"Les Miserables" Teaser Trailer

"Les Miserables" has been a subject of debate for quite some time now, especially given the post-Oscar dissent that Tom Hooper's last film, "The King's Speech", has often received. I do include myself in that party of distaste with Hooper's dutiful translations to screen. Bad, I don't think I'd go quite so far to claim, but certainly bland and uncinematic. Judging by "Les Miserables", Hooper is sticking to his near-perfectly framed art direction and costume design of the period. The characters, perhaps not so much. I leave that for the performances to decide, and I can definitely see Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway distinguishing themselves in this film, and perhaps newcomer Samantha Banks. But Hooper will have to dial up the style and flair if it's to go beyond simple performance accolades.

The Legacy of "The King's Speech"

It's been about a month since The King's Speech was honored as the 83rd winner of the Academy Award for Best Picture, and all the anger and frustration should have faded away to some degree by now. There is obviously some lingering angst amongst those who are perhaps a little too invested in the highly subjective awards show. I learned pretty quickly that the measure of what film wins Best Picture is not a definite record of what was unanimously the best film of that year. If I were to have my own way, I'd have had Black Swan walk away with the top prize that night, but I would've settled for The Social Network. It didn't turn out that way, and that's honestly fine.

What's not fine is that the film that did win was so quick to change for the general public. A PG-13 version of The King's Speech is set to release next Friday in over 1000 theaters, and all I can help but wonder is why they would make this decision. The film has already made $132.9 million, and that was with the R-rated version that it won the Oscar with. Of course it's probably only going to omit pieces of those two scenes of King George swearing his ass off, but it still honestly feels like they're just pandering, and even more troubling, compromising their initial vision. I wasn't exactly the biggest fan of the film, but I thought it was very entertaining and inspiring, even if greatness evaded it.

Oscar 2010: The Glitz. The Glamour. The Horror.

This is as mixed an Oscar ceremony as there's ever been, in some ways better, and in some ways far worse than last year's messy ceremony. The evening started out promising with a fantastic opening montage of the ten Best Picture nominees. Then Anne Hathaway and James Franco came on, and the MTV Movie Awards style film tribute began. It was distracting, and an omen of terrible things to come. The monologue wasn't that great either, with most of the jokes landing flat on the ground. To her credit, Anne Hathaway did a great job whenever she was on the stage alone, which was sadly most of the time. I can't tell why James Franco decided to sit out most of the ceremony. He made such a big deal about it for the past month. Did anyone else think he was getting high backstage?

The winners started out optimistically, with Alice in Wonderland taking Best Art Direction and Inception taking Best Cinematography. It was enough to suggest that perhaps a major upset was in store for The King's Speech. Instead, as we reached the end, it sunk in that this was just a major misfire. Most of the deserving films and filmmakers in each category weren't rewarded, such as Roger Deakins for True Grit, or Banksy for Exit Through the Gift Shop. True, there were some rewarding winners, such as Natalie Portman for Black Swan, Melissa Leo and Christian Bale for The Fighter, and Wally Pfister for Inception, but none of those could stop The King's Speech from walking away with an undeserved Best Picture win. Much worse, Tom Hooper won Best Director, stealing it away from five more deserving nominated directors, and countless others who weren't nominated. Will Gluck was more deserving for his work on Easy A. That's where I am?

So what did I enjoy about the show? Well, there's the aforementioned opening montage, as well as the montage for Best Picture. Those were effective, but the latter wreaked of The King's Speech. Even the producers of the show knew it was going to win. I'm probably the only one who loved the auto-tune segment, which was hilarious and off-kilter in the best way possible. I just loved it. What was the absolute best part of the show? Kirk Douglas' extended segment, obviously. The man is well past his prime, and that's the best thing about him. He just went on so hilariously, and it was hard not to burst into hysterical laughter at times. However, most times during the show, including those chanting children at the end, were overkill to the nth degree. For that, this is one of the worst shows in recent memory. Perhaps ever. It's something you didn't notice until all the proceedings were done with. Please comment below on your thoughts from the ceremony. Good? Atrociously and irreparably awful? Have at it!

D-

Oscar 2010 Predictions: Director

It's widely assumed that the winner of Best Picture usually comes out with the Oscar for Best Director as well, and it's happened so often that it's become difficult to diverse the two. Based on that assumption, Tom Hooper should by all means be going home with the Oscar tomorrow for The King's Speech, and I pray that that does not happen. That would be a catastrophic blow to the Academy's reputation, because Hooper is completely new to the awards field, and that's beside the fact that his direction doesn't leave any imprint on the feature. It's quite obviously plain and indistinct in appearance, which obviously works for the average moviegoer, but doesn't work with the quality obsessed.

To be honest, I didn't believe that Hooper would even be nominated, because there were such dynamic impressions that the other directors this year gave within their films. I expected Danny Boyle to make it in for carrying 127 Hours right along with Franco. Even more than that, I expected Christopher Nolan to be nominated for Inception, as most others did. The man has created such a wide diversity of moods and expressions across his career, and whenever we felt lost during Inception, he brought the vision to show us the way. There was a forward motion to his direction that kept the project together.

David O. Russell has me in a divided place, because while I have massively lightened up on The Fighter, I still think that he was missing his own personal groove. It was closer to distinction than Hooper achieved. I'll give him that. I'm still greatly impressed with Joel & Ethan Coen's work on True Grit, keeping a streak of gritty authenticity that the film would have been lost without. And David Fincher? Well, seeing as he's the most likely to win this Sunday, he quite obviously brought the goods to the job. He truly reinvented himself, drawing a line away from his past films like Fight Club and Se7en. In every single scene of The Social Network, you can see an attention to detail far beyond any other. To not reward that would be a shame.

Personally, my own interests skew darker than that, and I'm put in favor of Darren Aronofsky for his work on Black Swan. It's quite possibly the most impressive directing job of his career, because I wasn't taken with The Fountain, and The Wrestler was mostly a showcase for Mickey Rourke. Black Swan brims with distinction, creating a fine conceivable line between the two sides of each character and pushing towards the heart of the matter. It's highly meticulous emotional territory, not to mention the specificity required in the world of ballet. Aronofsky no doubt had to take a crash course in ballet like all the actors in the film, just to get into the heart of the world he was creating. It's an emotional feast in the most subtle of ways, always straying away from being too obvious. Unfortunately, this isn't the year Aronofsky wins, and we'll have to wait for that to happen.

1. Darren Aronofsky (Black Swan)
2. David Fincher (The Social Network)
3. Joel & Ethan Coen (True Grit)
4. David O. Russell (The Fighter)
5. Tom Hooper (The King's Speech)

Will Win: David Fincher (The Social Network)
Should Win: Darren Aronofsky (Black Swan)
Potential Upset: Tom Hooper (The King's Speech)
Should Have Been Nominated: Christopher Nolan (Inception)

Awards 2010: Director's Guild of America (DGA) Winner

I don't know why, but the world is just collapsing all around me right now. I am so confused by the awards season right now, because it doesn't make even the slightest bit of sense to me. The DGA Award winners were announced last night, and to everyone's surprise, Tom Hooper ended up winning for directing The King's Speech. I am about to go on a bit of an enraged tangent, so if you just wanted to know who won, then you've been satisfied by now. However, if you want to read me going into how ridiculous this recent turn of events is, by all means continue on.

What is behind the fascination that the Academy and the Guilds have for The King's Speech? Before the Oscar nominations were announced on Tuesday, I was in genuine favor with Tom Hooper's film, and I appreciated it for the inspirational musings of a not necessarily original work. Then the nominations came out, and all that I could be thinking about was how it was unworthy. Twelve nominations is far more than anybody expected, and far more than it deserves. I could've pegged better supporting actresses this year than Helena Bonham Carter's performance. The cinematography is the film was occasionally so plainly straightforward that it a bit distracting. I haven't the slightest clue why it garnered a nod for sound mixing. As much as I love Alexandre Desplat's scores, his least impressive work this year, besides Tamara Drewe, was with The King's Speech.

Even the directing race seems like a bit of a stretch. If asking the overwhelming majority if Tom Hooper's direction defined the film, most would say no. It barely had an impact on how I felt, and certainly not as much as Colin Firth or Geoffrey Rush. I always expected that David Fincher would win Best Director for The Social Network, and now that's going to be a bit of a struggle. If you were to ask me who most deserved to win the category, I would say Darren Aronofsky for Black Swan. He's never quite astounded with his directorial work until now. Still, this is a fight between Hooper and Fincher, and I can't help but believe that the wrong person will win.

Awards 2010: Director's Guild of America Nominations

The guild awards season does tend to seem a little single-faceted at times, mostly because they have one basic category to decide on each. When it comes to the DGA, I'm a bit surprised at the nominations. Most of them are right on the money, but I find it a bit shocking that David O. Russell made the cut for The Fighter while Joel & Ethan Coen were snubbed for True Grit. Other than that, I have no qualms or quarries with this year's nominations. I'm pretty sure David Fincher will end up winning, but I'd like to think that Darren Aronofsky still has a chance.

Outstanding Directorial Achievement in Feature Film
Darren Aronofsky (“Black Swan”)
David O. Russell (“The Fighter”)
Christopher Nolan (“Inception”)
Tom Hooper (“The King’s Speech”)
David Fincher (“The Social Network”)

"The King's Speech" Poster

Despite my overwhelming praise for the film, I must say that I'm highly disappointed by the new poster for The King's Speech. It's glossy in the worst way, with a tagline that just doesn't work. Couldn't they afford something just as textured and prestigious as the cinematography in the film, or is this the best the could do. I hate their marketing campaign, but not the film. Let me know if it's just me getting out of hand or if this poster really does suck, and don't let that keep you from seeing the film.