of the scenes that take place in LA look absolutely nothing like the city (they weren’t shot there), and there could of been more storyline involving the film’s corrupt cop characters (especially considering how good an actor Dennis Farina is). As I said before the story is familiar too, but Mann finds ways to capitalize on the film’s necessary cliches. It’s all tightly wound, and ideally sets up the film’s heightened intensity and grit in the final act.

Thief is a must see film for crime fans, and arguably one of the best American pictures of the 1980s. Michael Mann really was at the top of his game here, as the film’s simplicity in plot allowed him to concentrate on conjuring some really complex visual cues. While it’s understandable when people say that all great directors burn out eventually, watching Thief gives me confidence that Mann still has that sort of mentality inside him. Even though this film came out over 30 years ago, I really do feel Mann has it in him to make another great film like Thief.

85th Annual Academy Awards Live Coverage

by Michael Tyminski

The Oscars: Tonight starting at 7 p.m. On ABC

6:30 pm: Good Evening Ladies and Gentlemen! I’m Mike Tyminski, and I’m back to live blog this years Oscars. The Oscars always tend to be the apex of awards season, and there are a number of intriguing questions that go along with this years ceremony.

First and foremost on many viewers minds: Who is going to pick up the Oscar for Best Picture? We have a diverse group of films here, ranging from musical classics (Les Miserables) to historical period pieces (Lincoln) to contemporary action dramas (Zero Dark Thirty) to foreign artsy flicks (Amour). The real question here though is, can this award season’s juggernaut Argo, be stopped (it did seem to be the most snubbed of the Best Picture contenders)? Will early favorite Lincoln recapture its’ luster in the eyes of voters? Will Quentin Tarentino finally get some respect for Django Unchained? Or will it go to a dark horse like Life of Pi, Silver Linings Playbook, or Beasts of the Southern Wild?

The most hotly contested category this year, however, is for Best Supporting Actor. With five former Oscar winners in Alan Arkin (Argo), Robert DeNiro (Silver Linings Playbook), Tommy Lee Jones (Lincoln), Philip Seymour Hoffman (The Master), and Christoph Waltz (Django Unchained), each of whom turned in stellar performances in their respective films. While I’m personally pulling for Waltz, I could get behind any of the candidates winning.

As with the Grammys, my primary focus will again be on the presentation. We have a controversial host choice this year in Seth McFarlane. The question is, which Seth McFarlane will we get? Will we get the man who has a clear reverence for the golden ages of film and TV to the extent that he made six homages to the “Road To…” series in his hit series Family Guy, or will we the get the man whose also responsible for some of the most line-obliterating jokes on broadcast TV? It should be interesting to see the mix, and whether he will go in the pantheon of great hosts like Billy Crystal in the mid 90’s, or the pantheon of awful hosts like David Letterman. I’m personally cautiously optimistic here, and I can’t wait to see how the show itself turns out.

Jessica Chastain on the Red Carpet -- Source: Yahoo! — Jessica Chastain on the Red Carpet — Source: Yahoo!

6:55 pm: Some news and opinions from the red carpet.

We will see a number of medleys tonight, including one from Les Miserables and another involving past Oscar winners singing hits from their respective films (including Catherine Zeta-Jones singing a number from Chicago and Jennifer Hudson singing a song from Dreamgirls).

The red carpet seemed to move at a considerably slower pace than the Grammys with only a handful of stars arriving as of 6:40 pm. Most of the early arrivals have been fashion successes with no real fashion nightmares along the lines of Adele’s from two weeks ago.

On the red carpet front, Jessica Chastain is looking amazing in an elegant coral dress that works despite all of the potential pitfalls that could have came with that dress. In terms of more edgy outfits, Samantha Barks succeeded with a cute black dress with a plunging neckline.

I’m a little torn on Zoe Saldana’s dress, which has a feathered top leading to a sleek, multi-shaded bottom the split up the leg that Angelina Jolie, popularized last year. While I’m not a huge fan of feathering or overly busy top, as your eye moves towards the legs, the dress picks up in elegance.

My highlight of the Red Carpet so far?: Jennifer Lawrence lamenting the lack of food before the show mentioning that the show is “way too long”.

It’s 7pm, time to switch over to the ABC feed.

I've spent an hour of my life determining whether or not this dress is a winner...final verdict? It is. (source: Yahoo!) — I’ve spent an hour of my life determining whether or not this dress is a winner…final verdict? It is. (source: Yahoo!)

7:30 pm: Some more news from the red carpet…

In terms of fashion, I’m slowly finding that most of the looks that are not clicking with me seem to be isolated to ABC’s red carpet coverage team. Neither Kristin Chenowith nor Kelly Rowland’s looks are particularly resonating with me, with Kelly’s looking awkward due to the way the wrap up top feels around her bodice. Anne Hathaway’s dress is failing with me similarly, as the cut feels very awkward and more like an apron than a classy dress on what has to be the classiest fashion night of the year.

On the star front, the stars are trickling in at a faster rate, Catherine Zeta-Jones is looking fabulous in an ornate gold dress. Naomi Watts has a modern Silver Sparkled number that looks classy even with an open shoulder and a clawlike cut.

In an update, having gotten to see a wider shot, Zoe Saldana’s dress has officially won me over.

8:00 PM: With only one network showing live Red Carpet coverage from here on out (ABC), I’m going to take a minute to pop out some quick pre show predictions:

Best Picture: Lincoln (I think Argo doing as well as it did everywhere else was as much a response to the Academy keeping Ben Affleck out of the race for best director).

Best Actor: Daniel Day-Lewis (Less a prediction, more an inevitability)

Best Actress in a supporting role: Anne Hathaway (See Above)

Best Director: Michael Haneke (This could really be anyone BUT Ang Lee, my inner geek demands payback for the 2003 Hulk movie, I feel like Amour needs a nod in a major category somewhere and here seems to be the best place).

Best Supporting Actor: Robert DeNiro (Silver Linings Playbook needs a little love somewhere along the way).

In red carpet news, Charlize Theron looks magnificent in a very modern (almost futuristic) looking white Dior dress. I’m also pretty fond of the Black and Gold sparkly dress that Nicole Kidman is rocking tonight. Lots of black, white, and gold tonight on the red carpet, but I feel that’s standard issue for the Oscars.

In what has to be a redemption for her from two weeks ago, Adele is wearing a black dress that seems miles better from the flower print disaster she wore two weeks ago.

This may be me, but I feel like there’s a small trend of people bringing their mothers to the show, as both Bradley Cooper and Chris Evans have brought their mothers to the show tonight.

Charlize Theron's futuristic dress from tonight's Oscars (source: Yahoo!) — Charlize Theron’s futuristic dress from tonight’s Oscars (source: Yahoo!)

8:25 PM: One last batch of updates before we go inside for the show:

The quote of the Red Carpet so far: “Win or lose, I’ll be drinking” – George Clooney

It was teased tonight that we should be getting some kind of Bond tribute in an interview between Robin Roberts and Halle Berry. Speaking of Ms. Berry…those shoulder pads are killing me and really need to be left in the 1980’s where they belong.

Jennifer Aniston is rocking a dress that feels like a tale of two dresses: From the waist up it’s a dress that looks classy, elegant and timeless, that train however, doesn’t seem to flow naturally from the material itself, and as a result gives off an unflattering vibe.

One final spoiler, Kristin Chenowith is somehow involved with the finale of the show.

On that note…the show’s about to start, be back with more after the first commercial break and keep checking in throughout the night for more opinions and news!

8:55 PM: We open to Seth McFarlane walking out to the usual fanfare and a brief introduction. McFarlane opens with “the quest to make Tommy Lee Jones laugh begins now”. McFarlane’s speech so far seems to be tacking closer to reverence for the classics than the irreverent side that people dreaded we would see from him. Seth announces this year has a theme for the first time in “Music in Film”.

We get a cameo from William Shatner trying to stop Seth McFarlane from singing a number titled “We Saw Your Boobs” (backed up by the Gay Men’s Chorus of Los Angeles). This leads into Seth McFarlane singing “Just the Way you Look Tonight” backed up by Charlize Theron and Channing Tatum. Shatner also tries to prevent McFarlane from re-enacting the film flight with sock puppets. This leads to another song and dance number with Daniel Radcliffe and Joseph Gordon-Levitt. William Shatner only then finally upgrades it to mediocre, only for Seth to find out he offends and takes home Sally Field after he fawns over her role in the flying nun. He amends that by singing “Be Our Guest”

This leads to Seth McFarlane bringing out Octavia Spencer for our slugfest of the night: Best Supporting Actor.

Our nominees are: Alan Arkin (Argo), Robert DeNiro (Silver Linings Playbook), Philip Seymour Hoffman (The Master), Tommy Lee Jones (Lincoln), Christoph Waltz (Django Unchained).

AND THE WINNER IS: Christoph Waltz! He’s 2 for 2 (his prior win for Inglorious Basterds).

Waltz has a very grateful tone, thanking Quentin Tarantino and his fellow costars.

Overall I thought this opening was stellar. McFarlane was funny except for one misplaced jab at Mel Gibson, the musical numbers were on point, and opening on the biggest bloodbath of the night has already given this night a sense of importance. We seem to be getting more of class Seth than crass Seth and if that’s the case this should be a very enjoyable three hours.

9:12 PM: Seth calls out Paul Rudd and Melissa McCarthy to present the award for Best Animated Short Film

The Nominees Are: Paper Man, Maggie’s Longest Day Care, Adam and Dog, Fresh Guacamole, and Head Over Heels.

The Winner is: Paper Man, John Kahrs.

They also present the best Animated Film:

The Nominees are: Brave, The Pirates, Frankenweenie, Paranorman and Wreck It Ralph.

The Winner is: Brave

Mark Andrews walks up rocking a kilt. He gives a quick set of thank yous.

Reese Witherspoon is out to highlight three of our Best Picture nominees: Les Miserables, Beasts of the Southern Wild, and The Life of Pi. Clips of all three of those movies are played.

We then get a quick cut back to Seth McFarlane, who gives credit to Quezevahne Wallisfor scoring a Best Actress nod at the tender young age of nine.

Robert Downey Jr., Chris Evans, Samuel L. Jackson, Mark Ruffalo, and Jeremy Renner are out to present the award for Best Cinematography.

The Nominees are: Anna Karenina, Life of Pi, Django Unchained, Lincoln, and Skyfall

The Winner is: Claudio Miranda of Life of Pi.

Robert Downey Jr. and Sam Jackson then get into a mock argument after Sam skips most of the introduction for Best Visual Effects (and then fails to get the envelope open).

The Hobbit, The Life of Pi, The Avengers, Prometheus, Snow White and the Huntsman.

The Winner is: The Life of Pi. (and thankfully NOT Snow White and the Huntsman).

The Jaws theme cuts off the Visual Effects speech, proving that the guys in the back don’t really get that much respect.

That segment moved at a fever pitch, going through four awards in about 12 minutes, hopefully the show gives it’s segments a little more time to breathe from here on out.

9:27 pm: We return to Seth McFarlane, who introduces Channing Tatum and Jennifer Aniston, who come out to announce the awards for Achievement in Costume Design:

The Nominees Are: Anna Karenina, Les Miserable, Lincoln, Mirror Mirror, Snow White and the Huntsman

The Winner is: Jacqueline Durran (Anna Karenina).

They then announce the Nominees for Achievement in Makeup and Hair Stiling

The Nominees Are: Hitchcock, The Hobbit, Les Miserables.

The Winner is: Les Miserables.

Seth McFarlane then introduces Halle Berry, whom then introduces a tribute to the fiftieth anniversary of James Bond in film. Halle Berry stumbles a little on the teleprompter, before a montage with the Bond Theme, Live and Let Die. The montage then seamlessly integrates into a live performance of “Goldfinger” by Dame Shirley Bassey. It seemed like a solid tribute if you’re sort of person whose into the 007 films (which admittedly, I am not).

9:46 pm: Jamie Foxx and Kerry Washington come out to announce the award for best short film.

The Nominees are: Curfew, Death of A Shadow, Assad, Bukhazhi Boys, and Henry.

The winner is: Curfew

They also present the award for best short documentary film.

The nominees are: Kings Point, Open Heart, Inocente, Monday’s At Racine, Redemption

The award goes to: Inocente.

The documentary’s producers, Sean and Andrea Nix Fine then take the opportunity to request for increased funding for the arts, noting the change for the subject in their documentary from homeless to artist in one short year.

Sean then introduces Liam Neeson, whom introduces three more best picture nominees: Argo, Lincoln, and Zero Dark Thirty. It seems particularly interesting that the three most America-centric movies are grouped together.

Seth gives a little bit of an Oscar tidbit mentioning that Daniel Day-Lewis was the second actor to be nominated for playing Lincoln (Raymond Massey was the first), before pitching it to Ben Affleck (after making sure to bring up Gigli, of course).

Ben Affleck is out to present the award for Best Documentary Feature, getting a jab back at McFarlane stating “I thought this show was going well, but there’s still time for you to turn it around”.

The nominees are: The Gatekeepers, How to survive a plague, The Invisible War, Searching for Sugar Man, and Five Broken Cameras.

The winner is: Searching for Sugar Man.

This may be me, but using the Jaws music as the “Speed up, your speech is too long” music feels pretty tasteless.

10:05 PM: Seth brings out Jennifer Garner and Jessica Chastain, whom are both here to present the award for Best Foriegn Language Film.

The Nominees Are: Amour, Kontiki, No, A Royal Affair, War Witch.

The winner is: Amour (did you really expect anything else? It is nominated for best picture).

Seth then introduces John Travolta who then introduces a medley of the finest tracks from Les Miserables, Chicago, and Dreamgirls. It opens with Catherine Zeta-Jones performing “All That Jazz” before segueing into Jennifer Hudson performing “I’m telling you, I’m not going”. This then merged into a track from Les Miserables, with a large segment of the cast performing “One Day More”.

Something seemed off with Zeta-Jones’s performance (there were parts where it seemed like either her sound cut off or she was off lipsync), but I thought Jennifer Hudson did an excellent job on her song, bringing the power that a song like “I’m telling you” needs. On the Les Miserables portion, both Hugh Jackman and Samantha Barks stood out the most, as they seemed to be strongest singers in the ensemble.

10:25 pm: We return to Chris Pine and Zoe Saldana, whom are out to present the awards for the scientific and technical awards.

After the quick montage, we return to Seth McFarlane, who busts out a little self-deprecation about Ted before introducing both Mark Wahlberg and the Titular bear of his movie, Ted. They present the award for best sound mixing:

The nominees are: Argo, Les Miserables, Lincoln, Skyfall, and The Life of Pi.

The winner is: Les Miserables.

They also are presenting the award for Best Sound Editing. We finally get some of McFarlane’s line crossing humor, as Ted is trying to explain to Mark that you have to be Jewish to work in Hollywood.

The Nominees Are: Argo, Django Unchained, The Life of Pi, Skyfall and Zero Dark Thirty.

The Winners Are: (a tie) Zero Dark Thirty and Skyfall.

Seth then introduces the next presenter, who were the Von Trapp family singers (with a joke where where a Nazi storms in and screams, “They’re gone!”), before turning it over to Christopher Plummer, whom presents the award for Best Actress in a Supporting Role.

The Nominees are: Amy Adams (The Master), Sally Field (Lincoln), Anne Hathaway (Les Miserables), Helen Hunt (The Sessions), Jacki Weaver (Silver Linings Playbook).

And the winner is: Anne Hathaway (shocker, I know). She gives a seemingly interminable speech but doesn’t get the Jaws music (also a shocker, I know).

10:40 PM: Hawk Koch, president of the Academy of Film Arts and Sciences, announces the Academy Museum of Motion Pictures, it will show how movies are made and announces the winners of a program where a number of young filmmakers whom won the right to hand the Oscars to the presenters tonight.

Seth then kicks it to Sandra Bullock, whom presents the award for Best Film Editing.

The Nominees are Argo, Zero Dark Thirty, Life of Pi, Lincoln and Silver Linings Playbook.

And the winner is: Argo.

Jennifer Lawrence is out to introduce the theme from Skyfall as performed by Adele. The performance is everything you’d expect from Adele with tons of movements from a single arm, and her killer pipes doing most of the work. If you saw her Grammy performance last year, it basically is the same but with a different song, but i’m perfectly fine with that, as it’s become an Adele trademark at this point.

10:53 PM: Nicole Kidman is out to present the last three nominees for best picture: Silver Linings Playbook, Django Unchained, and Amour. We see trailers of all three.

Seth then kicks it to Daniel Radcliffe and Kristen Stewart, whom are out to present the award for Achievement in Production Design. Kristen sounds either high, sick, awkward, or disinterested…I can’t tell which but it seemed like she was ill at ease up on stage.

Anna Karenina, The Hobbit, Les Miserables, Life of Pi, or Lincoln.

And the winner is: Lincoln.

Seth then introduces Selma Hayek discusses Governor’s and Humanitarian awards. D.A. Pennebaker, George Stevens Jr., and Hal Needham. Jeffrey Katzenberg won the Jean Hersholt Humanitarian Award.

11:05 PM: George Clooney is out to introduce the “In Memoriam” segment of the Oscars. Amongst those that passed in the movie industry in calendar year 2012 are: Ernest Borgnine, Eiko Ishioka, Ralph McQuarrie, Jack Klugman, Celeste Holm, Adam Yauch, Michael Clarke Duncan, Charles Durning, Carlo Rambaldi, Erland Josephson, Richard Robbins, Stephen Frankfurt, Harris Savides, Tonino Guerra, Ulu Grosbard, Herbort Lom, Bruce Surtees, Andrew Sarris, George A. Bowers, Tony Scott, Theodore Soderberg, Lois Smith, Geoffrey Ammer, Neal Travis, Mike Hopkins, John Lowry, Hal Davis, Nora Ephron, Charles Rosen, Jake Eberts, Mike Kohut, Frank Pierson, Chris Marker, Charles Washburn, Ray Bradbury, Richard Rodney Nennett, Roger Sherman, Richard Zanuck, Matthew Yuricich, and Marvin Hamlisch.

The in memoriam then led to a Musical number by none other than Barbara Streisand, who sang “The Way We Were” in tribute to Marvin Hamlisch.

11:18 PM: Seth introduces the stars of Chicago, Richard Gere, Catherine Zeta-Jones, Renee Zellweger, and Queen Latifah to introduce the award for Best Movie Score:

And the nominees are: Anna Karenina, Argo, Life of Pi, Skyfall, and Lincoln.

And the winner is: Life of Pi! (real shocker!, but that’s because as anyone whose ever taken a music of film course in college, it’s instinctive to assume that John Williams wins any score award in the history of everything ever, so seeing John Williams (Lincoln) not win is a mild upset by default).

They also presented the awards for Best Original Song:

“Suddenly” (Les Miserables), “Skyfall”(Skyfall), “Before My Time” (Chasing Ice), “Pi’s Lullaby” (The Life of Pi), “Everyone Needs a Best Friend” (Ted).

And the award goes to: “Skyfall” (Skyfall). Adele gives a short tear laden speech before passing it over to Paul Epworth, whom gives the short generic “Thank You” speech we’ve seen 100 times already tonight.

11:29 PM: After a very brief introduction, Charlize Theron and Dustin Hoffman appear to announce the awards for Best Screenplay (Adapted). Charlize and Dustin get in a great dig, with Charlize saying “A great screenplay comes from an inner light, or an inner darkness”, with Dustin finishing the sentence saying “or a writer who needs work.”

And the nominees for Best Adapted Screenplay: Argo, Beasts of the Southern Wild, The Life of Pi, Lincoln, Silver Linings Playbook.

And the winner is: Argo. Suddenly it seems like Argo has a real shot at taking home the big prize tonight.

They also present the award for Best Original Screenplay.

Original: Amour, Django Unchained, Flight, Moonrise Kingdom, and Zero Dark Thirty.

And the Winner is: Django Unchained. Quentin looks disheveled, but thanks his cast, cuts off the music, and then fawns over the competition in the writing category saying “This will be the writers year”.

And on that note if my count is right, we’re down to the two big acting awards, the award for Best Director and the Award for best film.

11:37 pm: Seth introduces Jane Fonda and Michael Doglas, who walk out through a background of glass flower like objects to present the award for Best Director.

And the Nominees Are: “Michael Haneke (Amour), Benh Zaitlan (Beasts of the Southern Wild), Ang Lee (Life of Pi), Steven Spielberg (Lincoln), David O. Russell (Silver Linings).

And the winner is: Ang Lee (for the Life of Pi and ruining the Hulk so badly they had to make a remake three years later…no i’m not still bitter he took my nine dollars and two hours of my life).

12:04 pm: Seth introduces last years best actor winner, Jean Dujardin, to present the award for Best Actress.

The Nominees Are: Jessica Chastain (Zero Dark Thirty), Jennifer Lawrence (Silver Linings Playbook), Emanuelle Riva (Amour), Qevenzhane Wallis (Beasts of the Southern Wild), and Naomi Watts (The Impossible).

And the winner is: Jennifer Lawrence (Silver Linings Playbook).

Jennifer nearly trips on her dress on the way to the stage, she gives what feels particularly like a heartfelt speech that leaves Jennifer on the verge of tears. Oddly enough ABC cuts to a shot of Robert Deniro falling asleep on his shoulder.

Seth then gives no introduction to Meryl Streep (his exact words, “our next presenter needs no introduction), whom is out to present the award for Best Actor.

The Nominees are: Bradley Cooper (Silver Linings Playbook), Daniel Day-Lewis (Lincoln), Hugh Jackman (Les Miserables), Jaoquin Pheonix (The Master), and Denzel Washington (Flight).

And the winner is: Daniel Day-Lewis (Lincoln). Daniel Day-Lewis is the first actor to win three Oscars in the best actor category.

Daniel Day Lewis gets in a quick joke about being committed to play Margaret Thatcher, while Meryl Streep was Spielberg’s first choice for Lincoln. He gives a humble, endearing, and funny speech in which he thanks his wife for putting up for his method acting.

Finally, Seth introduces Jack Nicholson to announce the award for Best Picture. His copresenter is First Lady, Michelle Obama.

And the nominees are: Argo, Zero Dark Thirty, Django Unchained, Beasts of the Southern Wild, Amour, Lincoln, Silver Linings Playbook, The Life of Pi, and Les Miserables.

And the winner is: Argo!

Ben Affleck is up to accept the award for Best Picture for Argo. In a touch of class, the producer who isn’t Ben Affleck or George Clooney gets the first crack at the speech, and immediately thanks…George Clooney. Affleck acknowledges the other 8 great films in a very rapid fire speech, eventually thanking everyone ever even remotely affiliated on this movie including his wife (Jennifer Garner) whom “he dosen’t associate with Iran”.

Finally, everything moves back to Seth, whom moves to the plugs segment, where all the major fee plugs of the show were given. Seth then brings out Kristin Chenowith, whom then perform a musical number dedicated to the losers, including Lincoln and Amour.

I will be back in a few minutes with a wrap-up and final verdict.

The Final Verdict: While I’m steamed about Ang Lee winning, by award shows standards this show worked. The gimmick of making McFarlane as McFarlane being mostly classy with some affectionate parody to old hollywood while hiding McFarlane’s more brusque jokes in a Teddy Bear or behind the whims of William Shatner seemed to strike the perfect compromise between the two aspects of McFarlane’s humor, and he totally deserves a second go (though like all of us, we wouldn’t mind getting a year of Fey and Poehler also). Seth was also particularly strong once the show hit hurry up mode (and his introductions were reduced to 15 words or less) around 11ish.

The presentation generally worked with the few performances involved generally hitting (Catherine Zeta-Jones was the only one who felt particularly off). For a show that was supposed to be all about “Music in Film” though, there seemed to be very little music within the show itself, with only three or four notable performances.

If I will dig at ABC for one thing, it’s the fairly misleading advertising. They advertised a 7 pm start time online, only for those who tuned in to find out that they were instead giving you a 90 minute (of strictly worse than E!’s) Red Carpet Show.

For those looking for more Oscar coverage, stay tuned to Manhattan Digest as our movie experts break down the show. Additionally, my other gig (The Mike Staub Pod Show, find us on Facebook) will be putting out an Oscar themed show later in the week where some of our actor friends put in their two cents on the show.

Netflix’d: Naked

by Peter Foy

Hope you guys have been keeping warm this past week, as that damn groundhog appears to have been way off this year. Regardless, it’s the perfect time to catch up on some great cinema that’s available right through your Netflix account. Today I’ll be looking at Naked, a challenging British art-film from the 90s that’s even more chilly than New York’s February climate. I’ll try and keep this review extra warm though.

Title: Naked
Director: Mike Leigh
Writer: Mike Leigh
Year: 1993
Running Time: 131 minutes
Starring: David Thewlis, Lesley Sharp, Katrin Cartlidge
Genre: Drama, Art-house, experimental film (horror?)
Similar To: The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover; Happiness; The Master

As I get older, the more I realize that I no longer want clear-cut answers from films. I no longer want to be spoon-fed stories about absolute good vs. absolute evil, as I just don’t see that as pertaining to real life anymore. I want morally ambigous character, and a world view that sees life as being grey, rather than black or white. Also, I want open-ended stories that don’t overfeed us with too much information. I want film’s that I can mold into my own entity. With that said, it’s easy to see why I feel Mike Leigh’s 1993 film Naked is one of the richest films I’ve come across in terms of moral density, as well as an uncomfortable piece of art.

It’s a bit of a challenge for me to describe the film in a synopsis, as the film is skeletal in terms of having a traditional plot. Right from the start, this is a film that shows that it’s not throwing any punches, as we witness the film’s main character Johnny (David Thewlis) rape a woman and then steal a car. He rides to the Dalston neighborhood of London (which he describes as unpretentious) where he hooks up with his old girlfriend Mancunian (Lesley Sharp), and from there any idiom of a plot pretty much disintegrates. For the next two hours we see this character wander around the disheveled neighborhood interacting with people and usually subjecting them to his domineering claims. Manic, sexually hungry, self-destructive and clearly intelligent, Johnny is a strange beast to watch no doubt, and perhaps a figurehead of sorts too.

Why is this film so starkly dark? Well, the simple answer is that the truth isn’t always pretty. Naked is a very direct social commentary, and like Peter Greenaway’s The Cook, the Thief, His Wife & Her Lover it’s a scathing critique on Thatcherism. Unlike that earlier film, however, Mike Leigh has more of an interest in “kitchen-sink: realism, and mostly avoids allegories in relating tales of those that became downtrodden under the wrath of the Iron Lady. It becomes readily apparent that Johnny is a victim of circumstances, as his sloppy way of walking and musings with intellectualism hint that he likely has a social disorder. He’s a rather ugly looking man for sure, but the world around him isn’t any less wretched. Filmed in a grey-palette and occasionally using wobbly camera techniques, Naked is one of the few films to really understand the sickly and disorienting nature of urban life, but is it a reflection of Johnny’s frame of mind or vice-versa?

Naked proved to be quite a success for Mike Leigh as it won him the best director awards at Cannes, and has continued to be seen as a highlight in his filmography. Today though, it’s easy to forget that the film was quite a departure for British director Mike Leigh at the time of it’s release. While the filmmaker had been known for making film’s that were both political and modest, there were overt comedic elements to films like Life is Sweet and High Hopes that seem to have all been wiped out for this one. Still, Leigh’s experience with comedy actually does contribute to the film’s craft, as Naked actually does have a lot of improv in it. David Thewlis made up much of his character’s dialogue while doing rehearsals, and they were incorporated into the final script. It resulted in giving the film a very organic feel in terms of character interaction, and the scenes involving Johnny discussing his world views are fascinating. Johnny does show a human side to him as the film goes on, and it’s hard not to admire his philosophies, even if they can come off as naive. Even those that have no interest on England’s Thatcher years should be able to unearth some telling information about the paranoia and fear that social outsiders hold in contemporary society. It wouldn’t be right to call Naked a dark comedy, but it’s not without it’s moments of levity.

Naked is certainly aptly titled, as it’s the justification for the brutality we see on screen. Stripped of morals, honor, class and hope, we witness these characters at their most bare, yet also question how far away our own lifestyles might be from there’s. It’s as harsh and unpleasant a film as it ever was, even twenty years later when graphic content has become more common in mainstream films. Still it’s undeniably potent, and a film that all appreciators of arthouse cinema should see. After viewing this, however, you might need to settle down with something a lot lighter. Fortunately, Mike Leigh’s more recent film Happy-Go-Lucky, a complete 180 from Naked, is a joy to watch and also readily available for streaming on Netflix.

Side Effects: Half Empty or Half Full?

by Peter Foy

Who is Steven Soderbergh? Well, the short version is that he is a prolific and acclaimed American film director, but if we’re talking about his work as a whole than it’s harder to pin-point. Few directors have helmed such an eclectic volume of films with differing styles and genres throughout their career, but Soderbergh has done just that. From Oscar-nominated mainstream fare like Traffic and Erin Brockovich, to small indie films like his debut picture Sex, Lies and Videotape, Soderbergh has proven himself one of the hardest American film makers to describe. Hell, the three movies he released in the last 15 months (Contagion, Haywire, Magic Mike) are enough to show his wide range, as well as how rapid-fire a talent he is. However, in recent years Soderberg has said that he has grown disinterested in directing feature-length films and has said he is more interested in directing for television now. “I think that the audience for the kinds of movies I grew up liking has migrated to television,” Soderbergh says. “The format really allows for the narrow and deep approach that I like.” So his latest film, Side Effects, he claims will mark his departure from directing big-screen releases, and it actually proves to be a fairly adequate send-off for this reputable director.

The film is indeed a thriller, but I’ll digress from calling it “Hitchcokian” as some critics have. Rooney Mara stars as Emily Taylor, a woman who appears to be both grieving and suicidal. Her husband (Channing Tatum) has just been released from prison after a four year sentence, and she finds herself struggling to pick their marriage back from where they left off. After purposely smashing her car into a wall, psychiatrist Jonathan Banks (Jude Law) is assigned to care for her, and recommends her trying some anti-depressant medication. The results aren’t too efficient, and Jonathan then meets with Emily’s former psychiatrist, Victoria (Catherine Zeta-Jones). Victoria then recommends putting Emily on a new drug called ablixa, which actually works out great at first. Of course, this film’s needs a source of conflict so there are some…side effects involved.

To say too much more about the plot would actually prove detrimental to the viewing experience. The film is indeed “twisty” with an unexpected turn coming just before the end of the first act. The film almost becomes a completely different entity for the remainder of it’s running time, which will undoubtedly prove frustrating towards some viewers. I honestly was hoping the film would be more of a commentary on the flaws in contemporary health-care and prescription drugs, but it isn’t really. Instead, it’s just a thriller with a far-fetched plot, and more than a few cliches in it. It’s a shaky movie for sure.

That said, Soderbergh has managed to make good films off of mediocre scripts before, and that remains the case with Side Effects. Soderbergh gives the film plenty of ambiance through lighting set up, and assured camera work, that makes the film feel grounded and cerebral. Also, the performances are potent enough to keep the movie engrossing throughout. Rooney Mara is easily the highlight of the film, as the young actress continues to prove she is one of the most electrifying of today’s young screen talents. Completely convincing in her emotions, and unpredictable in her actions, her performance alone justifies the price of admission. Jude Law (an actor that has flirted with both obscurity and stardom) is very watchable as the amiable Jonathan Banks, even if it’s possibly because he’s the only cast member with a British accent. Channing Tatum fans might be upset to find that the actor’s screentime is limited here.

In the end, Side Effects is certainly worth seeing, especially given that the January and February months are both usually so dry in terms of quality cinema releases. It’s not a great movie, but it’s most certainly a good one, and one that could potentially be classified as a “medical noir”. Not a bad movie at all for Soderbergh to close his film career out on, and also one that showcases what could come from him becoming a television director.

Dead Man Down Remix Revenge Contest- with Fabolous

by Ryan Shea

We all know who Fabolous is. He has had quite an impressive career for over a decade now, since we first heard him featured on one of my personal favorite tracks, Lil Mo’s “Superwoman”. Now he has branched off into the world of acting, starring in the upcoming film “Dead Man Down”. Dead Man Down is an action thriller that stars Colin Farrell and Noomi Rapace as two strangers whose mutual desire for revenge draws them together and triggers an escalating trail of mayhem. His hit song “Breathe” is featured in the TV spot for the movie, which is due out March 8th. Check out the clip here.

Now Fab wants you to be apart of the movie experience by entering his “Dead Man Down Remix Revenge Ultimate Diss Contest”. All you have to do is tell Fab your tale about how you were betrayed, and if chosen he will turn it into a rap song that will be performed on BET’s “106th and Park”. Translation here, your pain will be turned into a diss track by a Grammy nominated performer. How freaking exciting is that?

Here is what you do- log onto Complex‘s website and it will further give you details on how to enter. You have from now until February 15th, so get that story of yours out there and turn it into a nationwide hit, courtesy of Fab.

Here is Fab talking about the contest. Good luck to all the people who enter!

Netflix’d: Days of Heaven

by Peter Foy

Well hello there, all those that be faithful towards internet news feed. Welcome to the first edition of my new column for Manhattan Digest that I will be calling Netflix’d. Those that have been following my reviews will notice that I’ve mainly been focusing on recent theatrical releases. Thing is, we currently live in a day and age where so many people are getting their entertainment fix from the internet thanks to legitimate sites like Netflix and Hulu. Seeing that people are always asking me for Netflix recommendations (and that I certainly watch Netflix enough to get more than just my money’s worth), I decided I might as well write about some of the more hidden gems that the site carries. For my first entry, I’ll be tackling Terrence Malick’s Days of Heaven, which is one of my favorite films, and a must see for any self-respecting fan of American cinema

Title: Days of Heaven

Director: Terrence Malick

Writer: Terrence Malick

Year: 1978

Running Time: 94 minutes

Starring: Richard Gere, Brooke Adams, Sam Shepard, Linda Manz

Genre: Drama, Period Piece, Surrrealism

Similar To: There Will Be Blood, Citizen Kane, great movies in general

What is the quintessential American movie? It’s a question that has plagued scholars for decades, with vital considerations coming up time and time again. Many would go with Citizen Kane, as it’s not just a powerful spectacle about the power our nation carries, but it’s one of the most important films ever made in terms of cinematic technique. Or, many could also suggest The Godfather as it’s a film so epic and ageless, that it’s subtext about capitalism is so relevant even today. You could even look at recent cinema like Paul Thomas Anderson’s There Will Be Blood and say that current film makers have a better understanding of America’s roots than ever before. I, however, feel that Terrence Malick’s 1978 masterpiece, Days of Heaven, is more transcendent and visually striking than any of those aforementioned films.

Set in 1916, the film takes place primarily in the panhandle area of Texas. It follows a trio of drifters, Bill (Gere), his girlfriend Abby (Adams), and his little sister Linda (Manz), who are on the run after Bill accidentally kills his steel mill boss. The protagonists join a large caravan, with Bill and Abby deciding to tell people they are siblings rather than lovers. Eventually they come across a large farm, where they take up jobs from the owner (Shepard) who is only referred to as “the farmer” throughout the film’s running time. We soon discover that the farmer is both dying from illness, as well as infatuated with Abby. Bill and Abby then hatch a plan to have her pose as the farmer’s lover, only so that she may inherit his fortune after he dies.

Of all the great new Hollywood directors, Terrence Malick was the most enigmatic. Keeping much of his personal life private, and rarely responding to interviews, the director almost immediately became seen as a recluse. Also, Malick’s films didn’t adhere to popular American genre conventions (i.e. film noir, westerns) as much as his contemporaries, didn’t have snappy dialogue to them, and featured characters that tended to be social outcasts. These might be the reasons his films aren’t as ingrained into the public conscious as much as films like Taxi Driver and Dog Day Afternoon are, but there’s no doubt that his work is just as influential. Days of Heaven was most certainly an ambitious project, especially considering that this was only Malick’s second feature, after having shot his debut feature, Bad Lands just a few years earlier. The film could of easily been a mess (like Michael Cimino’s disastrous Heaven’s Gate), but fortunately the script, cinematography, directing and editing all came together in a truly sublime fashion to form a film that remains an unqualified masterpiece.

Right from the film’s start, it’s clear that this is a film about America’s progression during the early part of the 20th century, even if the tone is so different than what we are used to. The film’s opening credits sequence showcases black-and-white photographs of workers, children and architecture from the era, with a rendition of The Aquarium by Saint Sans playing. It’s a haunting start for sure, and the film doesn’t become any less chilly. Regardless of the tension, the film is a perpetual beauty with Malick and his cinematographer Nestor Almendos illuminating the screen with lasting imagery. Malick said the film’s look took influence from the artwork of early 20th century painters like Edward Hopper, and it definitely shows. The film’s look is restrained yet expansive, asking us to view America during a shifting and perplexing period of time.

Still, as evoking the imagery is, it would fall on deaf ears if the story didn’t match. It certainly does though, despite it’s lack of dialogue. The film had a very arduous editing process, with Malick spending three years of his life to make sense of the massive amount of footage that he had shot. Eventually it was decided that much of the film’s shot dialogue scenes would be cut, and instead replaced with narration monologues from Linda Manz’ character. The effect is subtly eerie, as there’s just something so strong in hearing this story told from the point of view of a teenage girl, speaking in a very distinct Chicagoan accent. The film’s last spoken monologue from her is one of the most powerful closing lines I can think of.

Despite it’s surrealism and breaks away from convention, Days of Heaven is also a fairly accessible film too. It has a standard beginning, middle and end, a love story, and it does indeed climax with an exciting action scene that would not be uncommon in most other Hollywood films. Still, the more cinematically-savy people will get the most out of this film, and certainly find much to ponder about in terms of subtext, especially regarding it’s biblical content. Featuring an impeccably shot scene involving locust, a story that mimics Genesis 20, and lighting that often suggest illumination, Days of Heaven certainly seems to be tying godliness to the American dream. While many people have been discussing the religious implications in Tree of Life, I honestly think this earlier Terrance Malick film gives it a run for it’s money.

After Days of Heaven, Terrence Malick would not return to film making for another 20 years. I’ve heard conflicting reasons for why this is the case, with some sources telling me Malick was simply exhausted after the massive editing process, while others have told me that he was unhappy with the way the film was edited. Whatever the case, I feel that this film is likely to stay as his final masterpiece. While films like Tree of Life and The New World are certainly the work of a true visionary, they are ultimately bogged down by his insistence on using experimental and confusing narratives. Days of Heaven, however, is both a spectacle and a truly human work of art that will stay with you for a very long time. This and Bad Lands are enough to give Malick the distinction of being one of the best American film makers, and a most singular artist for the later half of the 20th century.

Mama Gonna Creep You Out: Review of the movie Mama

by Ryan Shea

This past weekend I paid the ridiculous $12.50 to go see the 2013 horror movie Mama. Mama is co-written and directed by Andres Muschietti, co-written by Neil Cross, and produced by Guillermo del Toro. The movie has a dark, cold feeling to it. The colors all seemed very ominous and frigid. The special effects were mediocre and the soundtrack was not memorable.

The story begins with a wall street broker gone rogue who shoots his work partners and then returns home to execute his wife. After brutally murdering his wife, Jeffrey, proceeds to kidnap his 2 daughters, Lilly and Victoria. The three of them flee in his Mercedes and, because of the icy roads and Jeffrey’s manic state of mind, crash into the woods. Of course, he finds a cabin to hide out in, because there’s always an abandoned cabin in an isolated wooded area (yes, I am being sarcastic). Turns out, the cabin is already inhabited by “Mama.” Mama is the ghost of a mental patient from the 1800’s who escaped and kidnapped her baby from an orphanage. Mama isn’t too fond of Jeffrey and he “disappears”,so Mama looks after his 2 daughters.

Cut to 5 years later. Lilly and Victoria are found in the woods, because of their Uncle Luke’s relentless efforts, and, after some psychiatric treatment, move in with their uncle Luke (Nikolaj Coster-Waldau) and his girlfriend Annabel (Jessica Chastain). As one can imagine, the girls have adapted to living in the woods and the younger of the two, Lilly, being an infant when she was brought into the woods, walks on all fours and can barely speak. The elder daughter Victoria is slightly more adjusted. The creepiest part of this movie was the way the girls walked and spoke. Lilly contorts her body in ways that seem very unnatural. Also, the sounds Lilly made were completely unnerving, think The Grudge and Signs. Eventually, the girls start speaking to “Mama” and playing with her. The first entrance of “Mama” was actually unexpected and terrifying, causing everyone in the theater to jump out of their seats and scream, followed by a rolling laughter. Although the ghost looked a little to digital for my taste, she was disturbing nonetheless. Distorted face and disjointed limbs. The movie reaches its climax when we find out “Mama’s” story and her jealousy, over taking care of Lilly and Victoria, causes her to attack any adult in her way. The ending was actually quite unexpected and almost brought a tear to my eye. But you’ll have to see it I don’t want to spoil the whole thing for you!

Mama definitely had its scary moments. I would define it more as creepy than scary. The acting was actually pretty good, especially by the youngest daughter Lilly, played by Isabelle Nélisse. I have to say, as a horror movie buff, that I haven’t seen many good frightening flicks made in the past decade or so, but Mama was worth the watch, but maybe not the $12.50 movie ticket.

Seven Psychopaths: Why Martin McDonagh’s Crime Comedy is Worth a View, but Not a Purchase.

by Peter Foy

Did you catch Seven Psychopaths last October? …yeah, didn’t think so. Martin McDonagh’s latest film certainly made back it’s modest budget of 15 million dollars, and received plenty of solid reviews, but it certainly wasn’t the talk of the cinema landscape. As a self-proclaimed film critic, I have to say that Seven Psychopaths holds a unique distinction for me, as it was the single film of 2012 that I had the most mixed feelings towards. With the film arriving on DVD and Blu-Ray today, here’s why I feel you might want to catch/skip this underrated/overrated crime comedy.

In describing the plot, it’s best to put it like this: It’s a cross between Adaptation and Pulp Fiction. Like the former of those two films, writer/director Martin McDonagh basically writes himself into the film as a fictionalized version of himself (played by Colin Farrell), who is a struggling Hollywood writer trying to complete a screenplay. He’s having writer’s block with his latest screenplay entitled Seven Psychopaths (The film is very self-referential if you haven’t noticed), and idles his time drinking and hanging out with his jerk-ass friend Billy Buckle (Sam Rockwell). The film’s action kicks in when Billy and his accomplice Hans (Christopher Walken) steal the dog of a cartoonishly insane gangster (Woody Harrelson), and Marty finds himself drawn into their hijinks. Throughout the film, we uncover the “psychopaths” that give Marty’s screenplay its inspiration.

For the uninformed, Martin McDonagh is a rather distinguised writer for both theater and film. The 42-year old McDonagh (a dual citizen of both England and Ireland) spent much of his 20s and 30s creating acclaimed plays such as The Beauty Queen of Leenane and The Cripple of Inishmaan, before deciding to turn his attention to making movies. In 2004 he wrote and directed a short film called Six Shooter which turned out to he a hell of a debut, as it won the 2005 Academy Award for best short film. His first feature film, In Bruges, came out in 2008 and proved to be a well liked dark comedy, and seemingly a sign of an illustrious film career to follow.

Seven Psychopaths is easily his most mainstream work to date, but his sense of black humor isn’t hampered too much by the commercial leanings. Filled with clever fuck-laced dialogue, parodic gangster tropes, and so-bloody-it’s-fun violence, Seven Psychopaths easily finds it’s place amongst other post-Tarantino crime films. It’s clearly not anything new, but that doesn’t keep the movie from being any less watchable. McDonagh certainly proves to be an actor’s director here, as the entire cast shines. The characters are all as playful as they are violent, which is certainly what the film’s tone is going for. Granted, the film is undeniably random and messy throughout, but the acting and scenarios are so creative that Seven Psychopaths remains highly enjoyable for 80 out of it’s 109 minutes.

…Then the final act happens and boy does it disappoint! The film’s creativity seems to suddenly dissipate, and we’re left with a half-assed shoot-out to climax the film. What’s worse, the “pivotal” moments that follow fall flat as well, and the writing just comes off as lazy. Granted, the film visually peaks in a scene that precedes the climax, but it’s still hard not to feel that the end is a bit of a cop-out. Seven Psychopaths needed to have a really crazy yet sublime ending, that would of made up for the film’s random nature, and nicely delivered its message on the arduous process of writing and re-writing a film script. Instead, what ever McDonagh was trying to say goes right out the window through a cliche-heavy ending that truly lacks spark.

So critics were right to call Seven Psychopaths a fun film (at least for the first two-thirds), but it ultimately fails as a commentary on screenplay writing. Certainly worth a view, especially if you love crime movies, but to be honest it’s difficult for me to recommend this film to very many people. It’s possibly too slow for the action movie crowd, and arthouse audiences are likely to find it too flawed or over-the-top to be worth the price of admission. For that reason…I’m gonna have to recommend that you go see In Bruges instead.

Amour: A Masterpiece, or Just Plain Sad?

by Peter Foy

It won the Palm D’or at Cannes, received nearly unanimous accolades, and now it’s received the coveted distinction of having Oscar nominations for both best foreign language film as well as best picture. Amour is not just the most praised film to date to come from Austrian director Michael Haneke, but arguably the most acclaimed film to come out in years. In anticipation for the Academy Awards, BAMcinematech will begin showing the film tomorrow, and I strongly suggest that all serious movie goers (who haven’t done so already) to go see this heartbreaking, and vivid film, that is perhaps a masterpiece, and most certainly an unforgettable work of art.

As the title suggests, Amour is certainly a film about love, but it’s too dark to be considered anything romantic. The film centers on the elderly couple of Anne (Emmanuelle Riva) and Georges (Jean-Louis Trintignant), two retired French music teachers who live around the Parisian area. There both in their 80s, but they still enjoy going to concerts, listening to music, and visiting with their daughter (Issabelle Hupert). Unfortunately, things all go for the worse when one day Anne slips into a catatonic state for a few minutes. They immediately go for medical attention and discover she has a problem with her brain. The movie then follows Georges as he tries to care for Anne, as her condition continues to grow more harrowing.

Seeing that the film almost takes place entirely inside the couple’s flat, one might wonder why Haneke didn’t option the film as a stage play instead. Thing is, Amour works beautifully as a film due to the articulate shots, and Haneke’s unique sense of direction. Although Amour has been receiving plenty of press for how different it feels from Haneke’s more sadistic films (I.E. Funny Games, The Piano Teacher), it’s important to note that the directors skill with the macabre is definitely in effect here. A minimalist film maker in every regard, Haneke uses trace amounts of light and color in this film, so as to let viewers feel the graveness. Also, the film has one or two dream sequences that definitely take a few pages from his time directing quasi-horror films. Some people I’ve talked to have even told me they feel that the film still has a cruel sense to it, but even if that’s the case with Haneke’s craft, it couldn’t be any less true with regards to the performances.

Both Emmanuelle Riva and Jean-Louis Trintignant are veteran French actors from the New Wave period, and it’s likely that this film will be seen as a latter career triumph for both of them. As mentioned before, Haneke directs his film’s with a minamalist’s eye, but it so complements the performances. Through Haneke’s POV we don’t necessarily get to see into the minds of his characters, but their actions and facial expressions give us all that we need. Trintignant gives a mighty performance, whose suggests that his grief is just as harsh as his ailing wife’s. Speaking of whom, Riva might even give the stronger performance of the two leads, which is most impressive seeing that she hardly does much of anything. For most of the film she is paralyzed and confined to beds, but her expressions of pain fully communicate her loss of consciousness. Issabelle Huppert (a previous collaborator with Haneke) gives a limited, but very weighty performance too. One scene with her character in particular resonates with the film’s message as a whole

Amour is a difficult film for sure, nor is it very easy to watch. Still, it’s a very vital film that pulls no punches with exploring the tumultous emotions and acts that come with coping with death, after a life that was so dedicated to love. It’s no wonder that the film has received so many accolades, as the elderly are more likely to have a stronger response to it than younger age groups would. Some people have theorized that the reason Amour received so much attention from the Academy is because many of the voters are of the same age as Georges and Anne, and that honestly doesn’t sound like a stretch at all for me. Despite the biased nature that some voters might have, Amour is a huge victory for Michael Haneke and another must-see for this year. Besides The Master, I feel this was the most accomplished film of 2012.

Zero Dark Thirty: 2012’s Most Controversial Film?

by Peter Foy

For at least a few weeks before it’s release (and for the subsequent month afterwards), Kathryn Bigelow’s latest film Zero Dark Thirty has been achieving a gargantuan amount of press. There’s been plenty of good word, with the film receiving nearly unanimous praise from critics for it’s deft and relevant subject matter and appearing on many top ten lists. There have been more troubling headlines, however, with some sources calling the film a glorification of torture, an improper exposure to classified material, as well as a shallow reenactment on the war of terror that ultimately gives Osama bin Laden the last laugh (This Rolling Stone article is particularly damning). It’s certainly one of the most challenging films of the year in that regard, and I myself have found myself agreeing with both camps at times. Still, I feel that this a film that must be seen, judged and contemplated by each viewer on his/her own philosophies.

Zero Dark Thirty is very much a follow up film to The Hurt Locker, but it is in some ways an even more important film. The Hurt Locker is an intense study of American soldiers fighting a brutal conflict in Iraq, while Zero Dark Thirty is a political thriller that acts as a reminder of the paranoia that plagued are nation based on the livelihood of one particular terrorist. As many of you are aware, Zero Dark Thirty is a dramatized account of the decade-long hunt for Osama Bin Laden. The film’s action orbits around central protagonist Maya (Jessica Chastain) a CIA operative with an obsessive need to find Osama Bin Laden. Through a chronological narrative that spans the September 11 attacks right up to the killing of Osama Bin Laden on May 2nd, 2011, Maya acts as our declassified government document that examines what happened to track down the Al Quaida leader. Bribery, speculation, interrogation and the much discussed graphic scenes of torture are the methods that follows in the film’s 157 minute running time.

The allegations that Zero Dark Thirty is exposing unwanted American secrets is not entirely unfounded, but it’s necessary for this type of film to be as truthful as the momentum would allow. Interestingly, the film could have been so much less than what it was, and it can indeed be attributed to the sudden slaying of Osama Bin Laden two years ago. Director Kathryn Bigelow and writer/journalist Mark Boal were planning to make a film about the 2001 siege of the Tora Bora where Osama was believed to have escaped without a trace, but then when he was actually killed in a raid the duo decided to change the film’s concept entirely. Using the research they had accumulated over the last year, the writing/directing pair composed a new film that would center around the whole zeitgeist for America’s hunt for Osama Bin Laden.

I have to admit, while watching the film I was a bit frustrated at times. The film does indeed begin with a torture scene, which immediately grabbed me, but afterwards I couldn’t help but ask if the filmmakers were suggesting that the actions of the Americans was fully justified. I was fully immersed in the film’s story and performances, and in all honesty it hardly felt like the move was over two-and-a-half hours. Still, my frustrations remained for most of the running time too (perhaps in no small part as we all knew what the ending would be), and I found myself wondering if the film could have posed more questions about did the ends justify the means.

Then…the final shot happened. After a visceral and dynamic climax where I couldn’t stand to blink for a moment, Bigelow and Boal gave us the final shot that the film needed. Not to spoil much, but it was a tender and emotional moment with the film’s lead of Maya. Up to this point we had indeed been seeing this war on terror through her determined mind. Now that it was over, however, both Maya and us viewers were left to ponder what it all meant. Perhaps I’m trying to over-analyze a film that is in many ways just an action film, but I personally don’t think that the filmmakers could have capped off such a compelling work of cinema with a more long-lasting image.

At the end of the day, Zero Dark Thirty is a fabulous political thriller, and the most satisfying American film of the year overall. Whether the filmmakers intended the film to attract this much public outcry is hard to say, but I’m certain they aren’t appreciative that their hard work is being judged as amoral. It’s also an absolute shame that Kathryn Bigelow was denied a best director nomination this year (along with other shoe-ins like Paul Thomas Anderson, Ben Affleck, and Wes Anderson), but it seems the film has earned itself another merit. Zero Dark Thirty is easily the most controversial film, amidst the most controversial Oscar season in years.

MOVIES

Footer