1998 was the first that I remember, that was the year of the bugs. To be precise, they year of the animated movies about bugs: Antz and A Bug's Life coming out to compete for the newly found theme. For me it was also the year of the war movies with Saving Private Ryan unfortunately eclipsing the more harrowing The Thin Red Line, but war movies were not really a new theme. 2007 was the year of the critically acclaimed movies that average movie-goers have a hard time distinguishing: how many people did you encounter that confuse No Country for Old Men with There Will Be Blood? I've seen it happen at least two dozen times.
I give you then 2008: The Year of the Vampires!
]]> Ok, so we weren't inundated with vampire movies and perhaps the average movie-goer did not even notice a single vampire movie. But that's part of their survival secret: they do not reveal themselves to everyone. They first get hold of kids and teenagers. By the time everyone notices, it's too late.The front-runner represents a franchise that has already sold 25 million copies of the novels behind it and, despite lukewarm reviews, still gathered a respectable $150 million in USA only. That is of course, the teenage sensation: Twilight. The dark horse is the little foreign (Swedish) movie that could: Let the Right One In. But finally, the picture is completed by the most insidious: the HBO new series True Blood.
So... what do 2008's vampires have in common? Well, they clearly are among us. Otherwise we wouldn't be talking about them. They suffer in the light (True Blood, Let...) or are simply exposed if seen in the sunlight (Twilight). They need to be invited into a mortal's house in order to go in (True Blood, Let...). They feed on human blood and have no issues killing for it - that's universally accepted. They are immortal, at least immune to natural death. Garlic, stakes and other such devices are typically fiction and don't really work.
So... what brought all these vampires to life this year? Probably a few different things: It's been 5 years since Buffy ended and left a devout following with nothing to feed on. HBO surely caught onto that and decided that if little Buffy had so much success, they can surely one-up it. Sorry to say, so far they're failing miserably. The overused accents don't add anything to the story and the story... frankly did not go anywhere for the entire first season (13 episodes). Stephenie Meyer, as I mentioned in my Twilight review must've watched Roswell. Some small studio producers realized how popular the book was so they smartly picked up. It can't hurt that Buffy is over either :). Let the Right One In is probably outside of all these direct influences. It seems just a brilliant case of escapist story-telling translated superbly to screen. There will be no sequel there.
Twilight will surely get its sequel(s) produced. I would imagine they can only get better. True Blood also has seen increased ratings, likely due to the increased amount of naked flesh on display in each epsiode, and has been renewed for another season. So look forward to vampires sticking around and I wouldn't be surprised if some daring screenwriter and producers realize that there could still be a lot more to be explored in the vampire lore and push one more project forward.
Be careful who you let in.
]]>But I have been watching movies and felt like writing about them more than once. And now, with the Oscars just starting to air, I will give it another shot and end my own little writer's strike. What will follow - I don't know. But hopefully some more movie and entertainment talk.
]]>I also have a few reviews to write as I have managed to watch After the Wedding, Half Nelson and Sherrybaby.
]]>Well, January is when the Awards are afoot and lots of catching up happening with all the limited movies (and not only) which will ultimately contend for an Oscar. Nominations are announced on Tuesday morning, after which all the speculation will become more focused. And who knows, maybe we'll get some time to have a look at some early 2007 movies.
]]>I guess we'll blame it on an undefined notion of draught and try to play catch-up at a very fast pace.
]]>The Grand Prix was awarded to Flanders by Bruno Dumont. Flanders, another movie set in time of war, takes a different approach to its story-telling: in Dumont's own words: The landscapes come first, it is as of there that the story commences. They are a determining element of inspiration.
The direction and screenplay awards went to the hispanic world this year. First off, Alejandro González IÑÁRRITU received the Best Director award for Babel, the third movie in the conceptual trilogy that includes Amores Perros and 21 Grams. "With Babel," explains Alejandro Gonzáles Iñárritu, "I wanted to explore the contradiction between the impression that the world has become quite small due to all the communication tools which we have, and the feeling that human beings are still incapable of expressing themselves and communicating amongst themselves on a fundamental level."
]]> The Best Screenplay award went to Spanish prodigee Pedro Almodovar (Todo sobre mi madre, La Mala Educacion) for Volver. His new movie is "the story of family, a family of women", but also about a powerful element as Almodovar comments: "This element of which I speak is 'death', not only mine and that of the beings that I love, but the inevitable disappearance of all which is alive. I was never able to accept or understand it. And it provokes a state of anxiety before the ever faster flight of time.". That the movie was about a family of women was obviously apparent to the jury as well since the Best Actress award was bestowed upon the entire female cast of Volver: Penélope Cruz, Carmen Maura, Lola Duenas, Blanca Portillo and Yohana Cobo.In the same note, the Best Actor award went to the ensemble cast of Indigenes (Days of Glory) a World War II story by Moroccan director Rachid Bouchareb.
The Jury Prize went to Red Road by british director Andrea Arnold while the award Un Certain Regard went to Luxury Car by Chinese director Chao Wang. The movie, explains Wang, "falls within the continuance of the reflections and criticisms already expressed in my first two films (The Orphan of Anyang, Night and Day), on the reality and historic and political allegories of contemporary China. Here, the gap between the rich and poor, the distance which separates people from happiness, the contradictions between the social system inherited from past and the burden of the present are so many problems which I myself, as a full-fledged member of the people, feel all the weight and intensity. That's why it made me decide to shoot the picture."
]]>This year's Jury is lead by the masterful Wong Kar Wai and has an... interesting componence: Monica Belluci (!), Helena Bonham Carter, Lucrecia Martel (ARG), Zhang Yiyi (!), Samuel Jackson, Tim Roth, Patric Leconte, Elia Suleiman. Presiding over the Un Certain Regard section is Monte Hellman.
What are the most expected movies of this year? Starting with the heavyweights, we have Pedro Almodovar's Volver. Richard Linklater presents both his new movies Fast Food Nation and A Scanner Darkly. Sofia Coppola shifts gears with Marie Antoinette while Alejandro Gonzales Inarritu promises to follow 21 Grams with Babel another mix of complex intertwined stories in the powerful style that he used us to. Finnish director Aki Kaurismäki (The Man without a Past) is also returning to Cannes with Lights in the Dusk; Nani Moretti returns as well with The Caiman. From Romania we have Catalin Mitulescu's The Way I Spent the End of the World. Asian cinema is also well represented with movies by Jong-bin Yoon, Chao Wang and Lou Ye among others.
So for now... enjoy the wait until these movies will get the appropriate distribution.
]]>As I went through the list I found a large number of movies that I have seen but however I have almost completely forgotten, some to the point that it's not even worth listing them as "seen". What a shame...
]]>This is bc's list. Seen movies are in bold, owned ones have a strikethrough, and personal favories have a *.
I am amazed/ashamed at the number of movies I haven't seen. Including some obvious ones. Pooh.
]]>I love movies, but like most people I simply can't be bothered to be tied to a schedule set by other people. Going to a movie theatre is a social event for me, like going to a night club or a restaurant. But it takes time and effort. Nowadays, like most people I assume, I consume most of my movies by watching them on DVDs. What's more, the amount of money I have spent on movies has increased hugely since the advent of DVDs. And don't get me even started on TV DVDs, of which I own far more of. That's all revenue that's gone into the pockets of the entertainment industry that would never have otherwise gotten.
I suppose that the Academy was trying to push the message that movie theatres are good, but putting down one lucrative method by which movie watchers consume their product to boost another is simply wrong, shortsighted, and stupid. It's another disturbing indication that the movie industry is out of touch with reality.
This is how I would ideally want to be able to access movies:
Interestingly, the TV industry seems to be a bit more up to speed when it comes to following how their customers might want to get their product. For instance, NBC recently made the whole pilot episode of their new crime drama series Conviction available for free on the iTunes Music Store for a limited time. This is equivalent to the substantial movie clip I mentioned above. I really hope that the movie industry takes its queue from the TV people and embraces new methods for getting their product shown, rather than trying to pretend they don't matter.
]]>There are a few other close races however in the technical and standalone categories. Best Score, Best Original Song and Best Sound Mixing are all apparently very close, while in the Foreign Film category the political backlash against Palestine's entry may have tightened the race.
Feel free to throw in your own guesses and enjoy the show Sunday night!
]]>I will of course reserve the right to change my opinions tonight or tomorrow, after the Screen Actors Guild Awards winners will be announced.
]]>Happy New Year!
]]>As always, do not dispair if you haven't seen 3/4 of the movies nominated for these awards and perhaps haven't even heard of half of them. The movie studios are afraid of the short memory span which would make us forget movies that we've seen in... April let's say and they are also betting on the number of people willing to go to the movies during the holiday season to ensure significant box office support for their films.
Perhaps most importantly though, the movie producers and distributors know that Awards, while somewhat influenced by box-office are ultimately given out by only a handful of people that will watch these movies anyway due to screener dvds that are carefully sent to them every December. And after that, its all a marketing game, a game of "who did not get last year an award in their best role ever, so we should give them one this year although they kinda sucked", a game of studio influence, political statements and actor charisma. The movies? Well yah, the movies themselves are relevant too :).
If you want more ranting and raving about awards check out the Oscars section of the site where I will delve into more details.
]]>