I had first heard about Harvey Milk several years ago when researching LGBT children and came across Harvey Milk High School. I knew very little of him, and when I heard that Sean Penn and Emile Hirsch were teaming up again after Into the Wild I was ready to see it. I recently finally sat down alone to focus on the historical film. Set in the 1970s Castro area of San Francisco, this film began with shots of the Stonewall Riots and the California reactions before moving into the simpler life of two men who’d just met played by James Franco and Sean Penn.

Sean Penn’s Harvey Milk celebrates his big win.

The chronology of Van Sant’s film covered half a decade as Milk slowly emerged as a voice for the gay and lesbian population of the Castro during this politically charged time. A population materialized around him that included Hirsch who played Cleve Jones one of the biggest gay rights activist of present day and the founder of the NAMES Project AIDS Quilt. Josh Brolin (who I still can’t forget was in The Goonies) played Dan White the suggested closeted, religious family-man politician who assassinated Milk and then Mayor Moscone. Brolin did a nice job as a White albeit the film subtly suggests he was gay himself and fearful of his own identity; that message was relatively ambiguous. Franco, Diego Luna (playing Jack Lira jokingly called “Mrs. Milk” by Jones), and a cast of ensembled characters flesh out an ominous plot that caught me by surprise.

The propositions and events of 1978 mirror today’s events in California, Arizona and elsewhere as even three decades later this group of people still do not have their rights. This was most shocking for me, and for that reason alone, it’s one of the best movies of the year. I think MILK deserves the best picture Oscar over Benjamin Button although I’ve still not see Slumdog Millionaire, the critics underdog darling.

Penn’s performance here mirrored his I Am Sam’s performance from 2001. He was able to immerse himself in these roles to the point where Penn disappeared and Milk became reincarnate. His nomination as Best Actor may be overshadowed by the come back kid, Mickey Rourke.

With 8 nominations this year, this film’s sure to win awards. Brolin has a shot, Gus Van Sant is in a battle of heavyweights, and the screen play is a viable candidate. Strong scores and costume design should fade into the background of the film’s narrative. They both do so here, and they both have a strong shot at winning. See this film.

Been waiting to see The Reader for several weeks now because I am a huge Kate Winslet fan. I’ve not seen all her films, and she doesn’t make Titanic anymore bearable. One of my favorite films of hers is Little Children albeit I still don’t know anyone who has seen it except for me. So I’ve been eager to see some Winslet love. She’s, once again, up for an Oscar this time for playing Hanna Schmitz, an SS guard who was one of six female guards who didn’t stop the death of over 300 prisoners in a burning church. In this film, Winslet the no-nonsense older woman matter-of-factly begins an affair with a young man (played by David Kross and as an adult by Ralph Fiennes) that lasts a summer before she disappears from his life, only to emerge as as on trial SS guard when he’s a law student. This is where their relationship reemerges and only later ends in death.

Winslet’s performance was spot on and wonderful, and Hanna’s biggest secret hidden only from the young Kross and not the audience is not that she’s SS but that she illiterate. How this plays out gives us the title of our film, The Reader. As Fiennes records audio books to mail to her in jail after she allows this secret to be used against her in court.

You know those movies that just bug you and you can’t get over because of all of the holes and unanswered questions? This was that movie. Now while I adored Winslet and was ok with Kross, Fiennes and the story bugged me. Hanna felt so naive during the trial, and even as she answered that they couldn’t unlock the doors to release the women from the burning church, I wanted to yell “Why Not!?” but we never know why not. To me, this felt like half a movie held up by Winslet’s performance.

This film is nominated for Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role, Achievement in Cinematography, Achievement in Directing, Best Motion Picture of the Year, and Adapted Screenplay. I believe Winslet can win the Best Actress category if the Academy doesn’t play it safe with Streep or the black sheep Hathaway pulls an upset. Benjamin Button was a better Adapted Screenplay and Daldry is up against stiffer competition for Director. I did notice the beauty of the Cinematography, but the competition there is daunting, as well. Chances are 2 out of 5 wins.

I am a huge fan of F. Scott Fitzgerald, and The Great Gatsby is one of the best half dozen books yet published in this world, so I walked into Benjamin Button kinda curious of what would happen. I am well aware that millions of dollars were thrown at this film (a ton at the headliners salaries alone). Think Pitt, Blanchett, Ormond, Swinton. Pitt’s face is across the front cover of the poster so you do not forget you’re going to see his film, although in the actual film he didn’t do much for me. It’s difficult to be such a big budget film and not be enjoyable, and I don’t see many places where they could’ve trimmed the 160 minute film but I think I wanted to think more. I didn’t have to think, which made more time to listen to the squeaky theatre seat near me and never forget I was watching Blanchett and Pitt romp around the middle of the twentieth century.

Pitt & Blanchett

Don’t get me wrong. The screen play adaption was done well, the original is on my shelf, and I am curious enough to pick it up, but, as I said, Pitt just plays Pitt for me. Blanchett does wonderfully well, but not Oscar-worthy well (think Aviator’s Kate Hepburn toned way way way down). I did appreciate the juxtaposition of Pitt’s remarks about her blue of Blanchett’s eyes and then his foray with Swinton (who scares the hell outta me with those coal black eyes, pale pale demeanor and skin, and those androgynous features) albeit I hated the banality of the hummingbird who appears twice in the film (this is NO Zemeckis feather motif!!).

If you appreciated the special effects of Forrest Gump or the makeup of other period pieces, then this will be ok for you, too. Since I didn’t even realize Caroline (one of our narrators) was played by Julia Ormond, she must’ve been ok since, for me, she disappeared into character. The characters who age (or some who fail to) are relatively convincingly painted to look their ages, although some ages effects annoyed me when it came to Pitt. Another key player (to a degree) was Captain Mike (Jared Harris) who I appreciated for who and what he represented: an askew father figure in some ways as whimsically absent as Mr. Button (Jason Flemyng) is painstakingly present.

There are no real spoilers here. He dies. She dies. That’s it. But do we care? Some audience members cried, but my question was why? We know the end. I suppose for the same reason people still cry and gasp when Juliet stabs herself in the gut, but for me this film was Forrest Gump meets The Notebook, and it’s one notebook that’s fun for a night and quite forgettable in the long haul.

Been seeing previews for Gran Torino and it looked like a cross between Million Dollar Baby andDirty Harry. The early trailers weren’t doing much for me, but then the secondary trailers had some nice plot development and intrigue. I was more interested in catching MILK or The Reader today, but something drew me to this movie. And you know what that was? It was the BEST MOVIE OF 2008.

Yes, I declared this now. The nominees aren’t out yet even, and I am usually more reserved in my reviews. I just can’t be that reserved here. I literally walked out of the film and wanted to sit in the car and sob. Sob like a little baby.

We know Eastwood is good. He’s always been good, although his gravely voice was off putting (much like Bale’s in another much hyped film). In this film Eastwood plays Walt Kowalski, a Korean war veteran, who’s stuck in back a 1/2 century. His wife recently died, his self-absorbed sons and grand children just suck, and the catholic priest is played by a boy (Christopher Carley) who looks like he just got his driver’s license, although through his tenacity the audience can’t help but want to pinch his cheeks by the second hour in. Eastwood’s gravely snarl is punctuated by the Hmong people who’ve overtaken most of his Detroit suburb. Ever Asian racial slur you could imagine is used by Eastwood in this film and the man sitting next to me scoffing at everyone one were both quite bothersome. It felt overdone to a fault (no I do not hear people actually talk like this anywhere.)

Eastwood saves the life of Thao (Bee Vang) from a local gang and begins to teach the boy to be a man. Thao bugs the hell out of me, not because he’s a “wimp” so much than his mannerisms, haircut (which he could’ve easily changed in a hilarious barber shop scene!), and fact that his true transformation never really comes to fruition except at the very end of the film (and that’s even a week show of it).

I understand this is an Eastwood vehicle all around (included his real life sons), but , for me, Thao’s sister, Sue, stole the show! Introduced as the youngest in a house of women and the older, bossy (well meaning) sister of Thao, Sue is the vehicle who brings the racist and reluctant Walt into the Hmong culture, her home and her people. Ahney Her playing Sue has never acted before, but I was surprised at how refreshingly she holds her own through her seamless banter with one of the most talented actors of his generation. Typically, I am writing these reviews after nominations have been released, and I have no idea if Her will even receive a nod, but here I assert she deserves the nod. Now, for some, being nominated (especially in a first role), is the reward itself, and we both know that Her’ll be up against some talented and experienced actresses. If nominated, I fear she will not win.

Linktribution

Spoilers….Now earlier I mentioned that I sobbed in the end. True. Totally true. This hardass who beats a Hmong gang member, shoves his fists through glass windows, and pokes guns at asians and blacks alike, would be expected to seek out retribution in the same manner as he lived his life through the film. This wasn’t true. This isn’t how it ended. He made a decision for his new family and friends, made good with his dead wife and her priest, and found peace in salvation through his sacrifice of himself for Thao & Sue.

The ’72 Gran Torino that Eastwood never drives in the film weaves itself through the narrative as a harken back to a time when Walt worked for Ford (and put the drive shaft in on the line himself), an american car company, when his wife was alive and his sons weren’t as self-absorbed as they’ve become. Back to a time before when American was “American”. As Walt progressed, developed, and opened himself to Thao, Sue, and his neighbors, the Gran Torino became a symbols of manhood of Thao (who was given permission to take it for his first date) ad a rite of passage for him, as he is given this car, by Walt, in his will at the resolution of the film.

Sue’s simple survival of the rape and beating, Thao’s slow progression to manhood and succession, the priest’s realization of what living and dying really means, brings together a neighborhood, a people, and everything that Walt once felt stratified his neighborhood and his contemporary and disgusting life. A life that he finally lived for those around him, who he came to love.

Ok ok I’ve posted about this before, and here I am again. There’s been a new wave of garbage here. Several of my students showed up recently to my 6:30AM zero hour class and they were tired. Very tired. Two of the girls then bounced into my room with these white and pink ball caps. They were giddy and hurried up to me to show me their new hats.

“Mr Adams, do you like our new hats we got last night?”
“No.”

The girls looked shocked, and asked why. Immediately, I went into a whole class diatribe since obviously half the class had been out the night before catching the midnight showing of High School Musical 3. They were all so excited about this film, and I just couldn’t believe this. I asked them what they think about girls like Vanessa Hudgens (who stars in these movies as an innocent high school girl) who has naked pictures of herself posted on the Internet. Their response was pretty much “So what?”.

So what? I can’t believe our teens today are so desensitized to the objectification of women that this is ok with them. Would these kids want their own naked photos posted? Would they even consider posing? Probably not. When I put it this way, there’s pose. But seriously. These are Disney movies! The Mouse House is suppose to put out these innocent, family products (and I know they don’t!), and then we have people like Hudgens (and Jamie Lynn Spears).

These students just shrugged and several have seen it 2, 3, and 4 times since! I just don’t get it. If you do, come on, please comment below. Explain this to me.

This is the world in which my three year old daughter will grow up, and it’s freaking me out.

Sunday was the Oscar party, and the cake read 8th Annual Oscar Party, when Donna wanted it to read 80th Annual Oscars. Oops! I think it’s been 8 years now, which is cool, and I do believe that our friend Dana has been to every single party. This was a wonderful party, and I think part of that was because we had it catered. We also hired a babysitter for Claire, which is the coolest thing. Hire a babysitter while you are home. Wow. We had about 25 people show up, and Donna and I tied for first place this year with 13 each! We have never tied, and this year may have been my highest scoring year yet. I am an idiot thought since I would’ve had 15 but I picked There Will Be Blood for best director and film — do NOT ask me why! I mean I knew No Country would win, but I think I was too busy preparing to be smart about it. Damnit. So I picked the wrong films. I had MCC friends come, and Basha friends, and friends from neither place. My student teacher brought me some home brewed beer that I am still enjoying, and our friend brought their one year old who enjoyed playing with Claire half the evening. Pictures are forthcoming on flickr.

On the insistence of my student teacher, my next film was Gone Baby Gone. I guess I was in a cardboard box behind Circle K or something, but I didn’t know what this was about either other than the mother character (Ryan) is up for a best supporting Oscar and Casey Affleck is in it. My student teacher said that at times he completely forgot that this character was not ben Affleck, and I agree. I also agree that when we forgot which Affleck it was, I found Casey much more compelling than Ben. This is obscenely surprising to me after hating The Assassination of Jesse James. I am relieved that Affleck was good in this one, because I could not stand his other role.

Minor SPOILERS ahead… Toward the beginning Baby felt like a simple detective story set up South Boston in present day, but then these twists and turns emerged and I began to enjoy it. I had read a review a few weeks ago about how the reviewer totally caught the end immediately, but I didn’t. Perhaps it was my grading while watching or my two year old having me pause it often to deal with her, but I never caught on to the end until I was among it. This all star cast of Affleck (yes, here I will say that), Ed Harris, and Morgan Freeman made this an enjoyable film, while Monaghan’s girlfriend character wasn’t fleshed out enough by director Ben Affleck (yes, you did read that correctly). When she eventually leaves him, I didn’t really care, and when C. Affleck voice-overed her pain of losing Amanda, I didn’t buy it for a second. The twists were just enough to enjoy the movie without getting lost, and B. Affleck’s adaptation from Lehane’s novel was well done, and perhaps some would concur that he was robbed of the adapted screenplay nomination nod.

Not to sure what to think of Michael Clayton before seeing it. I guess I thought he was some real guy, like McCarthy or Charlie Wilson, but I didn’t expect it to be a pseudo-legal thriller. Maybe I thought it was a historical biopic. Anyway, I watched it over a few evenings this week, and I actually did enjoy it. A friend really didn’t enjoy it and couldn’t stay awake, but I found the triumvirate of Swinton, Clooney, and Wilkinson well performed. To begin, I am still trying to wrap my mind around the frame of Clayton (Clooney) standing on the hillside with the three horses as if he’s the fourth horseman of the Apocalypse (the dark one even), and I enjoyed that he was this "ghost" that no one really knew. Albeit I found the narrative characters of his brother and sister’s husband as almost banal, needed plot carriers (the cop who helps him and the drunkard who saves him). Clooney was fine in the film, but I found his substory of owning the restaurant and owing the money almost detracting from the main story, and I wish I understood more about his son’s book in terms of Wilkinson’s character of Arthur. Moreover, the relationship Clooney had with his soon wasn’t fleshed out whatsoever, although I think I still liked the film.

SPOILER Coming….. Perhaps the two shining stars in an otherwise average film were Tom Wilkinson and Tilda Swinton. Swinton’s lawyer begins the narrative obviously distraught about some thing (which it seems turns out to be ordering Wilkinson’s death), and concludes the narrative in a fetal ball of failure and despair, while Wilkinson’s overly neurotic, off medicated maniac was played well. These two characters kept Clooney’s Clayton in check, a Clooney whose pretty boy visage has begun to droop around the jowls. Over all, it was an amusing ride that I enjoyed a little less and less as I write this review. And what was with the guy upstate who’d hit someone with his car? Huh?

Wow. That was long. Too long. I don’t know what I expected but I sure didn’t think I would be so bummed out tonight. It was in several ways the second western I’ve watched and reviewed this week, but while I really enjoyed No Country for Old Men, I wonder why I wasted 2 1/2 hours of my life watching The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. As producer and title character, I don’t know why Brad Pitt was too much of a coward to write a really good story. Affleck’s dopey, wimp with his whiny, homoerotic, pasty undertones lent his performance to that of the film itself.

I sure didn’t vote for Affleck for Best Supporting Actor, but if I had a chance I wouldn’t've done so either. He just really annoyed me, and the Ford brothers did nothing more for me. Even the annoying voice over narration did not allow the viewer to be an educated participant, as it kept trying to narrate what hoped to see on screen. Skip this movie. I wish I had.

I tried to read Cormac McCarthy’s The Road about a year ago, but it’s lack of dialogue is not something I’ve ever been able to appreciate in any literature. I expect some external dialogue and would almost rather have all dialogue than none. Although I could not finish the book The Road, I will watch the movie when it’s released. And tonight I watched another McCarthy adaptation: No Country for Old Men by the Coen Brother’s whose  O’ Brother Where Art Thou? was absolutely not my favorite film. I liken No Country more to their Fargo (starring the wonderful Frances McDormand) with the subtly, mundane motif of fate pulling the puppet strings of humanity in the furthest reaches of Middle America.

Bardem’s buzz is dead on, and albeit I’ve not seen all Oscar nominated films, My God, this man’s already won his Oscar, and I would even contend that his hair should get its own statuette. Bardem plays a terminator-like assassin chockfull of actual emotions. His looping, frame play with the quarter of fate toyed with the idea that in the large scheme of things, everything is absolutely inconsequential and completely noncoincidental all-at-once. He fails to assassinate the first game’s player, while the second it’s understood he’s murdered her before he simply walks for her house as he checks for blood on his shoes.

Although I can barely consider anything Brolin’s ever been in, I think we can agree that Tommy Lee Jones is one of the most talented (and sometimes underrated) actors of his generation. His age, dropping wrinkles, and eyes just add watery charm to his Sheriff’s character who’s subtly torn between bringing home Brolin’s Llewellyn to his wife Carla Jean and retiring from the force. He eventually makes one decision that directly correlates to the other.

If you’re looking for a thinking man’s movie with a paucity of action then enjoy this film. It’s brief staccato violence only enhances our final ironically enigmatic scene with our antagonist, while Jones’ discussion with his wife about a dream in which his deceased father goes ahead of him over snowy mountains to make a fire and await his son’s arrival, truly suggests that the onset of Jones’ final adventure into retirement makes early 1980′s Texas no longer a country for old men, or at least for the men in this book as the screen turns black.