In this week’s episode of The MashCast, Matthew and I chat last week’s Oscars, Project X, the latest Avengers trailer (including some skepticism on Black Widow and Hawkeyes lack of contribution to the group), Lindsay Lohan’s SNL appearance and some of the flicks we’re seeing this week.

Click play below to listen, and as always share your thoughts in the comments after the break and on Twitter: #MashCast.

Download audio file (Episode-5_-_Thats-Really-Gonna-Help-Him-Against-Aliens_.mp3)

What Do You Think? Discuss.

Well, another year at the Academy Awards marks another year of disappointment for me. I love the idea of awarding the best films and performances of the year, but lately I’ve started to notice that isn’t the case at the biggest awards show on the planet. A big part of that has to do with the demographics of the voting body of the Academy, which is comprised of mostly caucasian (94%) males (77%) with a median age of 62. Only 14% of the voters are under the age of 50. Now, it doesn’t surprise me that stupid Meryl Streep undeservingly won Best Actress for her bland role in The Iron Lady — most of the voters are as old as she is.

I don’t hate Meryl Streep, but I do despise her for winning. Though it isn’t her fault she won over three much more deserving actresses, I can’t as easily express my distaste for the 5,765 Academy voters. So, Streep, you are the scapegoat. She won in a category that featured brilliant performances from women who killed their roles in great films — The Help (76% on RT), The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo (87% on RT), and My Week With Marilyn (84% on RT) compared to The Iron Lady (53% on RT). Not that a film’s quality is the determining factor for acting accolades, but it should have strong a influence on the decision.

Viola Davis was strong willed in the emotionally powerful The Help. Michelle Williams played Marilyn Monroe better than anyone has ever done it before — she was so good, I almost forgot I was watching Williams and not the actual starlet from the 1950′s. Rooney Mara, I don’t think I can find words to describe her mesmerizing portrayal of Lisbeth Salander. She cut her hair, got piercings, completely transformed herself to play this unyielding but vulnerable role. Streep essentially played another version of her own old lady persona. I don’t want to take anything away from Margaret Thatcher, but she isn’t the most compelling onscreen character.

Bottom line, take Streep out of The Iron Lady, and have a replacement do the exact same work, play the role the exact same way, and she would not have even been noticed as a nominee. Streep won on her pedigree, which is a disgrace to the other 2012 Best Actress nominees. Sorry ladies. I digress. 

The Artist was the ‘belle of the ball’ as predicted. The film took home statues in many categories including: Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Director, Best Score… you get the picture. I loved this film, and was glad to see it received recognition. In terms of marking it the best film of 2011, I disagree. I found The Descendants to be a much more powerful piece of cinema, but it’s one opinion against another. And how could we not expect The Artist to win so much? I already told you about the aging voting body, and most of those white males were alive when silent films were the only pictures in cinema. But seriously, The Artist is a fresh idea in what some consider a stale re-hash/remake market. For a film like this to flourish, it obviously isn’t just hype.

One of my favorite winners of the night had to be Jim Rash, Nat Faxon, and Alexander Payne winning Best Adapted Screenplay for The Descendants. The screenplay took the audience on an emotional roller coaster while throwing lighter comedic moments into the fray. Strangely enough, most of you know Jim Rash as Dean Pelton on the hit NBC show Community. Weird to think someone who plays a character as strange as Dean Pelton could co-write such a beautiful screenplay.

I was also glad to see The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo get some love, winning Best Editing. The work of Kirk Baxter and Angus Wall may be familiar to you, as the pair took home the Oscar for Best Editing last year for The Social Network. The pair was also nominated for Oscar gold in the same category for The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. Notice a pattern? They are all Fincher products. Fincher obviously has himself a crack team of editors to enhance his already exquisite taste in visual storytelling.

Quickly, I recommend anyone who loves movies to check out The Fantastic Flying Books of Mr. Lessmore, the winner of Best Animated Short Film. You can watch it here on YouTube, it’s well worth 15 minutes of your time.

Other than that, the night was the typical dragging song and dance the Academy throws up. The procession is watchable, but oftentimes far from entertaining. Billy Crystal works as the host, too bad he doesn’t have better writers to cook up so better material. The highlight of all the presenters was Emma Stone. I love the energy and charisma she oozed on stage in front of her established peers.

Well, that’s all until my 2012 post about the Oscar snubs of this year, and how the Academy is doing a disservice to this actor or director. Our favorites can’t always win, but Meryl Streep can. Who will be next years’ underserving winners?

What Did You Think Of The Oscars?

Follow Matthew on Twitter: @matthewdeery

Aaaaand, wer’re back. We’ve taken a couple weeks off, but are now back in full force with the latest edition of The Movie Mash podcast, The MashCast. In this week’s episode, Matt, Mike and I chat about some of the films we’ve seen over the last copule weeks, including: Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance, The Vow, This Means War and The Woman in Black. We also forecast our predicitons for the major categories of next week’s Academy Awards, specifically, who we think should win, and who we think will win for Best Actor, Best Actress and Best Picture.

Click play below to listen. And be sure to join in the discussion in the comments after the break and on Twitter: #MashCast.

Download audio file (Episode-4_-_I-Just-Wanna-See-Tom-Hardy_.mp3)

What Do You Think? Discuss.

Of course, being a movie website, The Movie Mash has to have a follow up to the 83rd Oscars ceremony that took place last night. First things first, by a show of hands, who thinks Kirk Douglas should host the Oscars next year? Wouldn’t that be a lovely five-and-a-half-hour ceremony with Douglas rambling on quietly and sometimes incoherently. If he lives until next year, he has my vote, because he can’t possibly fair worse than Hathaway and Franco playing the hosts. This year’s Oscars was watched by four million less people than last year.

Hathaway portrayed an aura of enthusiasm while Franco seemed like he was backstage with Michael Phelps tag teaming a bong. The younger duo was asked to host the Oscars to appeal to the younger audiences. Mission failed. The coveted 18-49 demographic was down 12% from last year’s viewership. But really, I don’t care about the whole procession of the Oscars. I really just care about the winners and the beautiful women in all their fancy dresses.

Not caring about all the hoopla, I usually just watch pieces of the ceremony as I channel surf and get the breakdown from the web later on. It is hard for me to ingest all the garbage the Academy puts out like the musical numbers, annoying hosts (even Billy Crystal is irritating), and the constant question, “Who are you wearing?” I am more of a highlights guy. Give me the big moments, the winners, and the slideshow of the dames in their dresses.

Don’t think for one minute this is me undervaluing the importance of the awards themselves, because that is not the case. Winning an Academy Award is a huge thing, just don’t expect me to sit through this long formulaic song and dance. However, on Sunday a different side of me was present. Even though I was slightly disengaged doing some homework on my laptop, I watched almost the entire Oscars Award Show. I had a blast on Twitter, tweeting away with millions of others while watching the show. Believe it or not, I even watched the lead up to the show where it was everything ‘Red Carpet.’ Like I said, I love the women in their evening gowns.

This year brought happiness on so many fronts, and utter disappointment on so many others. First off, let’s start off with the finer points in the show.

• Christian Bale, finally, he got one of those little golden statues he has deserved for so many years as one of Hollywood’s versatile and elite acting talents. He transformed himself in every regard to pull off Dicky Ecklund in The Fighter. Cheers! Now let this Oscar award push you to absolutely flourish in your send off to Bruce Wayne in The Dark Knight Rises.

• I was relieved to see Natalie Portman taking home gold as well for her mesmerizing work in Black Swan. Of course she was the front runner, but I was nervous she wouldn’t win the statue she truly deserved.

• Shout out to my boy Aaron Sorkin for winning Best Adapted Screenplay for his brilliant script for The Social Network. I look up to Sorkin a lot as an aspiring screenwriter, and him winning his first Oscar was inspiring. One thing that I find especially compelling in cinema is the ability to move people with dialogue, and Sorkin is a master at it. Need proof? Watch The Social Network or A Few Good Men (You can’t handle the truth!).

• Wally Pfister, one of the best cinematographers in the game taking home gold for his work on Christopher Nolan’s Inception. Obviously he had to be nominated because of the camera work involved in this film, but word on the street leading up to the ceremony was True Grit‘s cinematographer Roger Deakins was a lock to win. Consider me tickled pink when Wally Pfister was announced the winner. My question is: How did Pfister win Best Cinematographer and Nolan not even get nominated for Best Director?

• Of course Inception has to win Best Sound Mixing, Best Sound Editing, and Best Visual Effects. The movie would not have been nearly the same without top notch efforts in all these categories. Wait, how did Nolan not get nominated for Best Director?

• The Social Network, one of my favorites of the year, won the Oscar for Best Editing. Of course it did right? Have you seen The Social Network? The film jumps around on the time line making it less than simple to keep up. But think about how confusing it really could have been without superb editing. Also have to give props to Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross for winning Best Score, but more on that later.

• Toy Story 3, duh.

• Mila Kunis. My word is she gorgeous. I am a gentleman who is spoken for, but I am just saying.

Ok, on to the heartbreak that came from this year’s Oscars. Most of it stems from Inception getting snubbed in some very important categories.

• As you heard me ask earlier, “How did Christoper Nolan not get nominated for Best Director?” Seriously, Tom Hooper wins for directing The King’s Speech? I stated in our Oscars Podcast that I felt Hooper was the least deserving out of the nominees. The King’s Speech had many beautiful and breathtaking shots in it, but come on, it was a dialogue-fest. There was no real innovation in Hooper’s work. There wasn’t anything groundbreaking. Hmmm… what film that came out this year fits that description? Inception comes to mind. I am not trying to disrespect Hooper (though it obviously is me disrespecting Hooper calling him unworthy of the award), but Hooper really did not do anything substantial to deserve the title.

• Again with the Best Director, David Fincher was the most deserving among the nominees for his effort with The Social Network. While I believe Nolan should have won, he wasn’t even nominated. Fincher did the most with the pages of his script to make his dialogue-laden film come to life. I want to reiterate that I loved The King’s Speech, but the Best Director in 2010 was not Tom Hooper.

• Continuing on with the Inception snubs is The King’s Speech once again taking something it did not deserve. The period piece took the Oscar for Best Original screenplay written by David Seidler. Come on, how could you not give Nolan this one? You can snub him on Best Director, but this too? I bet even talented screenwriters could not have written a more coherent screenplay. It was detailed, yet vague; telling, yet open to interpretation. Seidler took historical events and turned it into a drama. Christopher Nolan made this shit up in his head! How? Why? Inception losing Best Original Screenplay to  The King’s Speech is like Lindsay Lohan winning her most recent court case. It should never happen. BEST ORIGINAL… how can it get more original than Inception?

• Ok, last rant defending Inception. This one is less heated because I feel Reznor and Ross were deserving recipients of the award for Best Score. I was happy to see the pair win, but at the same time deflated Hans Zimmer did not win for his triumphant achievement that is his work for Inception. You ever feeling down? Type Inception score into the YouTube search bar and listen to the ‘Dream is Collapsing.’ That’ll get you so jacked up you’ll want to go rob a bank.

• Ugh, Randy Newman won an award. I despise Randy Newman. He wrote the opening theme song for the show Monk, a show my fiancé watches on Netflix religiously, and I go days at a time with his annoying voice singing in my head. “It’s a jungle out there…” For days on end, this retarded song, I hate you Randy Newman!

• I was hoping Exit Through the Gift Shop would win Best Documentary so we could get a look at the infamous Banksy on stage. Most likely he would have worn a disguise, because his identity is secret; but wouldn’t it have been awesome to see him in a monkey mask standing next to Oprah? Looks like I need to get out and see the Best Documentary Winner Inside Job.

Well, thus concludes my thoughts on the 83rd Oscars. Pieces of my rant may sound like I am a die-hard fan boy, but honestly, that is not the case. Of course I love Nolan and his films, but if he made a crappy film I’d be the first to say it. I don’t truly believe Inception deserved Best Picture. I would have loved to see it win the prestigious award though, because it was one of the year’s best. But for the Academy to snub the Nolan product in the ways it did this year was disconcerting, disheartening, and downright wrong.

What Did You Guys Think Of This Year’s Winners & Losers?

Mr. Zuckerberg, do I have your full attention?

-No.

Do you think I deserve your full attention?

-I had to swear an oath before we began this deposition and I don’t want to perjure myself so I have a legal obligation to say ‘No.’

Okay. No, you don’t think I deserve your full attention.

-I think if your clients want to sit on my shoulders and call themselves tall, they have the right to give it a try, but there is no requirement that I enjoy sitting here listening to people lie. You have part of my attention. You have the minimum amount. The rest of my attention is back at the offices of Facebook where my colleagues and I are doing things that no one in this room, including and especially your clients are intellectually or creatively capable of doing. (then) Did I adequately answer your condescending question?

This exchange between Jesse Eisenberg and a prosecuting lawyer is just one of the reasons I believe The Social Network is the front-runner for Best Adapted Screenplay.

This is fierce. It is intense. It is necessary. And it’s a story about a website and a couple of lawsuits?! Do you realize how easy it would be to screw this up? I am an intermittent Sorkin fan, but this screenplay is the effort of someone firing on all cylinders. This is a ride that’s both about what is happening right this very second and, somehow, timeless.

True, the center of this film may be factually, um, what’s the word… made up. The emotional stakes – the obsession with a girl who bookends this film – is utter fiction. The motivation for Zuckerberg to start Facebook – an obsession with impressing a Final Club (basically a Harvard fraternity) – is also a fairy tale.

But this is not a documentary; it’s a story. And what Sorkin delivers is, in my unhumble opinion, this year’s Best Adapted Screenplay.

The Social Network asks a lot of questions. Is Mark Zuckerberg (played with brilliant precision by Jessie Eisenberg) just that much smarter than everyone else or just an insensitive, arrogant prick? Is he heartless or heartbroken? Is he the hunter or hunted? What’s with his fascination with Adidas sandals? Has he ever tried Tevas? Or Birkenstocks? (Okay, maybe I asked those last three)

The point is there are more questions than answers here, but that’s exactly as it should be. This is complex story, rich with possibilities that only the real players will ever really know. We can only speculate what went on behind those closed doors – the conversations, the promises, the relationships – without ever really knowing what happened. This film is nothing more than a theory. Sure, it’s a riveting and dramatically compelling one, but it’s still just a theory. And for my money, that’s enough.

What’s Your Take?

The Kids Are All Right

This film is definitely a little hipper, but there are so many terrific things in the script that I had to overlook that. Beginning with a rich concept: two teenagers (fifteen, seventeen) being raised by two lesbians who seek out their biological father. The execution of the story is interesting and compelling, told with patience, honesty, and big-heartedness (is that a word?). All of the grown up characters are rich, textured, and wonderfully acted. You have three world-class actors -Annette Bening, Julianne Moore, and Mark Ruffalo – who I would watch perform the federal budget.

At the risk of sounding cheeky, one small complaint is that the kids were just all right. Not the performances, but the characters. Especially compared to their complex adult counterparts, they felt lightly sketched and mostly surface. While the young lady on the way to college almost feels like a whole person, longing to express herself, her younger brother feels generic and functional. He takes the least amount of focus of the story, so it’s a minor complaint.

I loved the scenes with Ruffalo and Moore. They really nail an awkward, lovely chemistry (when you see the film you’ll realize I truly mean that as a compliment). I also love many specifics in the dialogue. When the kids refer to ‘Moms,’ it’s such a nice detail that’s really satisfying. This is how these kids would talk.

However, there was one moment that annoyed me and I’d regret not calling attention to it. Why on earth does Mark Ruffalo’s character – a straight, virile, celebrated chef – love Joni Mitchell? I’m sure there are few straight men out there who know all the words to all her songs on all her records, but there’s not ten. More specifically, I don’t buy for a second that Ruffalo’s character is one of those ten. If there’s a reason for this awkward and forced connection between two characters who immediately become forever disconnected, I sure didn’t see it. The moment, while entertaining in the abstract, feels completely false.

I also wasn’t crazy about the very, very end… one of those endings you’re supposed to feel rather than “get.” It felt unfocused to me when most of the rest of this film knew exactly what it was doing. But, I admit, I am truly nitpicking because most of this film felt real and substantive and engaging, if occasionally a little too “hip” for it’s own good.

True Grit

Sometimes it’s nice to sit back, have some gummy bears, and just enjoy a couple of masters at the top of their game. It seems like every other time the Coen Brothers make a film they nudge cinema a little bit further down the road. These guys know exactly what they’re doing and have a sureness of foot that makes them one of the best storytellers (and filmmakers) on the planet.

True Grit is the story of Mattie Ross, a fourteen year old farm girl, who employs a grumpy Rooster Cogburn to track down her father’s killer.

That’s it. That’s the whole story! Let’s go get dad’s killer!

I emphasize this because if you have compelling characters on a sympathetic, zero-sum journey, the audience will root for them to succeed. I say ‘zero-sum’ because you cannot get a little bit pregnant with a good story. Do the good guys get the bad guys? Does the guy get the girl? Does the doctor save his patient? Yes or no. Like it or not, this simple technique works because there is some annoying part of our brain (or heart) that has to know how it ends.

The Coen Brothers also give us characters that are so damn interesting, so rich in detail, in inner life, in flaws and strengths and passion that I’d swear in a court of law that these characters were absolutely real people. But they’re not. The Coen Brothers made them up (well, these characters were adapted from the old John Wayne movie from 1969) and now the world has all these brand new people in it. Well, that’s what artists do. They make something out of nothing.

I would also urge you to think about why these characters are on this journey. The answer, I believe, comes from my favorite quote by Eli Kazan: “There is no real drama unless you have situations that push the main character to the extreme frontier of his nature.” You must finally so arrange it that the leading character’s back is against the wall. There he has no exit. He must face the music.

The Coen Brothers also do something that I would discourage most writers from doing. They occasionally stop the story – for a brief moment – and give us a bit of texture. If you asked me: ‘story or texture?’ I’d say, ‘Put the texture in the story. Period.’ In less able hands, texture is a fancy word for stopping the story or, what I like to call, indulgence. But in a master’s hands, these moments defy (my) explanation and elevate the whole piece into something indelible and cinematic and transcendent.

In other words, I think the Coen Brothers are way groovy. So is True Grit.

You don’t have to like all their films, but you will never feel like you just sat in a movie theater for 120 minutes. When the credits start to roll and the lights come up, you always walkout feeling like you went somewhere for two hours. That alone, my friend, is worth the price of admission.

What’s Your Take?

Inception

Dude, it’s like a dream within a dream (within a dream within a dream)! It sounds ridiculous when I say it like that, but Inception really is the most cinematic film of the year. Christopher Nolan creates an entire world from the intriguing premise – what if we could get inside someone else’s dream? Well, if you’re Mr. Nolan you’d get in there and steal something (extraction). Or, since that’s too easy, you’d want to get in there and plant something (inception).

Let’s take a moment to acknowledge the entire world that Nolan builds. What are the rules inside a dream? What are the goals? Who’s trying to stop our hero from achieving those goals? Is there anyone from your past who’s not exactly trying to stop you, but more just hanging around, maybe more in the business of haunting? Better yet, if it’s your dream – could it just be that you’re just haunting yourself?

Mr. Nolan’s construction of a complete and satisfying world (a new vocabulary, new laws of physics, new emotional stakes), coupled with his ability to play by his own rules, is an enormous accomplishment in itself. That this picture is also so utterly watchable, so filled with momentum, so layered with intrigue, mystery, relevant action – all on top the simple fact that this is ultimately just one man’s simple journey back home – is what makes Nolan’s Inception my vote for Best Original Screenplay.

What do I mean by ‘relevant action’? Well, if you can’t die in a dream then I’m no longer worried about that happening to any of the characters. Any action you take to avoid death is irrelevant because there are no consequences to failing. But Nolan deftly avoids the problem by showing that the real danger is not death but pain, emotional or physical pain. It all hurts. A lot. Have you ever woken up from a dream wherein said dream someone close to you died? It’s sad. But why? It’s only a dream, silly? But it matters because it’s feels real. These are the stakes in Inception.

Finally, I know a handful of people who got lost in the story somewhere inside the dream inside the dream inside the dream inside the dream. Dude, it’s like four levels! Yes, it sounds ridiculous when I say it like that, but this is a complex story and sometimes the audience is not always able to keep up. And, unlike a book, you can’t slow down to your own pace; you must go at the filmmaker’s pace. But I would argue getting lost in this film is still a joy. The moments are so incredibly rich with meaning and relevance that sometimes it’s okay to lose the forest in the trees. Sometimes that’s exactly the point. In fact, isn’t that what happens in a dream? It feels so real and becomes reality.

Well, that’s what a great film is, too

The King’s Speech

This is probably going to win best picture AND best original screenplay AND best actor AND… well, I could go on, but it’s a story about a king who has a speech impediment?! This is exactly the kind of film that anyone under twenty five is forgiven for not caring one little bit about. I’m like fifty and this subject matter repels me. You know what I don’t care about? The class system. You know what system I think is anachronistic and classist and was outdated the moment it was started? Ding-ding-ding! The British Monarchy!  Okay, I’m not really fifty, but I am old enough to know there was a time when this film would have embodied the gap between how much young people know and how little the old(er) folks understand.

Having said all that, I really, really like this film. You know why? It’s more than the sublime performances of Colin Firth and Geoffrey Rush, more than their chemistry which is also world class, more than the story itself is filled with joyous surprises all the way through.

You know what it is? It’s the fact that at its core this is just a buddy story. It’s just two dudes hanging out. One wants to stop stuttering. The other just wants to help out his bro. Sure, there are class issues (one guy is royalty), father issues (if you though your dad was overbearing, imagine if he was King), the physical disability issues (mainly insecurity), but these are all side issues to the buddy story here between a dude and another dude. Or, if you like, a man and a king. Or, if you must, a man and his king.

I imagine there are countries (like, um, say Great Britain) where your fantasy is to be pals with the King. He’d like me, you think. I wouldn’t be one of his hoity-toity friends. I’d be his regular, solid friend. I’d be the one he’d talk to about more human things like football (that’s what they call soccer over there) or birds (girls) or tea (tea). But personally I think that kind of fantasy should be above the intellectual pay grade of someone who isn’t a twelve year girl.

So the fantasy element of the story was lost of me, but it didn’t matter in the slightest because I love this buddy story and the main character’s arc. The other stuff is just bollocks.

What’s Your Take?

Allow me this small indulgence. I want to give a bit of context for the brief and specific kind of reviews for most nominees of Best Original Screenplay and Best Adapted Screenplay. First off, I’d like to apologize for the films I didn’t get to. Winter’s Bone and Another Year, you deserve better. I really did mean to see you. Honest. It’s just that, well, um, the dog ate my homework. Apologies. 127 Hours is another story. I never intended to see you. My only defense is that I’m a cringer. When a character’s head gets chopped off, a blade slices through flesh and bone, a fist pummels another face to a bloody pulp, I cover my eyes AND close them AND look away from the screen AND still cringe.

My brain knows it’s corn syrup and synthetics and CGI and sound design but my heart still thinks it’s real. Does this make me a wimp? A girlie man? An itty bitty baby? Perhaps. But as Socrates says: “Know thyself.” I do. 127 Hours may well be an inspiring story of courage and the will to survive. But it’s also a cringe-fest. Apparently there is a twenty minutes scene that involves Franco severing his arm, from his own torso, one tendon at a time. And he uses a dull knife. And did I mention the scene is twenty minutes long but the movie is only 94? I just can’t do it, man. Give me Danny Boyle and James Franco in any other combo, and I’m in. But this incarnation I cannot abide.

For the films I do discuss, I primarily intend to review not the film as a whole, but the script – character, story, and flow. There are so many aspects to a film, from direction to casting to music to well, there’s a lot going on there that I will actively ignore. It’s not that I think that these parts matter in any way less than the script. They don’t. It all matters. But I have a specific point of view as a screenwriter that, for better or worse, allows me to see story. So, if you’re curious, or you can’t fall asleep tonight, this might be for you.

Finally, I want to thank Matthew and Barrett for asking/cajoling/bullying me to do this. Over-analyzing a film when I walk out of a theater is quite fun for me but, for some reason, not as much fun for my dates. Weird, I know. But maybe it will be more fun for you. Thanks for indulging.

The Fighter

Well, this is tricky because I don’t like to say bad things about other people. It’s so easy to sit back and heckle from the cheap seats like the old men in the Muppet Show. I want to say to those guys, ‘If you don’t like it leave,’ (Well, I don’t actually want those guys to leave because I love them, but…) But I have also been asked to share what I think about a film so, um, well, first let me start with what I liked about it.

The performances in this film are absolutely world class. They are perhaps the reason why people like this film more than they should. Christian Bale will bring home a well-deserved statue for his portrayal of Mikey’s brother, Dickey. Mark Wahlberg carries this film like the charismatic movie star he is. Amy Adams shows an edgier, grittier side to her. And Melissa Leo, who plays Wahlberg’s mom, is scary-good. (Sorry, lame pun intended.)

The dialogue is often quite good: Why’d you fight him, Mick? Because everyone said I could beat him. –Who’s everybody? –My mom and Jake. The moments are even nice. ‘These are my sisters,’ and he rattles off all nine in about the time Adrian Peterson runs the forty. Twice. On a first date Mickey takes Charlene to a suburb to watch an arthouse movie because he just lost a fight and doesn’t want to show his face around his neighborhood.

So why was The Fighter a mess? The biggest problem I see is the struggle between the two main characters that want to be protagonist. But this isn’t a classic dual protagonist story. This is a POV problem. Whose story is this? Is it Mickey’s? Dickey’s? We even pop into an HBO documentary in the middle just to show you that, gasp, Dickey’s a crack addict. Really? This isn’t news to the audience who sees him smoke crack constantly in the film. Why would it be news to the family who continually go pick up Dickey at the crack house? What did they think he was doing in there – learning how to crochet? I mean, he weighs 110 pounds and is unreliable and lives at a crack house.

But here’s the other thing. From a story standpoint, there are no surprises in this film. Let’s not confuse bad storytelling with a bad story. This is an inspiring true story told so poorly that the only thing it actually inspires is math: when did this start, plus the running time, minus credits…

I would argue the fault is in two places. One, as I mentioned is in the script. Unless you’re James Cameron, you can’t outrun your script. But the biggest responsibility needs to go to the director David O. Russell. He stops to emphasize moments that are really, really bad. For instance, it’s a fighting movie so they’re right to show us some fights. But the slow-motion body blows Mark Wahlberg takes in this picture looks like it was choreographed by an eight-year-old girl who’s afraid to actually hit someone. Russell doesn’t realize (or care) that if you slow down bad choreography it looks worse. Remember I’m a cringer. If it’s too intense I will cringe. But these fight scenes were so anemic that I wanted to shout at the screen, if only so there would be some kind of drama in there.

The final problem with the script was the character of Mickey. Again, this is not a problem with performance but the character himself. What does Mickey want? To be a great fighter OR to be a good, loyal, loving family member to his crackhead brother? Does he want to win or does he want his mom to run his career into the ground? But Mickey just takes this abuse for so long. He only gets away from Dickey when the latter is sent to prison. He only gets away from his mom when his dad stands up to her. When Dickey gets out and he has to stand up to him, he needs to be bullied into by his girlfriend to stand up to him. Finally I realize: This guys not a fighter; he’s just a pinball.

And who wants to watch a film about a pinball?

Black Swan

This is a psychological thriller that isn’t thrilling like a roller coaster or a jump that is bungee, but closer in tone to a spook house that sneaks up behind you and says, ‘BOO!’ Black Swan revels in making me uncomfortable and I will be the first to raise my hand and say, ‘Yes, you got me. I felt very uncomfortable.’ But may I also add, ‘But why, man, why?’

Before I expand on that I want to say that Natalie Portman is the best I’ve ever seen her. From The Professional to Garden State, she has always been beautiful and engaging and vulnerable, but this is the first time I’ve seen her dangerous or sexy. I expect Annette Bening will win this year for her body of work and a solid performance in The Kids are Alright, but for degree of difficulty, precision, fearless energy – my vote for this year’s little gold man goes to Ms. Portman.

So, as I said, yes, Black Swan, you made me flinch. I flinch when someone stabs themselves in the face. I flinch when someone cuts themselves. I flinch when someone (who may or may not be turning into a black swan) pulls feathers from beneath her own skin. I could go on, but the point is I flinched a lot.

But is that what the film wants to do? Make me flinch? What are we, in eighth grade?

The character’s journey from virginal prig to powerful seductress is very much what the story is about, but is that really what the film is about? The story was a discovery of new, more powerful self, while the film was a series of “gotcha” moments.

Finally, a word about the ending. I will not spoil it for those of you who haven’t seen it but let me say it like this: If you saw the trailer and had to guess how this ended, what do you think happens? Well, if that’s what happens then, in my opinion, that’s lazy writing. What would Kaufman or Tarantino do with that ending? Maybe that’s not fair to suggest, but I guess my point is I know the difference between darkness with inspiration.

So I can respect this film, how they do what they do, but I don’t have to like it.

What’s Your Take?

Hey there Movie Mashers and welcome to the first Movie Mash Podcast! Today Matt and I run down all the important categories and nominations for Sunday’s Academy awards. We’ll give you our picks on who will win, but more importantly, who SHOULD win. All the big statues are up for grabs: Best Director, Best Original Screenplay, Best Score, etc. Click play below to hear Matt and I break it all down for you. If you are interested in jumping to our thoughts on a certain nomination (i.e. Best Score, Best Actress), hit the jump to see a timeline of the podcast.

Download audio file (The-Movie-Mash-Oscar-Podcast.mp3)

Tell us what you think.

Timeline:
(01:50) Adapted Screenplay
(03:03) Original Screenplay
(06:21) Best Original Score
(08:38) Best Cinematography
(11:11) Animated Feature
(13:00) Actress in a Supporting Role
(17:50) Best Supporting Actor
(19:47) Best Actress
(21:50) Best Actor
(23:50) Best Director
(28:48) Best Picture

Who will be the big winners? Will there be any surprises?

As many movie buffs know, the Academy Award nominations were announced yesterday for the 83rd Oscars ceremony set to take place on February 27th. Of course not all of our favorite movies, actors, directors, or writers can be nominated; but seriously, some of the snubs by the snobs on the nomination panel are starting to get a little sickening. This year’s list of nominees is not only missing a few notable names, but features an actress being placed into the wrong category. The list this year is so absurd in places it has infuriated me so much I will vent to anyone who says “Oscars.” Hit the jump to read my frustrations with this year’s nominees.

First things first, some little known director named “Christopher Nolan” was left off the nominees list for Best Director. I haven’t seen any of his movies or anything, but I hear he is a solid director and deserved a nomination. Seriously Academy, how in the eff could you possibly in your right mind leave Nolan off this list of nominees?

Granted, you don’t have to pick him to win, because we all know you love the ‘art house’ film that employs camera aesthetics to reveal character emotions, but to leave his name off the list is simply an insult. Inception was one of the most visually breathtaking movies I have ever seen in my entire life. The concept alone, also conceived by Nolan, was mind bending. But the fact the man was able to pull it off for the screen in a coherent fashion is a feat I doubt many others could have accomplished.

Just think for a minute about how many of the scenes from Inception were absolutely astonishing; think of the action sequences that your mind had to be working at full capacity to comprehend the drama unfolding on the multiple layers of the dream. The images in this film were amongst the best of the year. You could tell Nolan had his hands all over this project, one of the highest grossing films of the year, and his exclusion from this list is a mockery of the entire film industry.

I personally loved The King’s Speech, I thought it was one of the best films of 2010. But including Tom Hooper’s name on the list of Best Director is simply because the film is a front runner in the Best Picture category, not because his effort was extraordinary. Hooper had a lot of great shots that helped tell this story, but to choose him over Nolan, really? The same can be said for the Coen Brothers grabbing a nomination in the category. True Grit had great cinematography, and the Coens are always in the mix come award season, but to add them to the list for a film with nothing special over Inception that was nothing but special is disgraceful.

The other three nominees truly deserved their inclusion in this category (David Fincher for The Social Network, Darren Aronofsky for Black Swan, and David O. Russell for The Fighter). All three used visuals to help tell these stories — especially Fincher. For a movie comprised of almost all dialogue, The Social Network never felt dull or boring. In my opinion, the opposite can be said for True Grit. The film dragged on for me because of the overwhelming amount of dialogue coupled with the Coen’s lack of creative storytelling.

On the topic of Inception, the film was also left off the Best Editing list of nominees. As I said above, for this film to come off as understandable by the end is the work of top notch directing and editing. The various dream sequences stacked on top of each other is something that could only be pulled off with superb editing. Inception had a large team of editors led by Lee Smith. Inception is arguably the most complex film of the year, and the fact it came together so well is the result of inventive editing.

This might sound like a rant from a fanboy, but that isn’t the case. I love comics, superhero movies, etc., but my movie taste is well-rounded. I didn’t love Inception because I am a Nolan die-hard, I did because it was a jaw-dropping intelligent blockbuster. If The King’s Speech had better direction than Inception, I would be fine with Hooper making the cut. I just want justice and the Academy committee to quit leaving out a deserving film because of its ‘blockbuster status.’

I have highlight the fact Leonardo DiCaprio got the shaft from the Academy once again. Seriously? Did you see him in Shutter Island? My dislike for True Grit is widely known; but I did think Jeff Bridges did a fine job acting his shallow written character. However, him being nominated over Leo’s emotionally unstable and psychotic character Teddy is a joke, an outrage — maybe a scandal? The transition for Leo’s character in that film from scene to scene, from beginning to end, is difficult to swallow. Initially he is a callous cop that is hell-bent on solving the mystery of the missing woman. By the end, Leo’s character is an emotionally unstable mess discovering haunting things about his past. How was he not nominated?

Shutter Island SPOILER ALERT:

I like Bridges as an actor, but his character in True Grit wasn’t profound, deep, or very interesting at all. To say he deserved a nomination over Leo is reprehensible. The scene in Shutter Island where Leo discovers his three young children drowned by his insane wife is one of the most powerful moments in cinema I have ever witnessed — ever. Each time I watch the scene I am connected with Teddy’s devastation as he swims to pull his lifeless children to the shore. The emotion pouring from Leo’s character in that scene alone warrant him a nomination. Will Leo ever get his golden statue?

My last beef with this year’s nominees comes with the nomination of Hailee Steinfeld for her role in True Grit. Please don’t think for a second she doesn’t merit the nomination because she was excellent in the film. My problem stems with her being under the Best Supporting Actress category. How does a film’s leading character get nominated as a supporting actress? She is not only the female lead in the film, she is almost the only female in the entire film. Yet, she is nominated in the Best Supporting category.

I heard one expert claim this was done strategically to give her a chance to win because the Best Actress category is so strong with performances from Natalie Portman in Black Swan, Annette Benning in The Kids Are Alright, and Nicole Kidman in Rabbit Hole. I honestly do not understand how this is even possible. If a character is the film’s lead, then Best Actor/Actress is the nomination. If the character is supporting the lead, then Best Supporting is the nomination. Is there really a gray area to blur the lines and nominate an actor in a different category?

On a quick note, how did TRON: Legacy get left off the list for Best Visual Effects? The only really great thing from the film was the visuals –Hell, most of the film is computer generated visuals. Alice in Wonderland was nominated, and the visuals in the movie were terrible in the post converted 3D — Truly baffling.

Anyway, another year, another list of deserving people getting wrongfully left on the outside looking in. For the full list of nominees, hit the LINK. Check out the 83rd Academy Awards February 27th, 2011.

What Do You Think? Discuss.