Vimeo

I now have an account on Vimeo, where I publish my short films. Here's the link to my account:
https://vimeo.com/user11290547

Movie Review: Oz the Great and the Powerful

Summary:
The "Great and Powerful" Oz (James Franco) is a fake magician living in Kansas. One day he ends up in a hot air balloon being sucked into a tornado and ends up in the magical land of Oz, where there are three queens: Theodora (Mila Kunis), Evanora (Rachel Weisz), and Glinda (Michelle Williams). There's also a talking monkey with wings (Zach Braff) and a stereotypical black dwarf with pointy eyebrows (Tony Cox). In some sort of prophecy that is never explained, Oz has to save the land of Oz from Glinda, the evil queen. Then it turns out that Glinda is actually the only nice queen, and everyone knows this except for Theodora. Did I mention there's a talking china doll who's legs need to be glued on? You're probably confused. So was I.

Acting:

THERE ARE NO ACTING PROS.

Cons:

• James Franco starts off terrible, and seems to get progressively worse throughout the movie. It's as if he were still stoned from the time he hosted the Oscars.
• Tony Cox, who was funny in Bad Santa, wasn't funny in this.
• Despite the fact that the witches were played by three great actresses, they all sucked.
• This movie seems to have a spell cast upon it which makes every good actor involved in it suddenly suck for 130 minutes.

Acting score: 0/100

Writing:
Pros:

• There was a connection to Dorothy in it.
• All of the people in Kansas had an altar ego in Oz. It may be stolen from The Wizard of Oz, but if they didn't steal all of their decent techniques from the original, this film would have absolutely nothing going for it.

Cons:

• None of the attempted jokes were funny.
• The storyline was pretty much Alice in Wonderland. The only major difference is that this is a shitty prequel to a classic movie, and Wonderland was a shitty sequel to a classic novel.
• The story was so bad that I actually tried to fall asleep. I succeeded for a little bit but, unfortunately, I woke up.

Writing score: 17/100

Directing:
Pros:

• It started off black-and-white and then it changed to color. Again, it's stolen from The Wizard of Oz, but, considering how horrible the movie was, the whole thing should've been stolen from The Wizard of Oz.

Cons:

• The change from black-and-white to color is  really lame and boring. It could've been awesome, but it wasn't.
• Sam Raimi was so caught up with special effects that he forgot to direct.
• There was no good or unique filming. Everything was typical and boring.
• The few battle sequences that existed were awful. There was barely even a dead body. I know it would've made it PG-13, but it also might've made it bearable.

Directing score: 13/100

Overall:
Oz: The Freat and the Powerful is so unbearably bad that I actually tried to fall asleep. It's one of those movies where the acting, writing, and directing fit together perfectly to form a majorly unpleasant  CGI excuse of a movie.

Acting: 0/100
Writing: 17/100
Directing: 13/100
Overall: 10/100

The Pros and Cons of the Oscars

Last night's Oscars were very Oscar-like. Here I share my pros and cons of the big movie event:

PRO: The host
Even though Seth MacFarlane did a couple of cheesy, boring, Frank Sinatra-y musical numbers, he was much better than most years. The best bit was with the sock puppets reenacting Flight.

CON: The music
There were multiple musical numbers including (but not limited to) songs from Skyfall, Goldfinger, Chicago, Dreamgirls, Les Miserables, and Ted. All of which were boring, and half of which were pointless. Why Chicago?

PRO: Daniel Day-Lewis's speech
The greatest and funniest speech by far was delivered by the wonderful actor Daniel Day-Lewis. His third Oscar for Best Actor (a first!), Day-Lewis's speech was almost as good as his performance,

CON: Everyone else's speech
All of the speeches were less speeches as they were thank-yous. They were all boring, and only one or two jokes were actually made. Not that I expected anything different from the Oscars.

PRO: Emanuelle Riva got a birthday wish
During her overall boring acceptance speech, Jennifer Lawrence wished Emanuelle Riva a happy  birthday! Yay!

CON: Emanuelle Riva didn't win
The fact that Emanuelle Riva lost to Jennifer Lawrence is evidence that it doesn't matter if you win an Oscar. Eamnuelle's 86th birthday was yesterday, and she deserved that Oscar more than anybody else. Her performance was so thrilling and jaw-dropping that I was actually angry at the Academy for not awarding her.

PRO: There were lots of surprises
Ang Lee for Best Director? Christoph Waltz for Best Supporting Actor? Quentin Tarentino for Best Original Screenplay? These may not have all been worthy winners but they were all surprises, which at least kept the awards show exciting.

CON: Life of Pi won way too much
As you probably know, I hated Life of Pi. First of all, Ang Lee definitely shouldn't have even been nominated for Director, let alone win. In my opinion, it's pretty easy to direct a tiger, a boat, and a green screen. As for the boy, he was a terrible actor, so Ang Lee's skills don't really show off there. It also won many other awards it didn't deserve.

Overall, it was an above-average Oscar night because of the wonderful host and Daniel Day-Lewis. It could've done without the endless music and the awards given to Life of Pi, but it was much better than last year. If only Emanuelle Riva won.

Oscar Predictions

Tomorrow night the Oscars are on, and every movie-lover will be watching. I've finally made my predictions. Here they are:

Best Picture: Argo
What's more Hollywood than a story about how one American saved six Americans by  making a movie? Argo is the favorite for tomorrow night simply because it's about Hollywood. Runner-up: Lincoln. What deserves it: Amour.

Best Director: Steven Spielberg for Lincoln
Since Ben Affleck isn't nominated for this category, this is the Academy's chance to give a major award to the second best film of the year. In the Academy's opinion, this is Lincoln. Runner-up: Ang Lee for Life of Pi. Who deserves it: Michael Haneke for Amour.

Best Actor: Daniel Day-Lewis for Lincoln
Day-Lewis's performance was so excellent that there is no doubt over this one. Runner-up: Denzel Wahington for Flight. Day-Lewis deserves it.

Best Actress: Emanuelle Riva for Amour
Okay, I know that most people think that Jennifer Lawrence will win. But Emanuelle Riva's performance was so powerful and amazing that if she loses, I might not watch the Oscars next year. Runner-up: Jennifer Lawrence for Silver Linings Playbook. Riva deserves it.

Best Supporting Actor: Tommy Lee Jones for Lincoln
I was torn on this one. On one hand, Robert DeNiro (for Silver Linings Playbook) has just come back from a long streak of lameness. On the other hand, Tommy Lee Jones's performance was so American and typical-Hollywood that it's almost impossible for the Academy not to resist. Runner-up: Robert DeNiro for Silver Linings Playbook. Who deserves it: Alan Arkin for Argo.

Best Supporting Actress: Anne Hathaway for Les Miserables
This is the Academy's apology to Hathaway for making her host wwith James Franco last year. If she doesn't win, then the Academy is practically twisting the knife that they already stabbed her with. Runner-up: Helen Hunt for The Sessions. Who deserves it: Sally Field for Lincoln.

Best Original Screenplay: Quentin Tarentino for Django Unchained
The screenplay categories usually go to movies that were to racy, violent, or experimental to win Best Picture. Django Unchained is exactly that. Runner-up: Mark Boal for Zero Dark Thirty. Who deserves it: Michael Haneke for Amour.

Best Adapted Screenplay: Chris Terrio for Argo
Whereas one of the screenplay awards goes to the wackiest film, the other usually goes to the film that won Best Picture. Runner-up: Tony Kuschner for Lincoln. Who deserve it: Michael Haneke for Amour.

A Second Viewing: Argo

The first time I saw Argo I was disappointed. I wasn't "at the edge of my seat" or "intrigued" as many other people I know were. Recently, people (including me) have been saying that Argo will win Best Picture. I decided to watch it again because of all the hype it was getting. I figured that there must be something about it that I missed, because I really didn't get why it was supposedly so good. I was right. After a second viewing, I realized what Argo is really about. It's about the power of film. The acting (besides Alan Arkin and John Goodman) might not be terrific, but the script is fantastic. It's evidence about how important film is. I will adjust my "Best Movies of 2012" list accordingly.

Movie Review: Side Effects

Summary:
After Emily Taylor (Rooney Mara)'s husband, Martin Taylor (Channing Tatum), gets released from prison, Emily starts to become severely depressed and must see a psychiatrist, Dr. Jonathan Banks (Jude Law), who prescribes her an anti-depressant that has mysterious side effect and eventually leads to Emily's killing of her husband.

Acting:
Pros:

• Rooney Mara is excellent and unbelievable. Her acting is astonishing.
• Jude Law, who I'm normally not a fan of, gives his best performance ever. He's very believable.
• There are many minor characters who are very good.

Cons:

• Catherine Zeta-Jones is kind of stereotypical and boring as Emily's older therapist.
• Channing Tatum isn't in the film for long enough to show off his talent.

Acting score: 86/100

Writing:
Pros:

• There are plenty of exciting twists and turns that are majorly unexpected (but they also work with the story).
• The plot is interesting and intriguing.
• There are some scenes in the film that I will always remember.

Cons:

• The first ten minutes has some very boring dialogue. During those ten minutes, I expected it to be horrible.
• A few events in the plot are kind of ridiculous and over-the-top.

Writing score: 89/100

Directing:
Pros:

• There is an effective use of Dutch shots (diagonal shots) to show that there is something disoriented and wrong going wrong.
• Many different shots and blurs show a certain eeriness that sets the mood of the film.
• If this really is Soderbergh's last film, then he has achieved.

Cons:

• Like most of Soderbergh's films, there are many scenes that are unrealistic, overdone, and somewhat cliché.

Directing score: 95/100

Overall:
If Side Effects truly is Soderbergh's last, then he successfully mixed a good script with great acting and fantastic directing to leave the industry with a bang.

Acting score: 86/100
Writing score: 89/100
Directing score: 95/100
Overall: 90/100

Movie Review: The Impossible

 

 

Summary:
Maria (Naomi Watts) and Henry (Ewan McGregor) are on vacation in Southeast Asia with their three children, Lucas (Tom Holland), Thomas (Samuel Joslin) and Simon (Oaklee Pendergast) in 2004 just as a giant tsunami separates the family. Now Henry, Thomas, and Simon must find Maria and Lucas as Lucas tries to save his injured mother in a hospital.

Acting:
Pros:

• All three children are wonderful and believable.
• Ewan McGregor gives a wonderful performance as the determined father looking for his wife and child..

Cons:

• Naomi Watts may be good, but she really didn't do much. Her performance was kind of boring.

Acting score: 72/100

Writing:
Pros:

• Some of the dialogue is wonderful.
• A couple scenes are very emotional and wonderfully written.

Cons:

• Not only did the writer decide to pick the only non-Asian people in the tsunami, the real family was Spanish, not American. It's all a very typical racist Hollywood thing.
• At times, the movie seems like its only purpose is to make you cry. It's so crammed with emotional  moments that it just gets boring after a while.
• Nothing is new about it; everything has been done before. The movies theme is pretty much all about how hope will drive you forward and help you find what you need, but it's just boring and typical.

Writing score: 36/100

Directing:
Pros:

• The tsunami scene is wonderful. It's very suspenseful and intense. If only the rest of the movie were as good.

Cons:

• Every scene is done in the same way so, at times, it almost feels like you're just watching the same thing over and over again. The only exception to this is the wonderful tsunami scene.

Directing score: 47/100

Overall:
The Impossible is a boring, typical, un-original Hollywood drama that's only purpose is to make you cry. It's only redeeming quality is the tsunami scene, which isn't nearly long enough, and the acting, which isn't perfect either.

Acting: 72/100
Writing: 36/100
Directing: 47/100
Overall: 52/100