Hello, movie lovers! Like me, many of you may be rushing around from theater to theater trying to see one of the many films nominated for an Academy Award. I always like being able to predict the winner of each of the major categories, but it becomes increasingly difficult when most of the movies don't appeal to the general public. And, obviously, it's not to due a lack of fine acting, directing, or writing, but rather the massive downer quality of most of these worthy films. I'm a married mom of two who views every evening excursion as time regrettably taken away from de-cluttering the dining room table of bills, insurance claims, parenting articles, and credit card statements. I also know that the babysitting tab will most definitely exceed the cost of dinner and a movie, so I take the adventure of movie-going very seriously. I certainly don't want a film to be more depressing that paying bills, which is somewhat of a downer but does provide a little morsel of satisfaction from knocking something off the to-do list. For those of you who face the same considerations, here's some information that may be of value. (Spoiler Alert: if you are too naive to know the endings of movies and wish to remain in the dark, please stop here.)
Slumdog Millionaire
My husband and I went to see Slumdog a couple of weeks before the Golden Globes with a couple of friends. Unfortunately, we had to prove our friendship by keeping our seats together thereby putting us just four feet away from Mumbai mania. However, the notion of seeing this film appealed to my cinematic snobbery days of my early thirties, where I mostly frequented arthouse showings of obscure, indecipherable plotlines with little and/or foreign dialogue. Once again, I felt like an independent, intelligent woman liberated from watching a movie that wasn't animated or sung, didn't have licensed product or promotional tie-ins, wasn't cast with celebrities that would call to mind tabloids and political statements. But the first ten minutes were brutal, filled with tension, torture, and general terribleness. My Disneyfied heart found it hard to handle, and I squirmed noticeably in my second-row seat giving my husband cause for concern. Although the violence and wretchedness did not diminish, my tolerance increased along the way, and I could only really see half the picture that close up, thereby reducing the heinousness by 50%. The movie was well-acted and the story was intriguing, but watching children living in squalor and subject to unspeakable conditions for two hours made an evening of bill-paying seem like a welcome retreat. At least we were compensated with a happy ending, but we certainly earned it.
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
After receiving 13 nominations, TCCBB became the next movie on the list. The nearly three-hour run time was almost a dealbreaker, but not many would complain of having to pay another $15 of babysitting fees to look at the perfect Mr. Pitt for an hour longer. I've never been attracted to blonde men, but Brad transcends being defined by the color of his hair. However, two thirds of this movie feature Pitt in old, wrinkly form or as a little boy regressing toward infancy, which is really a waste and a shame. I was actually more captivated by the beauty of Cate Blanchett! Anyway, a good story line could have overcome my shallowness, but no such luck. Here was a very long movie about a man who ages backward yet whose personality or behavior NEVER changes! That's right, Benji remains the same calm, nice, dull creature from beginning to end, no matter what his age, whether he's sleeping on a living room chair while his momma gets a booty call in the bedroom, swabbing the decks of a tugboat with a drunken sailor, patronizing a brothel, or taking midnight tea with a married woman. I'm thinking that...I could be reconciling my bank statement and submitting all outstanding insurance claims...maybe Ben didn't show any emotion because it would have screwed up the make-up or visual effects people. Some people have compared TCCBB to Forrest Gump, probably because they both feature a boring special needs person who lives through a few historical events, but the comparison ends there because Forrest Gump was...funnier, better acted? Actually, maybe they are the same.
Frost/Nixon
I have absolutely no interest in seeing this film, at least on the big screen. Neither of the actors or characters are sexy, and director extradordinaire Ron Howard has been prone to saying stupid political things in public, so articles on toddler tantrums and their "big feelings" will get read instead.
Milk
Sean Penn also says stupid political things in public, but we all know that he must be a total nutjob to be such an incredible actor. So he sold his soul to the devil in exchange for his acting talent, and we are drawn to the fire. But the problem with this film is that we all know Harvey Milk dies, and Mayor Moscone, and that the murderer gets a light sentence due to his Twinkie defense, so what clutter will remain on the table for a story already told and still alive in the media archives? Not at easy one to justify.
The Reader
Since "Heavenly Creatures" I've been a big Kate Winslet fan, although I didn't like her cast opposite Leonardo DiCaprio in the boat movie because it looked like she could crush the little guy. Anyway, this movie also stars the amazing Ralph Fiennes, who also engaged in dealmaking at the crossroads. The acting must be mindblowing, but the idea of a sympathetic Nazi criminal is a little off-putting and has a very high downer quotient. But I think the my inner paperwork czarina should be ignored and the cinema snob indulged at least one more movie before the big night.
And the winner is...
