Has ARGO brought something different to this year's Oscars?

On a recent trip to Wal*Mart, I made my habitual trek to the electronics department to check out the new releases. I knew ARGO had just come out and I was considering purchasing it. When I made it to the "New Releases" section, there were tons of copies of the film on DVD. "Okay, but where are the Blu rays," I muttered. "ALL GONE!? Wow!" my brain responded after seeing the two completely barren Blu-ray sections. It was surprising to say the least. The movie had just came out that day. I know it was late in the evening, but Jesus. Then I saw why. 

Parked in the center walking area of the Wal*Mart was an ARGO/Oscar display. On two of the display's four sides were slots filled with DVDs and Blu-rays depicting Ben Affleck's bearded mug. On the other two sides were various DVD s and Blu-rays of past Oscar nominees and winners. From BEN HUR to SLING BLADE, the cornucopia of films were impressive if unexpected. Sure, I have seen plenty of displays like this at various Wal*Marts throughout the years, but nothing quite like this. 

Not only did it seem like blatant advertising for the actual award show itself, it almost seemed as if ARGO has already won. For those of you, like me, that follow the Oscar race, this seems like a safe bet. However, that doesn't stop the fact that, you know, technically it still hasn't won yet. And that got me thinking, "Has there ever been anything quite like this in the history of the Oscars?" And, based on my limited knowledge of ceremonies past, I couldn't think of won.

For those of you who don't know, ARGO was nominated for the Academy Award for Best Picture. However, the Academy quickly came under HEAVY scrutiny when it did not nominate the film's director, Ben Affleck, for Best Director (along with also snubbing another favorite, Kathryn Bigelow, and DJANGO UNCHAINED's Quentin Tarantino). Almost as if a big screw you to the Oscars, every other major award ceremony both nominated AND gave the award for Best Feature and Best Director to ARGO and Ben Affleck respectively. The Golden Globes, the SAG and DGA Awards, the BAFTAs, you name it, they won it. 

What turned out to be an unprecedented (to my knowledge) blunder by the Academy, also sparked a sort of underdog story that seems to have captured the attention of the nation. Sure, many people including hardcore cinephiles (just to complain or because it's their job) and casual moviegoers alike tune in to watch the ceremony each year. But this year, it seems like there's an even bigger fervor. People want to see if ARGO can take the top prize even though it's director wasn't even nominated (something that has only happened a minuscule amount of times in the ceremony's history), or if the Academy will fight off the peer pressure and give the win the pre-award season favorite LINCOLN or maybe even the indie upstart BEASTS OF THE SOUTHERN WILD. 

The thing is, the people marketing the Oscars seem to sense this. This year, apart from the ARGO display and various Oscar nominated and winning films being on sale at various outlets, the theater chain Cinemark is also having it's "Oscar Movie Marathon" this weekend. Where, for two days, it will be showing all 9 films nominated for the Academy Award for Best Picture. 5 one night and 4 the next. Never have I seen such market saturation for an award show. 

So, what's really behind this? Is it simply a new trend that we'll now see for years to come? There has always been a connection between Oscar nominations/wins and film advertising. However, are we witnessing the birth of a new kind of advertising that promotes actual award show as much as the films themselves? Or is there something special about ARGO? The little movie that could, almost representative of the underdog spirit of the country itself. The film is about a man who takes on nearly impossible odds to accomplish a goal most thought impossible. Sure, I could just be grasping at straws, but the connections between the film's narrative and the narrative that has come to surround the film and it's humble, bearded director are undeniable. Needless to say, no matter what happens this Oscar Sunday, the buildup has been something that we've, or at least that I've, never seen before. 

Business As Usual: Thoughts on The GRAMMYs

Katy Perry's cleavage makes a triumphant return to the Grammy Awards. 

Every January and February we are treated to a time affectionately known as “Awards Season.” Already this year we've seen the Golden Globes, the SAG Awards, the DGA Awards, and the BAFTAs. And before we wind everything down to a close with the Oscars in a few weeks, the music industry gets to have its night. This past Sunday at the Staples Center in Los Angeles, the 55^th Grammy awards were held. And, as has become custom, I’m here to mostly complain about it (maybe not mostly).

For those of you who are familiar with the Grammys, you know that it stresses the “show” portion of award show. And there are tons of them. Generally, you can expect to get about 2 or 3 really great performances out of the roughly 600,000 given. Particularly noteworthy this year were performances by Jack White and The Black Keys featuring Dr. John and the Preservation Hall Jazz Band who blew the roof off of the Staples Center, managing to imbue the show with something it is almost always devoid of: rock and roll. Justin Timberlake also made a major impression with his return to the Grammy stage. Despite being shot through the gimmicky, old-timey lens (which makes no sense because, you know, it’s LIVE TV), he actually killed it. Add in some back up by Jay-Z who no longer needs to do anything to be awesome except show up, and what you get is one of the best performances of the night.

However, it cannot be THE best, because that honor goes to a particularly brilliant ensemble tribute to The Band’s Levon Helm featuring Elton John, Mavis Staples, Zac Brown, Mumford & Sons, and Brittany Howard of Alabama Shakes. While all the performers blended magnificently (one of the better pairing jobs the Grammys has done), the particular standout was Howard. Now, I don’t know how many of you have heard of Alabama Shakes, but if you’ve never given them a listen, you really need to. Surrounded by legends like Staples and Elton John, Howard completely murdered her verse. It was really exciting to see a new talent, especially one of such magnitude, get major exposure and I hope it carries her and Alabama Shakes to great things.

Where there are amazing performances, though, sadly there are not-so amazing performances. As the night began, Taylor Swift came on stage in what looked like a “sexy Mad Hatter costume” that you’d buy at Wal*Mart around Halloween to perform “We are Never Getting Back Together;” which afterward made everyone question why anyone would be with her in the first place. Swift spent the rest of the night awkwardly doing what I can only refer to as “elbow dancing” to other artists’ performances and the fact that she tries so hard to get people to like her just makes me dislike her that much more.

Later in the evening, we were graced with what was described as a “Tribute to Bob Marley,” which included Sting, Bruno Mars, Rihanna and Ziggy and Damian Marley. Now, I don’t know about you, but “Locked Out of Heaven” and “Walking on the Moon” are two of my favorite Bob Marley songs. While Sting and Bruno were good (Sting being much, much better), I don’t understand how singing two of your own songs constitutes a tribute. Near the end, thankfully (I guess), Rihanna came out with the Marley’s to sing “Could You Be Loved” which was completely and entirely… fine. It added up to little more than additional proof that Bob Marley’s fans consistently destroy the heart of his music more than any other artist’s fans.

Big winners on the awards side of things (yeah! They actually gave out some awards!) included fun., Gotye and Mumford & Sons. fun. won for Best New Artist and did so over the likes of The Lumineers and Frank Ocean. Don’t get me wrong, fun. is fine, but the fact that the award didn’t go to Ocean is a tragedy. Despite having one of the most horrific performances I’ve ever heard (seriously, guys, don’t let that train wreck be your impression of him), “Channel Orange” is an absolutely tremendous album. Goyte and Kimbra (dressed like she rubbed an exploded flamingo on herself) took home Record of the Year for their song “Somebody That I Used to Know” and although I enjoy the song, it’s so ubiquitous at this point that it’s hard to have an objective opinion about it. They both seemed happier about being presented the award by Prince (dressed in some spaceman hoodie thing and carrying a bedazzled cane) than actually receiving the award. In their defense, he is Prince and who could blame them. Finally, taking the big prize of the night, Album of the Year, was Mumford & Sons for “Babel.” And honestly? Out of the five nominees, they’re number four.  Over The Black Keys, Jack White, and Frank Ocean? Talk about going with the safe pick. While I understand this was the Grammys making up for completely passing over “Sigh No More,” it’s still a wildly disappointing selection. But hey, at least they ignored the Beebs album “Believe,” right?

Basically, what it ends up being is another lack luster year filled with a few amazing performances and over two hours of garbage where you wish you would have just waited to watch the highlights the next day and tuned into “The Walking Dead” instead. MCing the night was LL Cool J who, between having a mid-life crisis and talking about his Twitter, managed to be one of the worst hosts of all time (although hearing his brief tribute to MCA with “No Sleep till Brooklyn” was great). Thankfully for LL, it was a night where, between Beyonce messing up her lines (and Ellen staring at her awkwardly because she’s Ellen and she’s awesome) and Miguel and Wiz Khalifa performing a great rendition of “Adorn” and then giving out the award for Best Country Solo Performance because why not, being terrible meant you fit right in.

But despite it all, there were some real flashes of brilliance. And Taylor Swift elbow dancing. Lots of Taylor Swift elbowing dancing. 

Warning: SIDE EFFECTS May Include Suspense, Intrigue, and Social Commentary

As I mentioned in my most anticipated films of 2013 list, director Steven Soderbergh (CONTAGION, HAYWIRE, MAGIC MIKE) has stated that after the release of his Liberace biopic for HBO and his final theatrical film, SIDE EFFECTS, he will be retiring from directing movies. As I also speculated in my most anticipated films of 2013 list, it was my belief that because of this, Steven Soderbergh would try to give us the best movie possible to go out on. Is SIDE EFFECTS perfect? No. But what it is, is a brilliant melding of Soderbergh's cold, clinical style with a Hitchcockian thriller that could get even Norman Bates on the edge of his seat. 

Written by Soderbergh's recent writer of choice, Scott Z. Burns (THE INFORMANT!, CONTAGION), the film stars Jude Law as Jonathan Banks, a big city psychiatrist. His life  is wonderful: he has a lovely wife and son, a budding practice and a new contract with a pharmaceutical company to help test a new, experimental drug.  This is until he meets Emily Taylor (Rooney Mara), a depressed 28 year-old who husband (Channing Tatum) was just released from prison for insider trading. 

Emily was brought to the hospital after driving her car straight into a parking garage wall. She promises Banks she isn't a danger to herself or to anyone else, and to get him to release her she promises to start sessions with him. While meeting with Banks, Emily tries a series of anti-depressants to no avail. Just by chance, at a conference Banks speaks with Emily's former psychiatrist Victoria (Catherine Zeta-Jones), whom Emily stopped seeing because she lost her health insurance after her husband went to jail. Victoria suggests that Banks try a new anti-depressant called Ablixa, to which he agrees begrudgingly after Emily has another incident. And it works wonders! Emily's life starts to get back to normal and she seems happy again. But the drug has some serious side effects. And one night, acting under the influence of Ablixa, Emily does something that changes her and Dr. Banks's lives forever. 

While that sounds like a ton of the plot, that actually only sums up about the first 30 minutes. And sadly, it's hard for me to say anything else about the movie without risking serious spoilers. Like Alfred Hitchcock's PSYCHO before it, the marketing behind SIDE EFFECTS has been intentionally vague and aptly so. And like PSYCHO, SIDE EFFECTS is also a taught, well-crafted thriller with something deep and important to say about mental illness and, in the case of the latter, the pharmaceutical industry whose job it supposedly is to help those afflicted. 

No matter what you think of Steven Soderbergh, all of his movies are gorgeously done. With his patented muted color palette and still camera, he is able to create a world that feels incredibly realistic. It's cold, concise, uncaring. And yet, by using an extremely shallow depth of field almost exclusively, Soderbergh is able to draw a haze over the entire work. Fuzzy lights pervade and Soderbergh often sets a point of focus to have his, at first, blurry stars walk into and out of. It's a brilliantly inspired decision that allows you to see and feel exactly what these characters are going through as they slip farther and farther into madness. 

It also doesn't hurt that Soderbergh has the clout to put together a cast that is completely aces. Besides Catherine Zeta-Jones as you've never seen her before and Channing Tatum who is able to deliver a wonderful performance, stripped of all the sexuality and masculinity that he's become famous for (a patented, and wonderful trademark of Soderbergh's), the two main stars of the film are brilliant. Jude Law as Jonathan Banks plays paranoid and obsessed amazingly well, holding nothing back as his character spins farther and farther is a web of corruption and deceit. It's Rooney Mara, however, that's the real star. What she is able to do without speaking is incredible. What she lacks in physicality she makes up for in quiet intensity and sheer emotional presence. 

While the film suffers from some bigger flaws near the end where it feels like it's racing to a finish, and some cliched thriller/crime drama tropes (I don't ever want to see another scene of a person looking at pieces of paper pinned to a cork board, connected by string), nothing can take away from the fact that SIDE EFFECTS is an intelligent, remarkably well-shot and acted thriller while managing to say something deeper about one of the more serious issues in today's culture. It's one of the those movies that's incredibly bittersweet. On one hand, it's an impeccable movie that anyone would be proud to call their final film. On another, it serves as just another reminder as to what we're losing with the retirement of one of the most talented directors working today. Either way, Steven Soderbergh is going out with a bang. And SIDE EFFECTS is an outstanding part one. 

8.5 out of 10

Boy Meets (Apocalyptic) World: Review of WARM BODIES

With a movie like WARM BODIES,  word play seems almost inevitable. It's either, "WARM BODIES is hot stuff!" or "WARM BODIES left me feeling as cold as a Boney's skin..." muscle... whatever, you'll know what I'm talking about after you actually see the movie. And why not partake in a little rhetorical fun? It's one of the things at which Shakespeare, the clearest influence on Isaac Marion's 2010 novel  and now the 2013 film of the same name, was the master! Unfortunately, WARM BODIES doesn't really warrant the time it takes to think of such witty puns (even for such a skilled wit as myself). In fact, it doesn't really warrant a ton of discussion at all.

Taking place after a mysterious plague has wiped out most of the world's population, the film follows R (Nicholas Hoult), a zombie of unknown age and origin who, along with his undead brothers and sisters, wonder the landscape looking for fresh meat (in this case, a concentrated group of survivors living in a small community surrounded by an enormous constructed wall. As we learn through R's interior monologue (the origin of most of the character's lines throughout the film), zombie's are not the brainless, bloodthirsty creatures that we consider them to be. Sure, there are "the Bonies" - horribly degraded and animalistic ghosts of Christmas future for the other zombies - but for the most part, these zombies are relatively nice. And apart from the whole "eating brains and being unable to string more than a few words together at a time" thing, they are relatively normal. So normal in fact, that when R finally meets up with Julie (a survivor  played by Teresa Palmer), he finds that her presence has given him more life than he could have imagined. 

WARM BODIES, the fourth major film from 50/50 director Jonathan Levine, is a cute film. In fact, for a movie filled with degenerative skeleton/demon hybrids and graphic brain snacking it's downright adorable. The problem is that in its cuteness, it fails to take any risks whatsoever. What we get instead is a cookie cutter romantic comedy with the occasional interesting idea thrown in. And it's not even a particularly good romantic comedy. Apart from Nicholas Hoult who does a good job in spite of not being able to utter more than a few words at a time, the rest of the actors are passable at best. Teresa Palmer in particular channels her inner Kristen Stewart and appears more lifeless than her corpse co-star (see, I knew I'd get some sort of word play in there). What this all culminates in is a relatively weak central romance which, unlike the play from which the film draws its inspiration, leaves the audience unable to become fully emotionally involved. 

All of that being said, what ultimately leaves the worst taste in my mouth is the film's mediocre narrative. While introducing some truly innovative and interesting ideas such as zombies gaining a person's memories as they consume their brain and how the film handles zombie communication, the film is riddled with so many plots and contrivances that it becomes hard to do anything but scoff and role your eyes. If these zombies have nearly complete motor function and the ability to form complete thoughts and feelings in their mind, why can't they simply write a letter to the survivors they encounter instead of mumbling and moaning incoherently while some other guys put guns to their heads? Why do zombies develop super human strength and agility after they have nearly completely disintegrated into nothing but piles of bone? Why is [SPOILERS] Julie so cool that R just kind of, you know, killed her boyfriend and is now eating his brain and using the knowledge gained from doing this to win her affection? And for Pete's sake, why does John Malkovich (Julie's father in the film) only believe the concrete evidence about the zombies' recovery, provided by his daughter, the second before he's about to kill R? [END SPOILERS] 

What these plots holes and contrivances are telling of is a sloppy, lazy script. And what but a sloppy, lazy, safe movie can be produced from such a script? It's why John Malkovich just happens to get called out to a meeting during R's impromptu visit to Julie's house. It's why R looks and behaves more like a human trying to play a zombie than vice versa. It's why the film feels the need to hit you over the head with obvious themes and ideas. And it's certainly the reason why none of the relationships feel substantial. Sure, Nicholas Hoult and Rob Corddry (the Mercutio to Hoult's Romeo) have good chemistry and comedic timing, but it holds none of the weight that Shakespeare's beloved play does. 

Did WARM BODIES leave me as cold as a Boney's skin/muscle/whatever? No. Is it "hot stuff!"? Not really. What WARM BODIES is, is an appropriate title. Though it introduces some interesting ideas and themes and the occasional light to mildly-hearty chuckle, it's a lukewarm romantic comedy at best. You constantly feel it's PG-13 rating with its plethora of quick cutaways. All the passion that pervades through ROMEO AND JULIET is no where to be seen. What we're left with, instead, is a standard rom-com with a little zom that despite being well made (including a very well chosen 80s soundtrack), never distinguishes itself from what has come before it. 

6 out of 10