Craig's MovieBlog

Movie of the Decade?

Bill Simmons from ESPN (aka The Sports Guy) has opened up a poll to try and determine the Movie of the Decade.  Here’s his list:

• Almost Famous (2000)
• Brokeback Mountain (2005)
• Cast Away (2000)
• The Dark Knight (2008)
• The Departed (2006)
• Gladiator (2000)
• The Lord of the Rings (2001)
• No Country for Old Men (2007)

Fine movies, all of them, and Almost Famous is a personal favorite, but are any of those really the best movie from the last 10 years? 

My friend over at Yes MSG emailed me about the Sports Guy’s poll, and that set me off.  I spent the next hour on IMDB, researching Oscar nominations, and rummaging through the archives of my old box office and movie review site (you know, from when I used to actually go and see movies).  I sent him my thoughts, and then Yes MSG responded inline, so I’ll try to represent that all below.  His responses are in red. 

Enjoy… and let us know – what movies did we miss? 

====================================================

Well, thanks.  The next hour is shot for me.  You’ve got me going…

Almost Famous (2000) is up there.  It’s pretty fantastic.  The Departed (2006) is in the conversation.  And you know what?  The first Pirates of the Caribbean (2002) movie was pretty freaking great as a mainstream, genre-breaking, fun movie.  The sequels ruined people’s memory of how good the first one was.

I guess it’s been a relatively weak decade.  It’s arguable that the Lord of the Rings Trilogy was the best movie achievement for the decade…  not kidding.  Or maybe it’s a Pixar movie like Finding Nemo (2002) or The Incredibles (2003).

On my list of movies that have to be in the conversation:

• Almost Famous (2000) – will have to see it again; don’t care for Kate Hudson, but will stick it out.  Plus, my first internet business was selling online the www.fugit-about-it shirt.  Didn’t go so well.
• Traffic (2000) – good, but a complete knock off of a German movie so really cannot give it high marks – maybe Best Adapted 2000s movie ;)
• Memento (2001) – My #1.  Forgot about this and loved it. Still don’t know if he ever killed anyone or not.
• Finding Nemo (2002) - yep
• Lost in Translation (2002) – too artsy for me I guess; I never understand these indies, but at least it meant that Sophia stopped acting
• Mystic River (2002) – too painful for me; Tim Robbins taking a knife in the gut – ooh.  No rewatchability for me; more avoidability.  But yes, well done.
• Pirates of the Caribbean (2002) – that was a fun film – made me a Depp fan. Have you seen Public Enemies?
• Sideways (2003) – Yep, entertaining too.
• Good Night, and Good Luck (2005) – Clooney at his best again
• Little Miss Sunshine (2006) – funny cause Rick James never so well represented.
• The Departed (2006) – Too, Marty deserves an Oscar for me, and Jack mailed it in as Jack.  Loved Leo though.  And you can never get enough Vera Farmiga!
• Michael Clayton (2007) – excellent film.  That, my friend, is why you have a blog.  The scene at the end where he gets her to offer $10M was fantastic.  And any movie that gives Danny Noonan another shot is OK with me.
• Juno (2007) – Entertaining, but as the Sports Guy would say, so underrated it became overrated
• The Dark Knight (2008) – What am I missing?  Why don’t I like these?  The first two X-Men were better – sure, not as ‘deep’ – but more entertaining, and I have a huge mancrush on Hugh Jackman

Movies I love that I would not call the “Movie of the Decade”:

• Billy Elliot (2000) – yes, any movie where an Irish kid can dance and is not kneecapped by the IRA is a keeper
• Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000) – All I can say is Hell Yeoh!
• Gosford Park (2001) – saw it, the Murder of the guy with the knife? That was good.
• Moulin Rouge! (2001) – did not see it and usually cannot stand Nicole Kidman; so overrated she is overrated.
• Confessions of a Dangerous Mind (2002) – did not see it; Gong Show goes CIA?
• Igby Goes Down (2002) – The other Culkin?  Did not see it.
• Narc (2002) – Also did not see this, even though I DRV’d it and had it on my ‘to watch’ list for like two years.
• The Incredibles (2003) - Excellent
• Garden State (2004) – again, a bit indie for me, but Braff and Portman is the best Jew hookup since, well, David and Bathsheba (at least as I imagine Bathsheba)
• The Constant Gardener (2005) – LeCarre always depresses, but very good.
• Syriana (2005) – could have been a bit less convoluted but good too.

It is certainly not Crash (2005) or Million Dollar Baby (2003).  Hated those movies with a passion…  pandering, obvious garbage.  – agree.  Swank taking a header into the stool was silly.  Clint should know better.

If you put a gun to my head, it’s Memento or Michael Clayton for me.  CraigBe and Yes MSG right there on this!

Oscar Predictions - 2007

I guess I should throw my hat in the ring.  I feel bad about it though - this is the first year in (I don't know how long) that I haven't seen all the Best Picture contenders.  In fact, I still haven't seen The Queen, Letters from Iwo Jima, or Babel... Now that I look at the nominees again, I haven't seen any of the Best Actor films, none of the Best Actress films, and only one of the Best Director films (The Departed).

I suck.  I need more babysitters.  I shouldn't even call myself a film blogger.  Wait, I don't call myself that.  But still... this is embarrassing.

I do follow the industry closely though, watching trends, paying attention to who everyone else is picking, and I gotta say... this is going to be an interesting race because for the first time since 1995 (Braveheart) or maybe 1991 (The Silence of the Lambs), there is no obvious favorite for Best Picture.  Sure, there have been upsets (Crash over Brokeback Mountain, Shakespeare in Love over Saving Private Ryan), but leading up to the big night, there was always one film that seemed to have it in the bag.  This year, that is absolutely not the case.  As William Goldman says, "no one knows anything."

Having admitted that I now know as much (or as little) as everyone else, here are my picks for the big categories.  Note that this is who I think will win, not who I necessarily want to win:

• Best Picture: Babel, but I absolutely think The Departed, Letters from Iwo Jima, and Little Miss Sunshine all have a legitimate shot at the title.  For the first time I can remember, I can honestly say I have no idea what's going to happen here.  As far as I can tell, Dreamgirls or United 93 might still have a shot.  ;)
• Best Director: Martin Scorsese, finally... and this won't be close.
• Best Actor: Forrest Whitaker, but Peter O'Toole could easily, easily take this.  It's dead even.
• Best Actress: Helen Mirren, in a blowout.
• Best Supporting Actor: Eddie Murphy, but Alan Arkin is a huge Academy favorite, while Murphy isn't personally well-liked, and Jeff Wells has been running a campaign against him.  Also, it's arguable that Mark Wahlberg had the most memorable role of all the supporting actors.
• Best Supporting Actress: Jennifer Hudson is still the favorite, so I'll go with her.  The Babel women will split their votes, Cate Blanchett just won this two years ago, but don't be suprised to see something wacky happen in this category with Abigail Breslin (a la, Anna Paquin, Marisa Tomei, Whoopi Goldberg, Mira Sorvino, etc.).  I mean, can an American Idol contestant really win an Oscar?  They've won Grammies...

One note that just came to me... If Peter O'Toole beats Forrest Whitaker, and Alan Arkin beats Eddie Murphy, and Abigail Breslin beats Jennifer Hudson, will there be racism cries throughout the Academy?  Just putting that out there as food for thought.

Oh, and Best Original Screenplay will be Little Miss Sunshine (wait, maybe The Queen), and Best Adapted Screenplay will be The Departed.

In case you're still looking, here's an Oscar ballot for you to make your picks with.  Have fun at the show!!!

The 2006 Academy Awards Tracker

I've finally gotten off my patootie, and I've compiled my annual Academy Awards tracker. 

Clearly the momentum is behind Forest Whitaker, Helen Mirren, and Martin Scorsese right now, but as always, while this is interesting, it doesn't always predict Oscar success.  If it did, we'd be heralding Brokeback Mountain or Sideways as Best Picture winners.  (Crash only won one pre-Oscar Best Picture.)  Note that the so-called favorite for Best Picture, Dreamgirls, has no Best Picture wins, but Jennifer Hudson is leading in the Supporting Actress category.

I love the fact that the only other Best Actor winner other than Forest Whitaker so far has been Borat.

The scoreboard currently looks like this:

Best Picture:

• Letters from Iwo Jima - 2 wins
• United 93 - 2 wins
• The Departed - 1
• Little Children - 1
• The Queen - 1

Best Director:

• Martin Scorsese, The Departed - 4 wins
• Paul Greengrass, United 93 - 2
• Stephen Frears, The Queen - 1

Best Actor

• Forest Whitaker, The Last King of Scotland - 6 wins
• Sacha Baron Cohen, Borat - 2

Best Actress

• Helen Mirren, The Queen - 7 wins

Best Supporting Actor

• Jackie Earle Haley, Little Children - 2 wins
• Djimon Hounsou, Blood Diamond - 2 wins
• Michael Sheen, The Queen - 2 wins
• Mark Wahlberg, The Departed - 1

Best Supporting Actress

• Jennifer Hudson, Dreamgirls - 3 wins
• Catherine O'Hara, For Your Consideration - 2
• Adriana Barraza, Babel - 1
• Shareeka Epps, Half Nelson - 1
• Luminita Gheorghiu, The Death of Mr. Lazarescu - 1

The New York Times Needs to Hire a Box Office Analyst

First, the caveats:  1) I love reading The New York Times.  2) I haven't seen Flags of our Fathers, and really have no opinion about whether it should/could win an Academy Award this year, or do well at the box office.

Having said that, once again they wade into the box office waters without any context around what they're saying.  This happened a few weeks back when trying to show off the "extreme patience" that Warner Bros. showed around the horribly low opening of When Harry Met Sally...  Yes, they're very artist friendly - box office be damned.. it's the art that matters!

The New York Times neglected to mention in the article that the aforementioned film only opened on 41 screens.

But in today's edition [via Market My Monkey] they make the same mistake.

They claim that Flags of our Fathers had a terrible opening ($10.2 million) this weekend.  I will give them that.  A $10 million opening for a $90 million film with Oscar aspirations is not necessarily kicking things off in the right direction. 

The problem is that people read that and say... "wow - Pirates of the Caribbean 2 opened to like $120 million or something.  Shoot, The Grudge 2 made $20 million last week.  $10 million?  Flags of our Fathers must totally suck."

What isn't here, of course, is that Flags of our Fathers only opened on 1876 screens.  (Just to be complete, The Grudge 2 opened on 3211 screens.) So let's do some apples-to-apples comparisons, shall we?

First of all, Flags of our Fathers is the 99th widest opening of 2006.  That's right - it barely cracked the top 100 this year alone when you look at how wide movies are opening.  I mean, it was only the third widest opening this week alone with Flicka at 2877 screens and The Prestige at 2281.  Again, as a comparison, Pirates 2 opened on 4133 screens, more than twice what Flags opened on.

So, given that it made $10.2 million, putting it at the 72nd biggest opening of 2006, at least it's doing better than the screen count is setting it up to do.

In fact, if you look at the top 100 box office openings of this year, the average number of screens that a film is being released on is 2776 - almost 1000 screens more than what Flags of our Fathers chose to open on.

Next, let's look at other films that opened similarly, on approximately 1876 screens.  Twenty four movies have opened this wide since 1999 when I started tracking screen counts, and the average box office take for those films on opening weekend is just $6.9 million.  So... Flags of our Fathers beat the average there as well.

Let's look at the top 6 films on that list of similar openings.  See if they ring any bells for you:

1. Remember the Titans - $20.9 million - 1865 screens - 2000 - $115.6 million final total
2. Pitch Black - $13.5 million - 1832 screens - 2000 - $39.2 million
3. Drumline - $12.6 million - 1836 screens - 2002 - $56.3 million
4. Bounce - $11.4 million - 1918 screens - 2000 - $36.8 million
5. Flags of our Fathers - $10.2 million - 1876 screens - 2006 - ??????
6. Crash - $9.1 million - 1864 screens - 2005 - $54.6 million

That last film sounds kinda familiar... my memory's a bit hazy, but I think it won Best Picture last year.  (That was smarmy sarcasm for any of you not paying close attention.)

Again, I'm not saying Flags of our Fathers is going to be a box office hit, make its money back, or win any Oscars, and I honestly don't care either way.  I'm just looking for the press to consider all the information before reaching a conclusion - don't they have that responsibility?  Or at the least, give us the data, so that we can make our own decisions.

UPDATE - An hour after I made this post, Anne Thompson also slammed the NY Times for this (and she slams a Paramount exec as well).  I'm thrilled to be even remotely on the same wavelength as her.

Trade Trailer

Kevin Kline stars in Trade, which looks like Traffic 3 (Syriana was Traffic 2, of course).  Unfortunately, it also looks like it has all the pretention of Crash.

Zach Braff.com and The Last Kiss

Zach Braff's new blog/website is up, and if you subscribed to his old blog, then you know how funny his writing can be.  Actually, if you saw Garden State, you knew that already.

Anyway, on the site, there's a internet-only trailer for The Last Kiss, his new film directed by Tony Goldwyn and written by multi-academy award winning writer (ugh...) Paul Haggis (heaving...) who wrote Million Dollar Baby and Crash (full on heaving and vomiting...)

Chuck Klosterman on Barry Bonds: The Breaking Point

I know this is about sports, but I'm just a sucker for great writing.  Chuck's article today takes on our attitude towards the impending record breaking home run that Barry Bonds will hit shortly.  It's absolutely a must-read.  Read the whole thing, but here's an excerpt that struck me:

Problem 3: Tomorrow, today will be yesterday -- and Bonds will represent what that was like.

In November 2000, the United States held a presidential election, and nobody knew who won, so we just kind of made up an outcome and tried to act like that was normal. Less than a year later, airplanes flew into office buildings, and everybody cried for two months. And then Enron went bankrupt, and the U.S. started acting like a rogue state, and The Simple Life premiered, and gasoline became unaffordable, and our Olympic basketball team lost to Puerto Rico, and we reelected the same president we never really elected in the first place. Later, there would be some especially devastating hurricanes and three Oscars for an especially bad movie called Crash.

Things, as they say, have been better.

I'm only 33 years old, so I'll concede that my life experience is limited. But the past five years have been an especially depressing stretch to be an American, and I don't think many people of any age would disagree with that sentiment (except for maybe Kelly Clarkson ... things seem to be working out OK for her). If it's the era of anything, it's the Era of Predictable Disillusionment: a half-decade in which many long-standing fears about how America works (and what America has come to represent) were gradually -- and then suddenly -- hammered into the collective consciousness of just about everyone, including all the people who hadn't been paying attention to begin with.

This will not be lost on future historians. In 50 or 100 years, they will search for events within the popular culture that supposedly embodied the zeitgeist of the time. Some of these people will use sports, not unlike the way contemporary historians might use Muhammad Ali as a means to define the 1960s. As these future historians try to explain what was wrong with the world in the early 21st century, I suspect they will use Barry Bonds. Here was a man accomplishing unbelievable things -- things so unbelievable that they literally should not have been believed, even as they were happening. But we did not really believe or disbelieve. We just sort of watched it happen, and then we watched it get out of control, and then we expressed shock without feeling a grain of surprise, and then we tried to figure out how we were supposed to reconcile an alien reality we unconsciously understood all along. So if you're wondering how to feel about Barry's passing Babe, here's one option: You can feel like you're experiencing how the present tense will be understood in the future.

What? No Hanging Chads?

Now this is brilliant:

But even if it were true, it doesn't hold water.  Brokeback would be listed first alphabetically...

Why Crash Won: Ask Roger Ebert

If you're wondering how Crash pulled off the upset, I don't presume to have the foggiest idea, but Roger Ebert's site has a page that lists practically every single thought out there.

It should be noted that Roger Ebert thought Crash was the best movie of 2005, and has been saying so for some time.  In this essay, he responds to Crash's many critics.

MSNBC and NY Daily News Vent about Crash

Whoever Erik Lundegaard is for MSNBC, he's seriously pissed off:

There are rumors that older Academy members shied away from even viewing Brokeback Mountain for the usual homophobic reasons. Lionsgate also pushed Crash on Academy voters; it handed out a record number of DVDs and advertised heavily. I don’t know which explanation bothers me more. All I know is I feel sick. It feels like the ’72 Olympic basketball finals, when the Russians cheated and won; it feels like the ’85 World Series when a blown call in game six tilted the balance towards the Royals. It feels like the good guys wuz robbed.

Then the New York Daily news says:

N.Y. Daily News critic Jack Matthews speculating why Crash won and Brokeback didn't. (1) "Enough Academy voters found the gay subject matter of Brokeback Mountain too uncomfortable to sit through, meaning they abandoned their professional responsibility and didn't watch all five nominated films"; (2) Lionsgate "simply bought the grand prize by outspending everyone else in a $4 million campaign that included mailing DVDs to each of the 130,000 members of the Screen Actors Guild" and thus "a combination of everybody seeing Crash and some refusing to watch Brokeback Mountain"; and (3) Crash's subject matter -- racism, fear, and intolerance on the streets of L.A. -- "hit Academy members where most of them live." I think all three of these reasons were factors.

Oscar Recap: What Everyone Else Thought

Before I get to my thoughts, here are a few links I've enjoyed since the end of the show last night.

• David Poland: I disagreed with him about Brokeback Mountain from the get-go, but his post-mortem is excellent today.  I also was thankful for his plea for "civil disagreement."  It's sad that on the internet, and through its anonymity, the hateful vituperation has hit an all time high.
• Jeffrey Wells does a play-by-play: I'm looking for more depth from him later.
• Time Magazine and Richard Corliss cover it as well, although he's ready to nominate George Clooney for President.
• A blistering, incendiary column from Ken Turan and the LA Times.  Wow - a must read.
• Can't go without Bill Simmons...  "Part of me still thinks Jack Nicholson saw "Brokeback Mountain on the winner card, took a deep breath, said to himself, 'Screw it, I hated that movie,' called an audible and said, 'And the Oscar goes to ... Crash!'"
• Box Office Prophets did a live blog, but you currently have to start at the bottom and read up.
• Better Than Fudge wrote a tremendously snarky photo blog with captions.  I'm loving this site more and more every day.

Notes for trivia dorks like me:

• Paul Haggis became the first person to write two consecutive Best Pictures (Million Dollar Baby and Crash).
• For the first time ever, the top 6 awards went to 6 different films.  (Crash, Brokeback Mountain, Capote, Walk the Line, Good Night and Good Luck, The Constant Gardener).

Will Crash Upset Brokeback Mountain?

First of all, is it time for the Oscars yet?  Jeez... even I'm ready for this thing to be over, and we've still got about 10 days to go.

Secondly, there's sudden buzz (real or manufactured - what's the difference?) that Crash is actually going to take the Best Picture award.  Roger Ebert says:

It's the kind of film people feel strongly about, and I've heard a curious note in the voices of people discussing it: They sound serious and moved, and as if it made them take a longer look at themselves. They think of it as making an important statement.

Brokeback Mountain, another powerful film, was thought to be the Oscar leader, but I sense that its support has faded in recent weeks as voters take another look at Crash. Brokeback has the more purely emotional appeal; it tells the story of two men in love for a lifetime and unable or afraid to act on their feelings.

A bit more blunt, is Nikki Finke of LA Weekly, whose story headline (How Gay Will Oscar Go?) is slightly less subtle than Crash's underlying message:

Given that it's Oscar time,  I nominate the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences for Best Bunch of Hypocrites. That’s because this year’s dirty little secret is the anecdotal evidence pouring in to me about hetero members being unwilling to screen Brokeback Mountain. For a community that takes pride in progressive values, it’s shameful that Hollywood’s homophobia may be on a par with Pat Robertson’s.

Despite the hype you’re reading in the press and on the Internet about Brokeback, with its eight nominations, being the supposed favorite to take home the Best Picture Oscar on March 5, Crash could end up winning. The issue isn’t which film is better. The issue is more like which movie was seen by the Academy. Frankly, I find horrifying each whispered admission to me from Academy members who usually pose as social liberals that they’re disgusted by even the possibility of glimpsing simulated gay sex. Earth to the easily offended: This movie has been criticized for being too sexually tame. Hey, Academy, what are you worried about: that you’ll turn gay or, worse, get a stiffie by just the hint of hunk-on-hunk action?

It’s not that Crash isn’t Oscar-worthy and Brokeback is. Both are good, if flawed, movies. Crash makes up in aesthetic bleakness what it lacks in subtlety — Los Angeles is a city of minorities divided but colliding, duh! — but it’s also gripping and powerful. Brokeback gives us something we haven’t seen before — closet-case sheepherders tastefully presented so they redefine the notion of love. But it’s also slow and ponderous.

Manohla Dargis Oscar Q&A

She is just never one to hold her tongue.  Manohla Dargis had some choice soundbites in her Q&A that ran yesterday for The New York Times.  One was especially appropriate regarding Reese Witherspoon, and the other is a no-holds-barred slam of Los Angeles, Academy voters, and Crash.

Read the whole thing, but this chunk was my favorite:

Q. My friends and I seem to be asking each other the following two questions:

1. How did Reese Witherspoon become such a shoo-in when, as a lead actress, she doesn't have that much screen time, and worse, she seems to be playing Reese Witherspoon the whole time?

2. How did Crash a somewhat obvious, over-the-top, contrived drama, score so many nominations and now come to be considered as a possible dark horse for best picture?
—Danny, Austin, TX

A. Reese Witherspoon was nominated for Walk the Line because she’s beautiful, talented, has paid her dues (and I don’t mean by marrying Ryan Phillippe) and did a credible job in a big studio movie that made money and won kudos, if not across the board. (My pal A. O. Scott wasn’t wild about the movie, but he called her performance "lively" and "smart.") Her performance seems more supporting than not, true, but given the paucity of good female lead performances (see above) the Academy’s choice of Ms. Witherspoon this year was a no-brainer.

There are a few obvious reasons why Crash connected with the Academy. First, Los Angeles, where most of Academy members live, is a profoundly segregated city, so any movie that makes it seem like its white, black, Asian and Latino inhabitants are constantly tripping over one another has appeal. If nothing else it makes Los Angeles seem as cosmopolitan as, well, New York or at least the Upper West Side. Second, no matter how many times the camera picks out Oprah Winfrey on Oscar night, the Academy is super white. Third, the Academy is, at least in general terms, socially liberal. You see where I’m going, right? What could better soothe the troubled brow of the Academy’s collective white conscious than a movie that says sometimes black men really are muggers (so don’t worry if you engage in racial profiling); your Latina maid really, really loves you (so don’t worry about paying her less than minimum wage); even white racists (even white racist cops) can love their black brothers or at least their hot black sisters; and all answers are basically simple, so don’t even think about politics, policy, the lingering effects of Proposition 13 and Governor Arnold. This is a consummate Hollywood fantasy, no matter how nominally independent the financing and release. I also think it helped the film’s cause that its distributor sent out more than 130,000 DVD's to the industry, insuring easy viewing.

Chuck Klosterman's Super Bowl Blog

Please tell me you're reading Chuck's blog this week.

Two hours ago, I almost drove into Canada by accident. This would have been a disaster, as I am not qualified to deal blackjack and/or blog about the Grey Cup.

I see that the big winner [at the SAG awards] was Crash, a movie designed for people in Los Angeles who just figured out that racism was "complex" (and must therefore be secretly central to every conversation any two Americans ever have). I wish one of the bears from Grizzly Man would eat Matt Dillon and Ludacris.

Crashing the Ballot Box

Variety Magazine is reporting that Lionsgate is flooding voters mailboxes with DVD screeners of Crash, and while this is a normal tactic for every competing film, most studios send out anywhere from 12-15,000 copies.

Lionsgate is sending Crash DVDs to 130,000 voters, including the entire Screen Actors Guild and the Writers Guild.  That's an order of magnitude larger.

It's not against the rules, and frankly, I don't see anything wrong with it - once we all get used to the fact that "the movie" isn't the only thing that matters in the Oscar competition, but how you market it also counts, then may the best marketing strategy win.  The Weinsteins will certainly echo that sentiment if asked.

What irks me though, is that we'll never know if this worked.  Well, let me take that back a bit.  If Crash ends up with no nominations, we'll know that the tactic failed.  But if it ends up with a slew of nominations, who is to say that the film wouldn't have received those votes anyway?  How does a studio marketer measure the effectiveness of any given strategy or tactics?  How do they know what to do next year to be effective?  Can the poll the Academy voters afterwards?  Do they do this already?