Hooligans Sportsbook

Movies and TV

  • Start date •
  • Replies
    13,836 Replies •
  • Views 1,009,073 Views
Follow
The Impossible (2012) - Probably the last movie in my 2013 Oscars quest. Naomi Watts nominated for Best Actress here.

Decently done movie about a family in Thailand when it was hit by the big tsunami of 2004 (??) Some jaw-dropping scenes and effects recreating that massive natural disaster.

Ultimately it is the sort of movie where you just let all your emotions off the leash and let them run wild. It is very manipulative with the ups and downs at times. It is not subtle at all. I guess it is up to each person how much they are going to go with it.

Naomi Watts was very good. She had a lot of real out-there acting to do, and she did a great job. As the years progress, acting nominations seem to become more about capturing subtlety and being effectively understated. This was not that performance. This was raw and harrowing.

I'm mulling over how that category stacks up.

As for the overall movie, it's good. The historical event being captured was truly mind-boggling - that aspect was really well done I thought. And I was pretty much willing to go along for the emotional ride although some minus points for some moments of the most conspicuous movie-ish manipulation.

But it's good.



7 out of 10.



the-impossible-movie-review.jpg
 
Well okay so let's talk about Best Actress. Here's the deal:


115 Jennifer Lawrence (Silver Linings Playbook) -185
116 Jessica Chastain (Zero Dark Thirty) +400
117 Emmannuelle Riva (Amour) +275
118 Naomi Watts (The Impossible) +3300
119 Quvenzhane Wallis (Beasts of the Southern Wild) +6600



I include the odds but again, I am talking about my vote, not my expectation.

Some real apples and oranges comparisons here.

First of all, the 6 year-old Wallis was adorable as all get-out, but the nomination is her reward. Jennifer Lawrence continues to ride this weird mass-hysteria hype machine. No chops. Out of the question.

Emmanuelle Riva was very good. Maybe it's her.

I like Jessica Chastain but something about that performance was just uninspiring to me. Can't quite put my finger on it - maybe because the movie itself was so much like homework, I wasn't totally focused. I don't know.

Naomi Watts was very good at something completely different. Terror, hysteria, exhaustion, a physical struggle against severe injuries. I think she would have my vote except she wasn't always completely convincing. I found there were a few moments of, "Oh, I'm watching an actor acting."

This would be a tough vote for me to cast. I guess they ultimately stack up this way for me.



Emmanuelle Riva
Jessica Chastain / Naomi Watts







Jennifer Lawrence / the little kid
 
I caught The Boys and Girls Guide to Getting Down the other night. I think 15 years ago I would have enjoyed this much more, it's basically a guide to partying with what I would say could be some decent tips for some of the younger people here with certain habits. Had some somewhat comical moments. Pretty bad acting all the way around but I did keep it on so 6 Camminipples for that fact alone.
 
So what else we got? Lemme see . . .


BEST DIRECTOR





MICHAEL HANEKE - AMOUR
+1500


BENH ZEITLIN - BEASTS OF THE SOUTHERN WILD
+3000


ANG LEE - LIFE OF PI
+300


STEVEN SPIELBERG - LINCOLN
-3000


DAVID O. RUSSELL - SILVER LININGS PLAYBOOK
+1900




In terms of this specific Oscar category, I had an epiphany a few years back when Clint Eastwood for Million Dollar Baby beat Scorsese for The Aviator.

What I realized was: I have absolutely no idea what they are looking for.

So this year? It really does strike me as ridiculous that Amour would be nominated over The Impossible, Zero Dark Thirty, Argo. Gimme a few minutes and I'll think of some more. Like Amour or not, the whole thing basically takes place in one apartment with seldom more than a couple actors at a time. Just not much to direct. Point the camera and let the actors do their thing. Silver Linings Playbook has more than that going on visually but still - pretty standard romcom presentation. Not quite the directorial demands of recreating a tsunami and aftermath, I would have thought.

But whatever - as I say, I have no idea what they are looking for.



I can see the Spielberg nod. I'll go along with that. :dunno:
 
The Five-Year Engagement (2012) - Well it's harmless. Unfortunately it's kind of inspirationless too. Very formulaic romcom.

The leads are generally appealing, I'll say that. Emily Blunt and Jason Segal. The whacky surrounding cast is as by-the-numbers as it gets. It's TOO LONG. Over 2 hours. keep your formula romcoms in the 90-100 minutes range people! There was so much attempted zaniness that landed with a thud that could easily have been cut.

Only other remarkable thing: it had the gorgeous Alison Brie whom I was raving about recently. First time I have seen her in anything besides Mad Men and I was pleasantly surprised when she turned up. She was playing Emily Blunt's sister which had me wondering the whole time, "Why does this British girl have an American sister?" In reading about it afterwards, apparently Alison was doing a British accent the whole time. I absolutely did not notice. Ima say Meryl Streep has nothing to worry about in the authentic accents department.

I guess if you like the romcom genre, this would be above average. I can't go higher than 5.4 out of 10.



five-year-engagement.jpg
 
Mudcat
Not true at all. I have seen many people who are not just disinterested - but in the most self-congratulatory terms.
Click to expand...

Calm strike maybe, but I didn't really mean it that way. I guess it always comes off as very People Magazine to me (personally). Muddy I know you like it-that's fine. Wasn't taking a shot, just saying it's not my thing and it seems like a lot of others really love it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.