Today's News: devils and beasts get some, lose some

More news from everybody's favorite movie website (for those who have heard of it, that is):

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155901/deknight_vervangt_goddard_voor_daredevil

Apparently Marvel and Netflix traded talent for talent here. Both writers/producers have had their fair share of hits, and both stem from Joss Whedon's pool of creative talents. Both Goddard and DeKnight worked on Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel. Similar backgrounds must yield similar results, the powers-that-be at Marvel probably thought. They're probably right. Personally I lamented the loss of the ingenious mind that came up with The Cabin in the Woods - if you haven't seen that hilariously inventive movie, that's something you ought to remedy - but I can surely live with the showrunner of Starz' delightful Spartacus series tackling a Marvel project. I would wager coin it won't be as vulgar as those raunchy Romans, but with DeKnight's evident capability to write intriguing character and plot twists, Daredevil doesn't necessarily take a turn for the worse. Also, DeKnight didn't burn his fingers on that one show called Lost, which might otherwise have left a sour taste in his career. And of course Goddard won't be gone entirely, as his scripts for the first two episodes will remain in use, plus he'll stay on as a 'consulting producer', whatever the hell that's supposed to be. So there's definitely gonna be a touch of Goddard to be felt at first. For now, I see more gain than loss here. And either way it's more likely to give the Daredevil his due than Ben Affleck's less than daring flick back from 2003.

http://www.moviescene.nl/p/155926/alfonso_cuaron_wijst_fantastic_beasts_af

Too bad, but I kinda saw it coming. Cuaron has spend the last five years working on Gravity, after all. To great effect to be sure, but I'm positive he's in definite need of a creative break from all that digital blue-screen material. Cuaron cares about characters and drama far more than about effects, as his quote makes abundantly clear. I'll say Gravity is the odd-one-out on his resumé in that regard: even though it was basically about two people trapped in space, the technical element to that film far outweighed the acting component. It was the effects that made the experience, not the story. So it's about time he changed back to his former routine, where the opposite held true. Even though not much is revealed about the specific plot contents of Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them, its very title suggests it's all about the fancy creatures and the exotic locales they inhabit, which are heavily dependant on visual effects to make them come alive on screen. Characters clearly seem to come second here. So that really doesn't sound so appealing to a director who has spent half a decade exploring the digital realm. Cuaron is better off returning to his roots and doing something small for a change, or indeed spending time with his actual biological kids rather than his silver screen babies (I've heard from parents that you have to make time for children for their own sake). And even though Cuaron is out for the first installment of this upcoming fantastic franchise, there's nothing that stops him from expressing his interests for one of the already announced sequels somewhere in later years. In the realm of Potter - which still is where we are in this otherwise Potterless project - anything is known to be possible by now.

Oscars 2014: My list of predictions

The long and dreary road to this year's Oscars has been put into motion, and no doubt people will want to know what I expect this year's winners to be. Not that I tend to care all that much about the Acadamy Awards or the whole dull press circus in the first few months of the year that accompanies it. It's just one big ritual going through all the usual motions. I much prefer to focus on the quality of these films on their own merits, without the huge buzz that surrounds them. Nevertheless, here's my list of guesses (which honestly is what they are, since you can analyze all you want but the Academy still has a habit of surprising you in the choices it makes, and often not pleasantly). I am not ashamed to say that in many cases I just go with what my gut tells me, something most critics are not prepared to admit.

Best Picture:

First choice: A tough one, as always. I can tell you which movies it won't be for sure, but as to the winner, for me it's a toss-up - as these events usually revolve around two very promising films with the results being about even, just as with the recent Golden Globes - between 12 Years a Slave, American Hustle, while possibly The Wolf of Wall Street has a shot as well. For now, my money is on 12 Years a Slave, which by itself must make up for the lack of other "black" pictures in these nominations, like The Butler and Fruitvale Station, which were lobbying for an award but didn't get very far apparently.
Second Choice: American Hustle.

Best Actor:

First Choice: Chiwetel Ejiofor, 12 Years a Slave. Same reason as above really. Plus, Chiwetel is a damn fine actor and though a first time Oscar nominee, he has already five Golden Globe nominations on his resumé. It's about time he won something.
Second choice: Bruce Dern for Nebraska.

Best Actress:

First Choice: Cate Blanchett for Blue Jasmine. An Oscar favorite that really needs a Lead Actress win, as opposed to a Supporting Actress take a decade ago. All the other female performances are impeccable, but this one just stands out supremely.
Second choice: Any Adams for American Hustle.

Best Supporting Actor:

First Choice: Barkhad Abdi for Captain Phillips. A stellar performance from a first time actor, holding his own opposite a veteran like Tom Hanks. You don't see that every day.
Second choice: Michael Fassbender for 12 Years a Slave.

Best Supporting Actress:

First Choice: No truly safe bets here, so I'll go with Jennifer Lawrence, since everybody likes her and so do I. Yes, that's also how this game sometimes works.
Second choice: Lupita Nyong'o for 12 Years a Slave. Same reason as Barkhad Abdi, except she has done slightly more.

Best Director:

First Choice: Steve McQueen for 12 Years a Slave. Again, same reason as why 12 Years a Slave is on this list of mine most of the times (though also because I haven't yet seen it so I can't underscore my argument in more detail). A black director winning an Oscar, doesn't happen often enough. Call me a racist if you must, but remember the b(l)acklash not so long ago when there weren't so many coloured people even nominated despite their considerable contribution to otherwise hugely nominated movies. Yes, they can!
Second choice: Martin Scorsese for The Wolf of Wall Street. Because it's about friggin' time this man took home another statue, considering how often he gets nominated but leaves empty handed.

Best Original Screenplay:

First Choice: American Hustle.
Second choice: Her.

Best Adapted Screenplay:

First Choice: 12 Years a Slave.
Second choice: The Wolf of Wall Street.

Best Animated Feature:

First Choice: Frozen. Apart from The Wind Rises, the other nominess are nothing remarkable (and poor Pixar simply got ignored this year, which was a long time coming really). However, that film seems too controversial, plus it's foreign material too. Frozen is a safer bet, as it carries all the good traits of a typical Disney movie, but shows the Mouse House is finally flowing with the times a little.
Second choice: The Wind Rises.

Best Foreign Film:

First Choice: La Grande Bellezza. This year's smash hit in arthouse theaters.
Second choice: Jagten. Better late than never, but not in time for a win. This movie is like 18 months old by now!

Best Cinematography:

First Choice: Gravity. The finest, most groundbreaking and impressive camera work I've seen in many years.
Second choice: Inside Llewyn Davis.

Best Editing:

First Choice: Gravity. Cuaron and his team once again make fabulous use of his trademark long takes, and the trick is you don't even notice the cutting.
Second choice: American Hustle.

Best Production Design:

First Choice: The Great Gatsby. Spectacularly lavish, the main reason to watch this film, which leaves something to be desired in terms of story and character. But it looks flawless.
Second choice: Gravity.

Best Costume Design:

First Choice: The Great Gatsby. Like I said, it all looks grand (characters included), it just doesn't feel it.
Second choice: American Hustle.

Best Make-up:

First Choice: already an uproar has commenced due to American Hustle being wrongfully snubbed in this category. Dallas Buyer's Club therefore seems the most eligible choice left.
Second choice: The Lone Ranger.

Best Music:

First Choice: Her. It needs to win something after all.
Second choice: The Book Thief. There's scoring, and there's John Williams.

Best Song:

First Choice: Frozen. Let it go, Academy! Let it gooooohooo!!
Second choice: Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom.

Best Sound Mixing:

First Choice: Gravity.
Second choice: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug.

Best Sound Editing:

First Choice: Gravity.
Second choice: All is Lost.

Best Visual Effects:

First Choice: Gravity. I rarely experienced a movie that deserved this honour so badly. If Gravity loses, I call shenanigans on the Academy! Wouldn't be the first time though.
Second choice: The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug. The dragon looked badass, though I admit some other things in the film didn't appear nearly as stunning.

Best Documentary:

First Choice: The Act of Killing. Very disturbing but equally intriguing. May not be the Academy's cup of tea though.
Second choice: Dirty wars.

The first week of March will tell me how wrong, or maybe how right for a change, I just happen to be.

Today's Mini-Review: Gravity

Gravity: ****/*****, or 8/10

It is rare these days to encounter effects in movies that look so astounding that they pull the audience in completely and won't let go until the credits roll. After twenty-odd years of increasing overuse of CGI, it seemed positive that everything had been done, also owing to the plethora of home video releases containing behind-the-scenes footage that reveals in detail the tricks of the trade, thus enhancing the audience's expertise on what is real and what is not when watching a film. It has diminished the emotional impact of the contemporary blockbuster, which often tends to rely heavily on such big budget effects work, because we spectators think we've seen it all and know it all by now. But once in a while a movie comes along that does manage to sweep us off our feet entirely and immerses us completely into the world its director has envisioned for our viewing pleasure. In such uncommon cases, the often derogatory term 'effects film' turns out both wholly justified and incorrect: the effects it contains do not make a film, but instead engage us into a full fledged cinematic experience we cannot help but be captivated by so strongly that all we can do is undergo it until it releases its grip on us. And then we still sit back in awe for a while longer, with that most pertinent of questions firmly on our minds: how on Earth did they do that?! Alfonso Cuaron (Children of Men, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban) has crafted just such a fantastic experience with Gravity, a superior science-fact feature that adheres to the laws of physics but constructs its own laws in terms of what you can accomplish cinematographically these days. From a narrative point of view it's simply the struggle of two astronauts (George Clooney and Sandra Bullock) to survive in our planet's orbit after their space shuttle has been devastated by space debris caused by the demolition of a Russian satellite. In every other regard, there is nothing simple about Gravity. 
 

It is most definitely one of the greatest accomplishments in the field of visual effects and 3-D technology in recent years and an incredible tour-de-force on the part of both actors whose capabilities are put to the most extreme test imaginable. In fact, you are pulled in so deeply you neither have the time nor the interest to agree the story is pretty bare and the few attempts at introducing deeper levels of character development – including Bullock's character still trying to cope with the death of her young daughter – don't add all that much to the protagonists' plight. We run with them because we cannot help but feel we are one of them, and we too must get out of this ordeal in one piece before time (and oxygen) runs out. Applying his signature use of the 'long take', Cuaron opens the movie on a quiet, peaceful note as we witness “our fellow astronauts” working on a telescope, a job that suddenly turns extremely hazardous as the debris field hits their workplace hard, cutting them loose, adrift into the endless black ocean of space: all in a single, apparently uninterrupted shot (though few will actually consider that fact as we are already engaged fully by this point). We're slowly introduced to their Zero-G environment, but soon must deal with intense camera movements as we float around the shuttle in fast motions at first, and soon almost unchecked as the mission is spiralling out of control. Their spacecraft lost, our fellow pair of astronauts must make its way to the ISS before it too gets hit by the rubble, and before they run out of breathable air, if they ever hope to get back down to Earth. Unfortunately physics don't make it easy on them and reaching their goal appears ever more hopeless. All to our benefit, as we are treated to some of the most spectacular visual imagery seen on the big screen in years. Gravity is a prime showcase of what 3-D can add to a film other than a higher admission price. Not only is the cinematography breathtaking, we feel part of a three-dimensional environment at all times, surrounded by pieces of space rubble on every side, or Bullock's sweat and tears when we are locked in an escape pod with her in very close quarters. The intricate shots of floating equipment and people going up, over and around each other adds a layer of depth that is not likely to be surpassed in film any time soon. Even though the lack of sound in space deprives us of an auditory experience the likes of Star Wars, the immersive visuals make us forget all about any lack where other sense are concerned. Credit is also due to the seasoned actors, Bullock in particular, that make the whole experience feel that much more convincing – though the effect the film has on our stomachs does half their work already – by delivering excellent performances few of their colleagues could have matched as they play off against each other and... yes, against what else, exactly? How much, if anything, of what we seen on screen was there to aid them? Even for a trained eye, it's nigh impossible to tell where the real setting ends and the fictional construct begins. Yet we never get the feeling we are watching visual effects, which is of course exactly the trick such effects aim to pull off: don't let the audience know you are only an effect. The result is a staggering, completely compelling cinematic experience, one best seen on the big screen as it is doubtful its full physical and emotional impact is done justice on a home cinema release, though hopefully the latter can tell us just how Cuaron and his team managed to accomplish this extraordinary feat. One thing is for sure, Gravity is gravitating towards well deserved Best Visual Effects and Best Cinematography Oscars.

Children of Men

Rating: ****/*****, or 8/10

Depressing and gritty picture regarding a dystopian world in the not too distant future where women have lost the ability to get pregnant and have babies, after which humanity has abandoned all hope to avoid its own demise and society has degenerated to the verge of total collapse. Clive Owen lends himself perfectly in the role of grim and cynical would-be hero Theo, who is asked by his activist ex-wife (Julianne Moore) to transport a young woman, miraculously pregnant, to a safe haven where she might help scientists to figure out a way to save mankind from its looming extinction. However, other factions, more nefarious in nature, mean to appropriate the girl for their own revolutionary purposes, so Theo has a hell of a job getting her out of England alive, guiding her across the leftovers of the once quaint English country side and through a nightmarish ghetto where human lives mean next to nothing. Taking elements from classic dystopian texts, including Orwell's 1984, as well as referencing to recent actuality (including Abu-Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay), Cuarón portrays a very depraved England in a society close to committing suicide, where the absence of children has seemingly made humanity lose the ability to care about anything, after which it really let itself go and totally messed up the world in a short space of time. Exact explanations as to why women can't get babies anymore and just how the girl got pregnant are notably left out altogether, since Cuarón is only interested in showing the results of such happenstances. However, the shock of seeing a dying mankind that has deteriorated into utter lawlessness and violence hits the viewer hard, underscored by interesting stylistic choices in editing and photography, including several extremely ambitious long takes, single shots (at least, they appear to be) that last for minutes and are filled with dozens of people and all-round chaos. A very intriguing but distressing film, the subject matter clearly not suitable for everybody.

Starring: Clive Owen, Julianne Moore, Michael Caine

Directed by Alfonso Cuarón

USA/UK: Universal Pictures, 2006