'I'm Still Here.' Directed by Casey Affleck.

‘I’m Still Here.’ Directed by Casey Affleck.

Produced by: Casey Affleck, Joaquin Phoenix and Amanda White.

Written by: Casey Affleck and Joaquin Phoenix.

Starring: Joaquin Phoenix.

Studio: They Are Going To Kill Us Productions.

Distributed by: Magnolia Pictures.

Year: 2010.

Run time: 106 Minutes.

Gross Revenue: $551, 290.

I finally managed to get a copy of this documentary (or is it mockumentary?) after wanting to see it since I first heard about it. For those of you who haven't heard of it, it’s about the ‘downfall’ of Joaquin Pheonix after his apparent retirement from acting and career transition into hip-hop music. Casey Affleck followed Phoenix around with a camera filming various celebrity and public reactions to his music career, and eventually turned it into this film. There were a lot of rumours going around that it was all a great big hoax; some kind of performance piece on a grand scale, a commentary on the thin line between fiction and reality in the age of reality television. Indeed, Casey Affleck admitted shortly after the film’s release that it was all indeed a large hoax, with Phoenix making a return appearance of David Letterman to say how they wanted to make a film that: “...explored celebrity, and explored the relationship between the media and the consumers and the celebrities themselves.”

It’s really hard to review I’m Still Here in this context. Part of me suspects that things never really went according to Pheonix and Affleck’s plans. I think that they weren’t counting on people to call shenanigans so quickly, and as a result the film suffered at the very heart of its production. In this sense, you really have to work like an archaeologist to get at the ‘meaning’ or ‘vision’ behind the documentary. Is it a commentary on how fucked up celebrity worship is in the internet age? There are plenty of scenes that seem to point to this: Phoenix giving an interview to a shallow reporter with a fake smile, who treats Pheonix’s career and life very flippantly (think the douche bags over at TMZ.com.) Also, whenever Pheonix gives a musical performance or talk-show interview, he automatically jumps on the internet afterwards and reads up on all the commentary about it. The documentary shows various fan YouTube videos describing how Pheonix’s career is completely fucked. It gives you a sense of the public ruthlessness at celebrities who lose their shit.

If it is all a fiction then there is some great acting on behalf of Pheonix. After the infamous David Letterman interview, he climbs out of the limo that is driving him back to the hotel, only to climb a tree and completely break down, crying out things like “What have I done? I’ve left acting to do a hip-hop career, and the music fucking sucks! I’ve fucked up my whole life!” The solution to all the press hate is seemingly to return to his childhood home and swim in the river that he grew up next to. The movie ends with Pheonix wading deeper and deeper into the river, until he is completely submerged in it; a metaphor for fame.

Look, this is another movie were I don't know what I'm supposed to take away from it. I’m starting to feel like a big dumb-arse. There seems to be little closure at the end of the film; we don’t really get a sense of what is next for Joaquin Pheonix in his existential journey (an imdb search indicates a return to acting in Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter.) The movie is compelling enough, featuring scenes where Pheonix has sex with call girls (most likely staged), and his embittered personal assistant taking a shit on his face while he sleeps (please God, be staged.) They are all heart-breakingly, existentially, sad, but I just don’t think the great experiment was as successful as the pair thought it was going to be.

It’s a good movie, and it is thought provoking, but it might have been a lot better had the public not been so savvy.

Three and a half stars:

'Splice.' Directed by Vincenzo Natalia.

‘Splice.’ Directed by Vincenzo Natalia.

Produced by: Steve Hoban, and Guillermo del Toro.

Written by: Vincenzo Natali, Doug Taylor, and Antoinette Terry Bryant.

Starring: Adrien Brody, Sarah Polley, and Delphine Chanéac.

Year: 2009.

Studio: Copperheart Entertainment.

Run Time: 104 Minutes.

Country: French Canada (the only Canada).

Budget: $26 Million.

Gross Revenue: $25, 666, 735.

You need to see this movie. Now. No, stop reading, put down that cup of expensive coffee, log out of Facebook and go and get this movie. Pay for it as well; don’t just download it off the net. It hasn’t even broken even yet and if we want more good film makers to make more good movies we have to (sigh) vote with our dollar. Why should you see this movie? Because it’s the best science-fiction movie of the last ten years. Better than District 9? I hear you ask. Yes. It’s better than District 9.

So what’s all the fuss about? Well, Adrian Brody and Sarah Polley play a romantically involved couple of biochemists, Clive and Elsa, who are on the forefront of biotechnology research. They have just designed a hybrid of many different animals, which the pharmaceutical company N.E.R.D (a bit obvious, I know) hopes to harvest various important organic molecules for the betterment of mankind. What Clive and Elsa really want to do however, is create a hybrid with human D.N.A, so that they can harvest molecules that might help humans by curing many life threatening diseases. Of course, the company won’t let them, fearing a public backlash from the anti-cloning brigade. Clive and Elsa, being the wizards that they are, decide to go against company policy and create a hybrid with human DNA, bringing it to full term despite Clive’s reluctance to do so.

What follows is one of the weirdest, most wonderful science fiction films that I’ve ever seen. The creature in this movie, known as ‘Dren’, is so bizarre that you’ll probably feel dirty just looking at it. It is a humanoid, but looks so inhuman at the same time that your brain just can’t handle it. Prepare to feel nauseous more than once in this one.

Aside from stunning visual effects (this is really a movie that could only have been made in the CGI age), Splice really shines in the story department. It’s not just a simple creature feature, nor is it a clichéd morality tale about the ‘evils of science.’ It raises the kinds of questions that I’ve always thought science fiction movies should raise. The trouble in this movie is caused by human emotional frailty, experienced by the protagonists, as opposed to the fact that they are dabbling with ‘God’s Design,’ which is surely a dreadful sci-fi cliche by now. Elsa and Clive are complicated (and somewhat unlikeable) characters that achieve their own satisfying arcs.

Indeed Dren is the only truly innocent character of the whole show. What I thought would quickly deteriorate into a science fiction horror flick (ala Alien), is actually a morbid sort of coming-of-age story about an organism that is the only one of its kind. In this sense, the movie is as much about loneliness as anything else. Think a modern version of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein with a fresh new injection of contemporary ethics. There are a few niggles in terms of wasted potential at the end of the picture, but it doesn’t matter because Splice is so new and refreshing that the third act could have been that it was all a dream and it still would have been great. Actually no, that would of sucked.

Four and a half stars:

'The Last Action Hero.' Directed by John McTiernan.

Produced by: John McTiernan and Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Written by: Shane Black and David Arnott. Story by: Zak Penn and Adam Leff.

Starring: Arnold Schwarzenegger, F. Murray Abraham, Charles Dance, Tom Noonan, Austin O'Brien, Art Carney, Robert Prosky, Anthony Quinn, and Bridgette Wilson.

Music by: Michael Kamen.

Edited by: Richard A. Harris and John Wright.

Year of Release: 1993.

Run Time: 130 Minutes.

Budget: $85 Million.

Gross Revenue: $137, 298, 489.

Ah, The Last Action Hero. You wouldn’t know it by its current gross revenue standing, but this movie is universally considered a failure of epic proportions by the big producers in Hollywood. The Last Action Hero was made at a time when the Hollywood blockbuster machine was in full swing, and the makers of these grand movies couldn’t be satisfied with staggering $100 million dollar revenues, because the movies themselves cost upwards of that amount to make. No, the 90s blockbusters were banking on getting returns well into the hundreds of millions, with the half-a-billion mark being the more desired target.

So why didn’t The Last Action Hero succeed? There was certainly enough marketing behind the thing. At one stage the studio was even going to plaster an advertisement for the film on the side of a rocket ship destined for space. Maybe it was because the movie-going public weren’t ready for such self-referential humour, but then again Scream was, and it only came out three years after this, essentially re-birthing the slasher flick in the late 90s. Maybe The Last Action Hero just sucked. My personal opinion is that it had nothing to do with either of those things. The reason The Last Action Hero failed, in my opinion, is because of dinosaurs. Not just any dinosaurs, Spielberg’s dinosaurs in his game changing Jurassic Park, which was released seven days before The Last Action Hero.

It’s a shame really, because The Last Action Hero was a brave movie, and a good one as well. Basically, a thirteen year old movie buff, by the name of Danny, discovers a magic ticket that allows him to enter into the world of any given movie. As he is a fan of Arnold Schwarzenegger, he ends up in the latest installment of the Jack Slater action-movie franchise. The character Jack Slater meanwhile refuses to believe that he is a movie character, and this conflict plays out well when he discovers that he is just a hollow character used to justify violence and explosions. The movie is essentially a commentary on the action-movie genre, and the self-referential style allows it to playfully satirise the genre really quite well. Such jokes? How about the time Danny tries to convince Jack Slater to say ‘fuck’ by writing it on a notepad and showing it to him. Slater refuses to say it and then Danny claims that this is definitive proof that they are in a movie: because of Jack Slater’s PG-13 rating, the word ‘fuck’ cannot be uttered. Nor is it said in The Last Action Hero, because The Last Action Hero is itself a PG-13 movie.

Where credit really must be given is in the treatment of its characters, in particular Jack Slater, who upon entering the really world via the magic ticket, must come to terms with the fact that he is a fictional character. There is a great scene at the end of the film where the fictional Jack Slater goes to the premiere of the Jack Slater movie and confronts Arnold Schwarzenegger (who plays himself as a self-promoting schmuck.) The real Arnold becomes convinced that the fictional Jack Slater is a stunt-performer, and is amazed at the quality of his likeness. Real-Arnie goes on and on about getting him some work at public events and then Slater turns around and says something like “Hey, I don’t really like you. You’ve ruined my life in a lot of ways.” It’s a really great moment that is poignant because of its successful blend of humour and drama. You really get the sense of the disconnection between movie reality and actual reality in brilliant scenes like this.

Look, I’m sure they could have made this movie a lot better. However, I think it really succeeds in what it aims to do. If it had succeeded at the box office, we might have started to see some more self-referential blockbusters being made. Ultimately, The Last Action Hero is a great piece of entertainment for movie fans that also manages to contain a little more depth than the average blockbuster. It’s something that I think should have done a lot better than it did, but hey, $137 million aint too bad.

Four Stars:

83rd Annual Academy Award PREDICTIONS.

Okay, so I’ve finally gotten around to viewing all the nominated films (in the major categories at least), and I am going to hereby give my predictions as to who will win. The Academy is notorious for being very political in its choices however, and sometimes the person that wins is not necessarily the one that ought to win. I will be giving my personal picks along with those that I think will actually win. This is the first time I’ve officially tried to predict the results, so if I am completely wrong I apologize. It’s all for a bit of fun.

Best Motion Picture of the Year:

The Nominees

127 Hours.

Black Swan.

The Fighter.

Inception.

The Kids Are All Right.

The King’s Speech.

The Social Network.

Toy Story 3.

True Grit.

Winter’s Bone.

Who WILL win: ‘The King’s Speech.’

This year is going to be a toss-up between ‘The King’s Speech’ and ‘The Social Network.’ I know a lot of people are predicting ‘The Social Network’, but I think that the people that actually vote for Best Picture are all baby-boomers who just fucking love WWII period pieces with feel good messages. Maybe I will be wrong, and if I am, it will be ‘The Social Network’ that wins.

Who OUGHT to win:  ‘Black Swan.’

It was really tough to decide between ‘Black Swan’ and ‘127 Hours’ for me. In terms of the movie that really made me feel the most inspired, it was definitely ‘127 Hours’, which was a feel-good movie in all the right ways. However, I think it’s time that we start acknowledging horror as a genre, and since there is no way that ‘Antichrist’ will ever get nominated at the Oscars, ‘Black Swan’ should win. It’s an intellectual horror movie, that builds tension before delivering on its scares, and it also has something to say about the relationship between consciousness and art. 

Best Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role:

The nominees

Annette Benning for ‘The Kids Are All Right.’

Nicole Kidman for ‘Rabbit Hole.’

Jennifer Lawrence for ‘Winter’s Bone.’

Natalie Portman for ‘Black Swan.’

Michelle Williams for ‘Blue Valentine.’

Who WILL win: Annette Benning for ‘The Kids Are All Right.’

I know the hot favourite is Natalie Portman for ‘Black Swan,’ but I think that the Oscar is going to go to Annette Benning this year. The Academy is notorious for awarding Oscars to actors who have been nominated a lot and never won. Annette Benning gave a great performance in ‘The Kids Are All Right.’ It’s her year.

Who OUGHT to win: Natalie Portman for ‘Black Swan.’

Natalie Portman was fucking great in this movie. She played the part really well, going from nervous, sexless ballerina to completely horny, bat-shit insane schizophrenic so gradually that you can’t really pin-point a part in the movie where the transition is that noticeable. She really deserves recognition for this, as she brought the much needed element of believability to this horror film, something that is really quite hard to do.

Best Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role:

The nominees

Javier Bardem for ‘Biutiful.’

Jeff Bridges for ‘True Grit.’

Jesse Eisenberg for ‘The Social Network.’

Colin Firth for ‘The King’s Speech.’

James Franco for ‘127 Hours.’

Who WILL win: Colin Firth for ‘The King’s Speech.’

Look, Colin Firth did great work in ‘The King’s Speech.’ As much as it was a formulaic, almost clichéd film, he was really convincing as King George VI. The scenes where he sings about the childhood abuse he suffered were quite touching, and if you ignore the lame “I have a voice!” line that comes at the end, you have a near perfect performance. Firth has been nominated before, and he has also been snubbed a lot. This year the Academy will award him for all his fine work.

Who OUGHT to win: James Franco for ‘127 Hours.’

I know there is no chance in hell of this happening. Franco is too young, and he doesn’t have enough ‘serious’ movies under his belt yet. However, I was extremely moved by his performance in ‘127 Hours.’ I went into the movie thinking that his character was going to be one of those ‘X-TREME’ sports nuts, and came out feeling a real connection with him.

Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role:

The nominees

Amy Adams for ‘The Fighter.’

Helena Bonham Carter for ‘The King’s Speech.’

Melissa Leo for ‘The Fighter.’

Hailee Steinfeld for ‘True Grit.’

Jacki Weaver for ‘Animal Kingdom.’

Who WILL win: Melissa Leo for ‘The Fighter.’

Melissa Leo gives a great performance in ‘The Fighter’ as a neurotic mother. I was not as impressed by her as I thought I was going to be, but the academy likes these kinds of performances.

Who OUGHT to win: Helena Bonham Carter for ‘The King’s Speech.’

I really liked Helena Bonham Carter in ‘The King’s Speech.’ The role really allowed her to show off her acting chops. Gone were all the clichéd craziness that we have come to know her for, and in its place was a really loving character that was dedicated to her husband throughout the movie. Maybe she didn't give the 'best' performance, but she certainly gave the warmest. 

Best Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role:

The nominees

Christian Bale for ‘The Fighter.’

John Hawkes for ‘Winter’s Bone.’

Jeremy Renner for ‘The Town.’

Mark Ruffalo for ‘The Kids Are All Right.’

Geoffrey Rush for ‘The King’s Speech.’

Who WILL win: Christian Bale for ‘The Fighter.’

This role is the kind that the Academy loves. Plus Bale has won every other major award for his role as Dicky in ‘The Fighter.’ Bale transformed himself physically, but more importantly he seems to be unrecognizable as a thin crack addict that achieves a well rounded character arc in this flick.

Who OUGHT to win: Christian Bale for ‘The Fighter.’

For once I agree with popular opinion. This calls for a celebration.

Best Achievement in Directing

The nominees

Darren Aronofsky for ‘Black Swan.’

Ethan Coen and Joel Coen for ‘True Grit’

David Fincher for ‘The Social Network’

Tom Hooper for ‘The King’s Speech’

David O. Russell for ‘The Fighter’

Who WILL win: David Fincher for ‘The Social Network’

Recently the Academy has been awarding more contemporary directors (Coen Brothers, Danny Boyle, Kathryn Bigelow) and I expect that this trend will continue. If Fincher doesn’t win, expect Tom Hooper to pick it up.

Who OUGHT to win: Darren Aronofsky for ‘Black Swan.’

Aronofsky has been routinely snubbed at the Oscars and it’s about time that he be acknowledged. Plus, the Academy needs to start honouring the horror genre, which is seriously worthy of literary merit. ‘Black Swan’ is expertly crafted and very horrifying. Aronofsky deserves it.

Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly for Screen.

Nominees

Mike Leigh for ‘Another Year’

Scott Silver, Paul Tamasy, Eric Johnson, Keith Dorrington for ‘The Fighter.’

Christopher Nolan for ‘Inception’

Lisa Cholodenko, Stuart Blumberg for ‘The Kids Are All Right.’

David Seidler for ‘The King’s Speech.’

Who WILL win: David Seidler for ‘The King’s Speech.’

It’s pretty slim-pickens for original screenplays this year. ‘The Kids Are All Right’ is probably the most original screenplay. ‘Inception’ is an over-hyped blockbuster in disguise as a smart film. The Academy will probably play it safe, with ‘The King’s Speech.’

Who OUGHT to win: Meh.

I can’t believe ‘Black Swan’ wasn’t nominated in this category.

Best Writing, Screenplay Based On Material Previously Published.

Nominees

Danny Boyle, Simon Beaufoy for ‘127 Hours.’

Aaron Sorkin for ‘The Social Network.’

Michael Ardnt, John Lasseter, Andrew Stanton, Lee Unkrich for ‘Toy Story 3’.

Joel Coen, Ethan Coen for ‘True Grit.’

Debra Granik, Anne Rosellini for ‘Winter’s Bone’

Who WILL win: Aaron Sorkin for ‘The Social Network.’

Look, I really have no problem with Aaron Sorkin winning for ‘The Social Network.’ I know it looks like I have snubbed it in all categories, but ‘The Social Network’ is a good film that raises a lot of important issues. Sorkin will win as a kind of thank-you for creating ‘The West Wing’, and because he’s a cool writer of snappy, intelligent dialogue.

Who OUGHT to win: Danny Boyle, Simon Beaufoy for ‘127 Hours.’

I just really like this movie. I haven’t read the book that it was based off, but Franco’s character in this was just so well written. The whole film could have been a complete mess, but Boyle and Beaufoy turned it into something quite beautiful.

In Closing:

Well that’s it for the predictions for the 83^rd Academy Awards. I hope that more of my own personal favourites take away some of the awards, but I expect that won’t be the case. Time will tell I guess. 

'The Fighter.' Directed by David O. Russell

Produced by: David Hoberman, Todd Lieberman, Ryan Kavanaugh, Mark Wahlberg, Dorothy Aufiero, and Paul Tamasy. Executive Producer: Darren Aronofsky.

Screenplay by: Scott Silver, Paul Tamasy, and Eric Johnson.

Story by: Keith Dorrington, Paul Tamasy, and Eric Johnson.

Editing by: Pamela Martin.

Studio: Relativity Media, The Weinstein Company, and Mandeville Films.

Run time: 115 Minutes.

Year: 2010.

Budget: $25 Million.

Gross Revenue: $93, 566, 487.

I’m pretty much of the school of thought that every man likes boxing. Even if they don’t follow it, or even if they honestly believe it’s a barbaric sport that should probably be banned, every man can identify with boxing movies. If you sit a guy down in front of a boxing match, he will like it, at least subconsciously. This is not to insult women in any way, it's just that women tend to realise that boxing as a sport is brutal and pointless. Maybe it’s something to do with how men are genetically or socially wired, but all I can say for certain is that every time a boxing movie comes out I sigh and think: “Oh great, another movie featuring meat-heads needlessly beating the crap out of each other disguised as an inspirational, feel good flick”, and every time I get to the other side of the run time I’m cheering on the protagonist, wincing when he/she gets hit hard and whispering “yes” if they manage to K.O. the opponent. Happened in Rocky, and in Million Dollar Baby.

The Fighter is largely a character drama. In particular it is a family drama about two boxers that happen to be brothers; one that was famous, and one that is trying to be. The family in it is dysfunctional (hey are there ever any good families in movies?), and the main conflict in the flick revolves around whether or not Mark Wharlberg’s Micky will escape his management team, which consists of his controlling mother and drug addicted brother. There is some good drama here, with Christian Bale giving a fucking outstanding performance as Dicky, the former boxer that knocked out Sugar Ray Leonard a long time ago (or did he trip?), and has since turned to crack. Mellissa Leo is convincing as the chain smoking mother of about twenty children, who constantly belittles her husband, and definitely appears to be the ‘man’ of the house.

However, I’m still not sure what I was supposed to take away from this movie. As much as I get into boxing, I still think it’s a barbaric sport. The whole time I watched the tug-of-war between Micky’s mother/brother and the rival management team, I just kept thinking “The guy is still gonna get his arse beaten, even if he wins the match.” I guess the coda is that Micky finally made it as a professional boxer and earned millions of dollars as a result. In this sense, it’s another feel good movie: “If you put your mind to it, you can do anything.” It’s a really well shot one, but there is ultimately nothing really new here.

One element that really deserves mention is the development of Bale’s character, who goes from a drug-addict in denial to a dedicated trainer, experiencing a wonderful arc along the way. It’s quite touching to see Dicky go to his old crack-house after a stint in gaol only to refuse to take up the pipe, and then later assure his brother’s girlfriend that he just wants to help his brother be the champion that he can be. It’s kind of heart-warming. The same cannot be said for Mellisa Leo’s character, who is just basically a bitch the whole time. We never really get the sense that she has evolved as a character because she just sort of disappears in the third act. Maybe it would have been nice to wrap her character up a bit.

Three and a half stars:

'Rabbit Hole.' Directed by John Cameron Mitchell.

Produced by: Nicole Kidman.

Screenplay by: David Lindsay-Abaire (based on his play).

Starring: Nicole Kidman, Aaron Eckhart, and Dianne Weist.

Studio: Blossom Films, and Odd Lot Entertainment.

Year: 2010.

Run time: 91 Minutes.

Budget: $5 Million.

Gross Revenue: $1, 723, 700.

When the Tom Cruise vs. Nicole Kidman war was waging in the years following their divorce, I was always on Cruise’s side. Regardless of his silly religion, he was always good in whatever he was in. Sure, he might be a follower of the great Lord Xenu (or is Xenu the villain?), but he is also willing to make fun of himself-- as evidenced by his role in Tropic Thunder. Kidman, on the other hand, seldom gives a really good performance. At her best, she is good, and at her worst she hams it up like a cop giving a speeding ticket. I was surprised to find that I actually enjoyed her in this little film about a couple grieving the death of their son.

I’ve always liked this kind of movie. I think that the best drama is the kind that occurs to upper class people when things don’t go according to their plans. You see, wasps have everything planned out: Married by twenty-five, kids by thirty, etc. And if something happens to disrupt these plans, the wasp begins to realise that he/she is not the centre of the universe, and that the world isn’t just cruel, but horribly indifferent to their hedonistic lifestyle. This all makes for great drama. You get characters doing things that they wouldn’t normally do, saying things they wouldn’t normally say, and basically just having crazy existential moments of brilliant, yet disturbing clarity that their McFriends just don’t understand.

The spawn of Eckhart and Kidman was hit by a car when it chased a dog out onto the street. The driver of the car was just a regular teenage kid, who “...might of been doing 32...” in a 30 zone, and who draws comic books. How do we know all this? Well, because Kidman and he become friends throughout the course of the movie. This, I thought, was a really great touch, and it makes for great drama. Will Kidman eventually snap and hit the teenage boy? Or will she freakishly try and adopt him to replace the spawn she has lost? You’ll just have to watch.

Nothing too outrageous is done in terms of film-making technique here. It’s a meat and potatoes picture. It all works really well, and the ending is really quite hopeful. You get the sense that Kidman and Eckhart have a lot of things they need to talk through, but that they really do love each other. Eckhart is competent in his role, as is Dianne Weist as Kidman’s mother (who may, or may not be an alcoholic). Kidman is nominated for Best Actress for this, but she better start practising her ‘I’m so happy for Annette Benning’ face, because she’s going home empty handed-- if only because she already has a statuette for The Hours. Speaking of Oscars, where is the Best Supporting Actor nomination for the teenage kid in this? He’s sublime.

Three and a half stars: