Directors Guild Award nominations... ugh.- Page 2

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 1/9/05 at 3:46am

I agree. Ray? What the hell? If RAY gets nominated for best picture at the Oscar's I think I will combust. I just watched ETERNAL SUNSHINE in it's entirety last week, and I thought it was amazing and brilliant. It took me a while to grasp what was going on and actually get into the flow of the movie. I feel the same way about this movie as I did with Kaufman's ADAPTATION last year, but I think SUNSHINE is far superior. I hope it gets a best picture nomination - and I would be delighted if Carrey and Winslet were nominated as well. I would actually love if they won, as well. I need to see CLOSER and SIDEWAYS again this week to really form an opinion. Did you see PHANTOM yet, Evelyn?

[EvelynNesbit1906]

Posted: 1/9/05 at 3:56am

No, unfortunately I'm now in a position to see movies in a theater only once a month. But I still intend to give 'Phantom' a chance. Hotel Rwanda and The Incredibles will come first, although I suspect that THE INCREDIBLES is overrated. One film that I didn't see but can just sense was very good is Vera Drake. Damn limited release...

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind didn't please me as much the second time I saw it as it did the first, but I'd love to see it nominated over Finding Neverland and Ray in pretty much every category. I would love even more if Kinsey made it. It still has an outside shot.

Agreement here that it would be great if Carrey and Winslet won, if only to be the most dramatic upsets in Oscar history. Updated On: 1/9/05 at 03:56 AM

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 1/9/05 at 4:13am

It would be great for them to win the Oscar....but I was talking about the Golden Globe, I should have specified. It's strange that they categorize that movie as a comedy - I found it pretty depressing and inspring at the same time - but rarely funny. It's the best thing I've seen Winslet and Carrey do in their entire careers, in my opinion. I thought Kirstin Dunst was cute, and Mark Ruffalo enjoyable as always, but I thought Elijah Wood was dreadful - again, as always.

So KINSEY - your baby. I saw it for the first time last night. I went in expecting this level of greatness that probably nothing can reach. I thought the movie dragged in spots and was borderline repetetive. I thought some parts were a little unnecessary and messy. I also kind of feel like it's just a movie dealing with a very important man and issue - not a very important movie dealing with something ordinary. I didn't find the movie amazing, but I certainly loved it enough to put it as my 3rd best of the year. I wouldn't be surprised if it's not nominated for best picture...but I would be disappointed. I thought Liam Neeson was great - and I found Laura Linney brilliant. Her chemistry with him was remarkable - I would have loved to see them together in THE CRUCIBLE. I am definitely rooting for her to win best supporting actress now - I fell in love with her performance. The ending of KINSEY also bothered me - it didn't seem to end with any answers. Usually, that's fine. But it was a true story, and I know nothing about this man. Did he get the funding? Was his second book published? I know they can't cover his entire life, because the movie would be 5 hours long - but it seemed that towards the end they beat around the bush a bit too long, then just ended. I suppose I should see it again.

I'm so curious about whether you saw PHANTOM or not because I want your opinion (which I value) on Gerard Butler. I find his singing questionable - yes - but I enjoy it more than any other Phantom I've seen. It was real and tangible. He's the first phantom I've seen that actually evoked sympathy for him. I could understand why Christine was so drawn to him. He wasn't a wrinkled old man with an obnoxiously queer voice - he was a handsome hunk with a manly voice. I thought his acting was right on par - it was clear why they cast him. I don't understand people who rip his acting apart - I thought he was extraordinary.

[EvelynNesbit1906]

Posted: 1/9/05 at 4:40am

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind has been identified by the Globes as comedy because it's modern science fiction. No way in hell they were going to call this kind of film real "drama," especially with scenes involving Joel shrinking to the size of a five-year-old and hiding beneath the table while Clementine "babysits" him. The categorization also works to the film's advantage as it has a chance of winning in Comedy/Musical should people tire of Sideways, but not in Drama against The Aviator and Million Dollar Baby.

There was a moment early in Kinsey when I thought that I wouldn't be able to sincerely give it the rave that I did: Clara was introduced rather abruptly. But ultimately I was able to rationalize this "flaw" as one of the film's many strong suits; as a film that questions the dynamics of relationships, it makes sense that it wouldn't sensationalize the first encounter between a future man and wife in the same way that A Beautiful Mind does.

Kinsey died shortly after the last scene in the film. His book on female sexuality was published in the '50s. But having not seen the film since November, I can't offer feedback as to whether the screenplay answers the question of how it got published. I don't think I would mind if it didn't because I learned so much more about him, his family and his research from his film than I did about the subjects of the other biopics I saw in 2004. It even inspired me to check out both of Kinsey's major studies (and oh, they're thick books!) from the library.

I wasn't a big fan of the clip of Butler as 'Phantom' that I saw online. It felt awkwardly staged. However, I'm encouraged to see the film by the reminder that he's a "handsome hunk with a manly voice." Joel Schumacher, who is gay, thinks so too. There are several pictures on gettyimages of Butler wearing tight white clothes and Schumacher touching him... talk about homoerotic. Whew. My apologies for the digression. Perhaps Butler in 'Phantom' won't be a particularly satisfying experience for me if he's fully clothed throughout the film.

[broadway86]

Posted: 1/9/05 at 2:09pm

I felt that "Ray" was an okay biopic. It was better than most because it set a distinct mood, and it didn't shy away from Charles's problems. However, the only thing that deserves recognition is Foxx. I have always been fascinated by Mr. Charles, I even did a project on him when I was in elementary school. I have a lot of his CD's, and I enjoy watching his interviews on television. When I saw this film, I actually forgot (for the duration of the film) that it wasn't Ray Charles.

On another note, I agree that Gondry should have been nominated, instead of Foster or Hackford.

About Butler - I was one of the few that found him to be excellent. His singing voice grew on me, and his acting is great. As I said in another thread, the film itself is the most underrated of the year.

Posted: 1/9/05 at 2:15pm

The only way I could see Phantom being 'under-rated' is if someone actually said it didn't exist - for there was SOMETHING going on on that screen that made me wince.

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 1/9/05 at 2:23pm

LOL, I love you DGrant.

I was going to write my review of the PHANTOM movie, but I don't think I could ever have the time to type out all the things I found wrong with the movie. I've never seen a film that failed so miserably on so many levels. The people in the cinema were cracking up during the entire movie -- they couldn't stop laughing at how rediculously bad it was.

[broadway86]

Posted: 1/9/05 at 2:27pm

Very interesting. I disagree, but it's interesting nevertheless.

BlueWizard- Where did you see this movie? I saw the film more than once (every time with a packed house) and no one ever laughed.

Posted: 1/9/05 at 2:31pm

In the interest of full disclosure, the audience I saw it with was in the largest theater available - it was sold out, and they applauded when it was over.

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 1/9/05 at 3:03pm

BlueWizard- Where did you see this movie? I saw the film more than once (every time with a packed house) and no one ever laughed.

Toronto. Here are some of the scenes where there was laughter in the audience:

- Masquerade: the random voguing and rave dancing.

- Point of No Return: when the male performance-art dancers pop out from nowhere

- Point of No Return: when Butler puts his finger to his mouth while singing "silence, silence..." Hysterical.

- All the rediculously overblown cape action (did the Phantom have an obsession with his cape?). There was a couple in the audience that was on the floor laughing.

After the movie, my friends and I left the theatre in hysterics. It was the best worst movie we've seen in the cinema. I don't know how anyone could take this film seriously. When Christine refuses to go into the water to help a struggling, tied-up Raoul (my guess is that she doesn't want to get her dress wet), you know you're seeing crap at its most golden. The clincher is how obvious it is that Butler isn't ugly under that mask, and that they only applied the ugly-makeup for the last scene.

Two words: shoddy filmmaking.

Updated On: 1/9/05 at 03:03 PM

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 1/9/05 at 3:44pm

BlueWizard - not only do I disagree with you, but the points that you mention where your entire audience was allegedly hysterically laughing show just how incompetant you and your audience might have been.

Masquerade: The only thing wrong with this number was some of the lipsinking. I saw no voguing - I don't even know what you're talking about, though I'm assuming your making a reference to Madonna - which then, there is definitely none of. And rave dancing? If period dance with fans equal "rave dancing," then you're right - I would have been laughing too. But it doesn't.

Point of No Return: Male performance art dancers pop out of nowhere? Do you understand this part of the story? I don't understand how someone has the nerve to rip apart this beautiful movie, then illustrate just how little they actually know of the story and the period of both the story and of the operas going on onstage. It's quite sad that people might be taking your opinion seriously. These "performance art" dancers that you speak of do not exist. The only dancers that do exist in that number were the hispanic dancers. And do you know why? They were performing in an opera. The song has spanish undertones. And do you know why THAT is? They were performing DON JUAN - which, imagine that, is a SPANISH OPERA! So it's all appropriate for the story. And they didn't come out of no where - clearly you weren't paying attention. The dancers added very nice sexual undertones to what was going on between The Phantom and Christine and as the song progressed, their dance became more furious and more sharp, and the tension was building to him cutting down the chandelier. It all makes sense, and it was a very nice and sensible addition. The whole scene was very erotic. On Broadway - have you seen this on stage before? - it is dreadfully boring and flat.

The Point of No Return: When Butler puts his finger to his lips when he sings "Silence, Silence." To laugh at something so small, you must have really been giddy or had just smoked a bowl before you saw this moie. When he sings "Silence," he is the Phantom in the role of Don Juan. It's when he first emerges, so not everyone - especially the audience - knows it's actually the phantom yet. Christine and Raoul definitely know. She knows for sure that it's him when he sings the word "Silence" - that's when she first makes eye contact with him. Not only is he singing the libretto, but he is dually telling her to not scream or do anything - being that there are armed guards throughout the theatre. It makes sense, and I can't see why anyone would hysterically laugh at that, unless they led pretty dull, tiring lives.

There are obvious glitches in this movie, but to name instances that make complete sense just proves your point even less. You do have a point with the inconsistency of his ugly makeup. And it does suck - when she takes off his mask and his hair is suddenly thinning and gray - it's AWFUL. The lipsinking is AWFUL. The swordfight is pointless, etc. All in all, it's a beautiful movie - and if you and your friends left the theatre in hysterics, maybe you don't really belong in the theatre to begin with. Maybe you should see things more up your alley - things like SURVIVING CHRISTMAS. Did you hear that GARFIELD is out on DVD now? Maybe check that out.

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 1/9/05 at 4:28pm

No need to attack me personally, munkustrap. I'm just relaying my experiences of seeing this movie.

You cannot possibly convince me that the choreography in "Masquerade" is period-dancing. As someone aptly mentioned, the dancing will do nothing but remind the cinema audience of Madonna's "Vogue" performance from the 1990 MTV Awards, which no doubt the concept for this scene ripped off.

Point of No Return: Whether the dancers belong in the opera or not, but it still can't take away from the fact that it looks REDICULOUS. The song should be an intense confrontation between Christine and the Phantom, full of sexual energy and anguish; to interrupt the scene with dancers doing some rather wild dance routines is inappropriate to the dramatic tension. There's a reason why Harold Prince left the two alone in the stage version.

Butler's actions during "Silence, silence": again, it's so campy that I had to hold back the giggles. Butler's expressions make him look like he's a creepy, horny man out of a 1920s horror flick. Yes, it's a small detail, but it's indicative of Schumacher's filmmaking: he doesn't know where to draw the line between sweeping melodrama and over-the-top camp. This is the man who put nipples on Batman and Robin's costumes.

If you're looking for big criticisms rather than nitpicking, my primary complaint leaving the cinema was that the film was just BORING. Forget the inconsistencies, the gaping plot holes, the painfully-dated music (can one's ears possibly escape the drum machine during the title song?). How is Christine walking around a cemetary during the entirety of "Wishing You Were Somehow Here Again" interesting cinema? (And why is the Daae mausoleum fit for an emperor? Why doesn't Christine get buried in that huge tomb? If she gets buried with Raoul's family, why does the wife of a Vicomte get a tiny little grave?)

The film was terribly paced, lacked good performances (even Patrick Wilson, normally an actor of great depth, gave a cardboard delivery), and had no dramatic tension. The film just plodded along with no sense of direction.

I will admit that the production design was lavish, but no matter how much gold you splash onto the screen you cannot make this film beautiful to me. No chemistry, no emotion, no narrative arc, no energy, no vision. If these are things you don't mind eschewing for some pretty images, perhaps it is you who should go catch GARFIELD on DVD.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 1/9/05 at 4:39pm

No doubt, you make some excellent points - points that I completely agree with. I was discussing some of the exact things you mentioned with my Mom earlier - it is obviously a problematc movie. It's not a 4 star movie, it's not amazing, and it's certainly not a masterpiece. You bring up the inconsistencies, the big plot holes, the dated musc, and the ABBA-like synthesizer - those are certainly not specific to the film, but they also apply to the original stage version. So do you think the original show in the same way? I know I do - I think the stage version might have been impressive in the late 80's early 90's, but now it's just a tired misery. I think the film - however greatly flawed - succeeded in bringing out elements of the story and characters that the stage production has failed to do. I prefer the movie, by far, to the show - but I'm still not a large fan of the movie because of the insanely weak material, wretched lyrics, and mostly terrible score - although I do think the orchestrations sound best in the movie.

Since you were bringing up stupid things about the movie - what do you think of this: when they first enter the Phantom's lair and the candelabras come up from underneath water with the candles lit - I think that's HYSTERICAL and truly awful. Sorry I snapped at you - It wasn't really directed towards you, just a lot of anger going on today

No hard feelings - you truly do have a valid opinion.

[BlueWizard]

Posted: 1/9/05 at 4:59pm

Thank you for your apology. I get angry on the board too, and I've been attacked too many times (NYC2004, where are you??) not to snap back like the street queer I am.

Yes, the candles coming up from the lake are really rediculous -- especially since the candlesticks are still dripping with water.

About comparisons between the stage show and the film: I enjoyed the stage production as a kid, but as an adult I grew tired of it -- too overblown and not enough substance. When I saw the film trailer, I was actually very excited: I thought the material could work lavishly on film. Sadly, I didn't find that was the case, and the eye of the camera only magnified the flaws of the paper-thin material. I actually prefer the stage version now (if "prefer" is the right word); I think Hal Prince's direction hides a lot of the musical's faults through the use of theatrical spectacle. A lot of the ballads that come off flat onscreen work onstage because it's a theatrical moment: an actor/actress sends a pretty song soaring to the mezzanine. The candles coming out the lake/river works better onstage because you never see the water; the gondola could very well be floating on a cloud of mist. The one scene that did work gloriously in the film -- the opening scene and overture -- is taken directly from Hal Prince's vision.

I don't know why they didn't update the orchestrations more for the film version: the 80s beats during the title song make me cringe, and they should have sped up the tempo more because a film audience is less patient when watching two characters sing about love to each other for five minutes.

Updated On: 1/9/05 at 04:59 PM

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 1/9/05 at 8:24pm

The tempos in the movie REALLY REALLY bothered me - they were too slow. THE MUSIC OF THE NIGHT was absolute torture to sit through...I thought it was never going to end. ALL I ASK OF YOU was slightly better, but still way too long. the worst was WISHING YOU WERE SOMEHOW HERE AGAIN - which is a pointless song anyway. The whole time it just showed her roaming the cemetary and the most deathly tempo ever - I really couldn't stand the tempo of most of the songs. But all of ALW's songs are like that - too repetitive, too long, and usually pointless. I think that he likes the sound of his own music far too much. Anyway, as far as Oscars go, I can't see it getting nominated for too much. Certainly original song, costumes, scenic, or whatever other minor categories they have - and I think it should DEFINITELY be nominated for cinematography and sound. Who knows...but I think most people that have problems with this movie were already familiar with the music before. I was thinking that most people who see the movie that have never heard one song from the score or don't know one thing about theatre knows that PHANTOM is a hit broadway musical. so they automatically don't question the material - they look at it as classic and perfect to begin with. I always did, until I really started to think about it and what I was hearing. Then it's terribly disappointing. Some of the lyrics are horrendously laughable.

Posted: 1/9/05 at 10:43pm

Sometimes it's easier to let someone else do the talking. So, for a perspective on Phantom:

http://newyorker.com/printable/?critics/050103crci_cinema

[EvelynNesbit1906]

Posted: 1/10/05 at 7:15am

Thanks for convincing me not to see PHANTOM OF THE OPERA, Munk.

*cackles maniacally*

[broadway86]

Posted: 1/10/05 at 11:10am

Nooooo. Go see it.