Burning Questions from the 2014 Academy Awards

Does it speak to my interest in this year's telecast that I didn't bother watching any of the red carpet show?

Even just to laugh at it?

Wait, Jennifer Lawrence fell...again?

Wasn't it a relief not to open the show with a tiresome musical number?

After getting too many of them in recent years, wasn't the absence of musical numbers entirely a relief?

How long before people start complaining they want Seth MacFarlane back?

Is anyone ever going to cut the Oscar host a break?

Isn't it really a thankless job?

How about that Liza Minnelli joke?

Wasn't Jennifer Lawrence a great sport?

Aren't her facial reactions great?

Wasn't the Jonah Hill joke funny?
 
Didn't Ellen do a good job of keeping the monologue short and sweet?

Don't you wish the rest of the show moved as rapidly?

All things considered, didn't she open this pretty well?

Would you have guessed his win would be the first of many, many appearances Jared Leto would make throughout the night?

How about Pharrell's hat?

Was it really wise of me to assume the Academy would give makeup to a film titled, "Jackass Presents: Bad Grandpa?"

Could Harrison Ford come off any grumpier and bored if he tried?

Wouldn't JGL and Emma Watson make a good on-screen couple?

Wait... Kim Novak?!

Does it look like maybe she's had a little work done?

When she came out with McConaughey did you think she was the Yellow King?

Does Gravity insure that everyone will at least correctly predict every technical category?

Why does it look weird seeing U2 performing at the Oscars?

But isn't it nice having actual performances of the nominated songs again?

Does anyone miss dopey musical numbers that would have taken its place?

Did you notice Jared Leto inviting himself into the selfie?

Did you catch Liza Minnelli trying and failing to squeeze in?

Was it just not her night?

Don't we love her anyway since she's Lucille Austero?

Given her recurring vertigo, would she have been a better choice to present with Kim Novak?

Does someone saying they're going to make something the most "retweeted ever" just make you not want to reweet it?

Am I contributing to that epidemic by reposting it above?

Was there really any doubt which photo I'd use?

Does Kevin Spacey win the Oscar for Best photobomb?

Shouldn't he host the show next year...as Frank Underwood?

Michael B. Jordan and Kristen B. Ell?

Can you believe Christoph Waltz is already a two-time Supporting Actor winner?

For the same role?

Was Lupita Nyong'o's acceptance speech on of the few memorably emotional ones in recent years?

Was seeing all these stars deciding on pizza funnier than it had any right being?

Didn't Ellen really commit to that entire bit in an admirable way?

Do we now know the only thing that makes Harrison Ford smile?

Did the whole pizza bit work because it actually looked like everyone was having fun at this event for a change?

Did you see how into it Martin Scorsese was?

Were you as hungry for pizza as I was?

Was Bill Murray's shout-out to Harold Ramis the most moving moment of the night or what?

Isn't is amazing that even here Murray can still shock and delight us?

How do we live in a world where neither of those guys have won an Oscar?

Does anything say The Wizard The Oz more than a performance from Pink?

What's with this whole "heroes" theme?

Should the In Memoriam segment be renamed the "What obscure person was left out so everyone can complain on Twitter" award?

Wasn't it heartbreaking seeing Roger Ebert, James Gandolfini, Harold Ramis and Philip Seymour Hoffman in the montage?

Wasn't Sarah Jones' passing handled strangely, with a message telling us to just go to the web site?

Shouldn't they get credit for at least doing something on such short notice?

When Bette Midler came out did the heroes theme only then start to make a bit more sense?

Did I ever tell you you're my hero?

That you're everything I wish I could be?

ADELE DAZIM?!

Is everyone who went out on a limb to pick Her for Original Screenplay feeling pretty good?

Doesn't Cuaron come off as a great guy?

Did anyone really think Cate Blanchett wouldn't thank Woody Allen?

Do people who think she shouldn't need to get some perspective that we're honoring the work?

Is McConaughey the only Best Actor winner with his own legitimate catchphrase?

Isn't that kind of cool?

Is Will Smith the only Razzie winner to have presented Best Picture the following day?

Didn't the pacing of the show kind of hit a snag in the last hour and a half?

What does it say when keeping it under four hours is an accomplishment?

12 Years an Oscar telecast?

Am I in shock I missed only two categories the entire night?

Am I glad I adjusted my predictions before the show?

Can you believe how many wins Gravity had without taking Best Picture?

Did American Hustle really just get completely shut out?

Despite being hit or miss at times, is Ellen the first host in a while to actually earn a return invite?

Doesn't it seem like we have the same complaints and discussions about the Oscars every year?

Given this year's crop of films, is the 7 percent rise in viewership proof this show was as entertaining as it could have possibly been?

Gravity

Director: Alfonso Cuarón
Starring: Sandra Bullock, George Clooney, Ed Harris
Running Time: 91 min.
Rating: PG-13

★★★ (out of ★★★★)

It's best to get all the misconceptions you've been hearing about Alfonso Cuarón's Gravity out of the way before it can be appreciated for what it actually is. And a "game-changer" it isn't. There have already been many 3D movies and now it's likely there will be even more. Some might be better. Most will probably be worse. And it definitely doesn't have anything in common with 2001: A Space Odyssey, a comparison that certainly doesn't do the film any favors. No mysteries or questions about human existence here. And there's definitely dialogue (arguably too much) within the first twenty minutes and well beyond. It only fits into the science fiction genre in so far as the lengths it stretches plausibility. Yet Apollo 13 doesn't seem like an entirely apt comparison either. It's a straight-ahead human survival story. Think of it as Cast Away in space.

What Gravity does is accurately convey, like very few films before it, is the look and feel of what it's like to be stranded in outer space. If you ever are, you better hope you're not as ill-equipped as NASA medical engineer Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock), who's accompanied on her first shuttle mission by seasoned astronaut Matt Kowalksi (George Clooney), commanding his final mission. And it's a relief she is because it's kind of perplexing, given her lack of knowledge, how anyone thought she'd be able to do this. That's at least a stretch I'm willing to concede because everything else Gravity does well, it does REALLY well. It's 3D how it should be done. Visual effects how they should be done. There's never any doubt what we're watching is completely authentic, even if what we're feeling occasionally doesn't match up. From a story standpoint, I just wish Cuarón would have left more up to the imagination instead of spelling it all out. But everything else is perfect, adding to the frustration of how close it is to being the masterpiece everyone's hailing it as.   

The film opens with a 13-minute unbroken shot as plans to service the Hubble Space telescope are aborted when Russian satellite debris hurl toward the shuttle Explorer, killing all crew members except for Stone and Kowalski, who have lost all communications with Mission Control (voiced briefly by Ed Harris in a clever Apollo 13 nod). Eventually, another dangerous situation arises and they're separated, forcing Stone to fend for herself without Kowalski's guidance. It's to the film's credit that all of this happens very quickly, barely giving us (or literally in Stone's case), an opportunity to breathe. To rest of the movie belongs to Bullock, whose protagonist is not only losing oxygen fast, but must decide whether to wait out a rescue that might never come.

Stone's an emotional mess, which is kind of a departure from what we've come to expect from female leads put into action predicaments. This isn't Ripley from Alien. Not by a longshot. The movie breaks the mold by painting her as a sensitive, scared human being, with the screenplay going to great lengths to hammer that home with a rather weepie backstory that seems distractingly at odds with the cold, sterile nature of the journey we're on. It would have been far more affecting had we known absolutely nothing about her, letting Bullock fill in all the blanks with the performance. That they return to this personal detail multiple times, occasionally during some of the most suspenseful sequences, is a head-scratcher. That this creative blunder hasn't gotten much attention can be chalked up to how much is done right in depicting her fight for survival. This really kicks in when Stone boards the space station and must formulate a plan.

The space station scenes are not only extraordinary for their technical detail (the likes of which really haven't been seen since 2001) and sound, but the nailbiting resulting from Stone battling the elements and the clock. The phrase "It has to be seen in 3D" seems especially applicable, and anyone unconvinced need only watch the embarrassingly awful trailers that come before this film, in which the sloppily executed technology literally adds nothing to the experience other than some murkiness and a potential migraine. Short of putting audiences in a zero gravity simulator, Cuarón seamlessly replicates the feeling of floating in space alongside Dr. Stone. A particular highlight is first person POV shots where can actually see the display screens and reflections through her helmet.

If Bullock's somewhat unfairly maligned Oscar-winning role in The Blind Side fit comfortably into her wheelhouse and played to all her perceived strengths as a performer, this represents as far a departure from that as possible. Maybe the first time we've been asked to take her dead seriously in a super-challenging dramatic role, minus the fluffy baggage that usually accompanies her name as a headliner. The role is also surprisingly physical, dispelling myths that effects-heavy films don't require as much from the actor, as her character unmistakably takes an emotional and physical beating for nearly the entire picture. In one memorable scene, it's plainly obvious the commitment Bullock made to getting into the best physical shape possible for what ends up being a surprisingly grueling part. That's not to sell short the contribution of Clooney, which is greater than it's gotten credit for. As the clear-headed voice of reason and diplomacy early on, he's a perfect counter to her, valuably explaining away leaps of logic in the script we wouldn't believe coming from another, less credible actor. He's also very funny, providing the few moments of levity in a perilous situation.   

If there's any flaw in the depiction of Ryan Stone, it should be attributed to Cuarón, who unwisely leans too heavily on the character emoting (whining?) about how scared she is and that no one will miss her if she's gone. While it may all be true, it should have been implied rather than flat-out stated, and he should have trusted Bullock to convey that personal history without words, just as she does everything else. I was secretly kind of hoping for the approach that was taken with Jessica Chastain's Maya in Zero Dark Thirty, in which the heroine's portrayed as an emotionless machine who doesn't crack until that final cathartic scene. Because the movie waited so long and earned that moment, it's silently devastating. There's none of that here, as it's all emoting all the time with Stone. She's definitely not a strong, competent character which isn't a flaw as much as a creative choice that will play better for some than others. Still, it's inescapable to not point out that the movie is telling us how to feel through this character when a more restrained approach was probably called for. There's no room for sentimentality in a story like this.   

Even as suspenseful and well-paced as Gravity is, there was never any doubt how it would finish. And I'm not sure it's the right ending, given how the rest of the picture prides itself on pinpoint accuracy and technical mastery. By the third act, events definitely take a detour into "Movieland," which should give you an idea how things wrap up. Certain films just scream out for, if not necessarily nihilistic endings, ones that are at least open for interpretation or discussion. This clearly should have been one of those, but Cuarón takes the easy way out, preventing the film from being all it could. Given the commitment to stark realism in every other department of this production, it's tough to justify his decision.

If nothing else, this represents a big step forward for 3D, even if remains to be seen what will be left of the story on the small screen without the benefit of the quick high this presentation provides. If it "needs" to be seen in 3D it'll also be interesting to watch how many movies will try to piggy back on its success and attempt to cash in, much like we witnessed in Avatar's wake. A major technical accomplishment any way you look at it, Gravity raises the question as to how much a film should be judged by its quality versus the actual experience of watching it. It's not all it could be, but it's undeniably a smart entry into the genre that deserves to be seen and admired for the many things it gets right.                             

Children of Men

Director: Alfonso Cuaron
Starring: Clive Owen, Julianne Moore, Michael Caine, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Claire-Hope Ashitey, Charlie Hunnam
Running Time: 110 min.
Rating: R

*** (out of ****)

Alfonso Cuaron's Children of Men, adapted from P.D. James' 1992 novel, is the latest in a long line of films depicting dystopian futures on the brink of self-destruction (think 12 Monkeys, Blade Runner, or 1984). What Cuaron's film has, however, that those other titles don't is that it presents a dark future that's actually somewhat plausible and realistic. It looks like present day... except worse. That's the way it should be. Whether the story is the better for it is up for debate, but there's no doubt that it makes it very interesting to look at and a serious technical achievement.

The right decisions were made for the look and feel of the picture, which is a rare occurance in today's Hollywood system. This is first class filmmaking, yet its brevity prevents it from fully tackling the lofty issues it wishes to address in its sparse running time. While it may not stay with you long after it's over, Clive Owen's performance definitely will. It's one of his very best and anyone familiar with his resume will know how much that's saying.

It's November 16, 2027 and Owen is Theo Faron, a former political activist currently residing in London. The London we see here is one ravaged by terrorism, overpopulation, and environmental destruction. For nearly two decades women have been infertile (although the movie never makes it precisely clear how) and the oldest living human on the planet, an eighteen-year-old named "Baby Diego" has just been murdered, sending the entire country into a further tailspin.

Theo is kidnapped by his ex-wife Julian (an effective Julianne Moore in a smaller role than you'd assume) and she needs a favor. A big one. She needs a travel permit for an African refugee named Kee (Claire-Hope Ashitey) so her and her band of revolutionaries (known as "Fishes") can get her to something known as the "Human Project." a secret group dedicated to saving the human species. Theo obtains the permit from his cousin, which stipulates he must accompany her. The catch: she's pregnant. How she could possibly be pregnant is somewhat of a miracle the movie never really explains, but doesn't have to since miracles don't need to be. Her pregnancy is now the last hope for the human race and it's up to Theo to protect it. What happens in their journey to find the "Human Project" I won't reveal but lets just say it involves the firing of a lot of rounds of ammunition, deaths, and a pot smoking Michael Caine.

What works about Children of Men has more to do with what it doesn't do than what it does. For example, I can't tell you how relieved I was to finally see a movie set in the future where the cars weren't flying and people weren't wearing ridiculous Jetsons style clothes. In a film where the world is coming to an end one would figure the filmmaker would be smart enough to make the right choices, but I bet few would. Director and co-writer Cuaron (Y tu mama tambien and Harry Potter and The Prisoner of Azkaban) is smart enough to do very little to let us know we're in "the future." He realizes it's much more terrifying to give us our world as we see it now, but ravaged by decay, war and neglect. With the direction we're going in these days some of the images and ideas in this film don't seem too far-fetched, and that may be the scariest thing. What we're witnessing in this film doesn't feel that off the mark.

The way Cuaron shoots it is also a lot smarter than you would expect. There seem to be many long uninterrupted takes that give the movie a documentary type feel like every thing is unfolding in real time. That was a very wise choice that gives the film a real sense of urgency and dread I don't think another director could have had the foresight to accomplish. There's a scene late in the film where Theo is on a bus and gunfire erupts. You see blood on the camera lens. Theo gets off the bus and starts running through the streets with the same camera tracking him, blood still dripping from it. If that doesn't make you feel like you're there I don't know what will.

Watching, I was reminded of the original Star Wars trilogy and how George Lucas' attention to detail was such that you could see specs of dirt on the light switch plate in the background of the shot. It's that same kind of detail Cuaron brings to this picture. He took the time to make sure everything was right and realistic given the situation, but that it never causes a distraction or draws attention to itself. It takes a very skilled filmmaker to do that and isn't the kind of work that's immediately noticeable. It shouldn't be because it's so masterfully subtle.

It's getting to the point that whenever I see Clive Owen's name attached to a project I know it's guaranteed to deliver. He's a chameleon who can slip into any role but lately he seems to be specializing in playing ordinary guys thrust into extraordinary situations. A lot of actors do it, but few do it better than he. I don't think anyone he's played has been more ordinary than Theo. He and his ex-wife haven't spoken in 20 years and he's still grieving over the death of their son. How Owen tackles it is interesting because he wisely underplays him. This is a man who's basically dead to the world and walks around in a self induced haze. He could care less about anything and when his character is forced to step into the uncomfortable position of hero we feel like we're right there along with him. He's just a regular guy trying to get through the day hiding his pain with the small bottle of whiskey in his pocket. He never asked for any of this, yet when it happens he does the only thing he knows how to do: help.

Moore, as usual does great work, this time in a small role. While I would have liked to see more of her, the limited involvement makes perfect sense in the broad spectrum of the story. In fact, it's a necessity. Michael Caine is entertainingly loopy as Jasper, an old friend of Theo's and now the only person he can trust to help protect this girl. As Kee, newcomer Ashitey is basically the heart and soul of the film as she conveys the girl's conflicting emotions of anger and hope perfectly. It's actually a very brave performance.

If there's a problem with the picture it's that it settles into a routine of hide-and-seek, making it feel at times like just another action movie, while the story behind it suggests anything but. While it's incredibly exciting (especially the last half hour) I kept waiting for it to take that next step and become something truly special and unforgettable. It never really gets there. Perhaps the film could have used more time to explore all the issues it brought up, but as is it's a very focused and compressed motion picture that doesn't slow down for a second.

I haven't read James' novel on which this film is based but I heard it's a very loose adaptation with many changes. What we're seeing is nearly exclusively the director's vision. I can't say Children of Men breaks any new ground as far as storytelling in this genre, but it is smart and an impressive technical achievement that confirms Cuaron is a filmmaker to keep an eye on.