Creator/Writer of Audible Motion & Eyes Open, Thumbs Down. Univeristy of Iowa Alum with a BA in Jornalism and in Cinema. Former member of The Daily Iowan Metro as well as Arts and Culture Staff. I hope to get a job in either print or online journalism.
The following post is a retrospective on not only last night’s Friday Night Lights Series Finale but the entire series as a whole. There are spoilers ahead. So if you haven’t seen this weeks series finale or plan on watching the entire show on your own time – why haven’t you? It’s on Instant – then you best stop reading.
Like most contemporary television shows, I find myself in the awkward spot with Friday Night Lights. I’m not one of the die-hard fans who were there from the premiere all the way to the end. In fact I was against the entire idea of building a show based on the solid sports movie, based on the book of the same name. I even went as far as to playfully mock others on my dorm floor with being captured by what appeared to be (and still is) a predictable sports show pilot. A year later, one of my best friends and fraternity brothers came back to school with the first season on DVD. As soon as he finished a disc, he would pass it on to me. From that point on, we were hooked.
Now that the spotlight on the fictional town of Dillon, Texas has been shut down for good I can say I never felt as connected to a place and its citizens. Yes, The Wire is still the best television drama ever and the understanding it gave me to Baltimore at that time is something this white-suburban male couldn’t find any other way. But I could never see myself, nor would I want, in that world. I would, however, be satisfied growing up in Dillon. I would long leave and go on to bigger and better things beyond football like Julie, Matt, Landry or Tyra but like those characters I can also see the value in living in Dillon which is best summed up by the show’s intro.
This love for Dillon and its citizens kept me through the shows down period which is basically the second season. Said season includes a number of plotlines beyond Landry’s murderous rampage that I completely forgot about (Street and Riggins’ trip to Mexico, Tyra’s short-lived volleyball career and Tami’s sister living with the Taylors). There were others in subsequent seasons (Matt’s internship with the metal sculpture artist) but no matter how off-beat the storylines were, myself and the other dedicated fans stuck with the show with the hope we would be given the glory of that first season and more often than not, we were rewarded.
Through the few failed plots, cast changes and small changes in tone, the show has always had two excellent leads in Kyle Chandler and Connie Britton to hold our attention as seen in the final shots of season three and season five, both of which were meant as a series finale.
There has been plenty said about how Chandler and Britton played the most realistic, happily married couple in the history of television. This is all true so I won’t spend a paragraph discussing it. All I’ll say is hopefully they get their second consecutive Emmy nominations and hopefully a win for at least one of them and go on to lead roles on other shows of a high caliber.
The same goes for the rest of the cast. Some who left the cast early are already making some noise. Gaius Charles (Smash) did four movies in the past two years including Takers, Salt and The Messenger. Minka Kelly is currently in theaters with The Roommate and is in the pilot for the Charlies Angels reboot. Based on their talents seen throughout Friday Nights Lights is potentially endless.
It’s going to be hard to live without a show with the quality of Friday Night Lights, possibly harder than something like Lost. I look forward to hearing friends ask, “Do you know about this show Friday Night Lights,” in the future and revisiting the show with them through a discussion about each season. Until then we’ll have to keep our eyes clear and hearts full and know that the show never lost as it left on its own terms.
Earlier this week, reports rose of Keanu Reeves breaking news of two more films in The Matrix franchise which will be shot back to back, in 3D, and according to Reeves will “truly revolutionize the action genre like the first movie.” While this report was latter deemed inaccurate but still brings up a larger topic. Movie franchises are getting an unnecessary extra film from the technology’s prominence i.e. the latest Chronicles of Narnia film which followed a less than stellar performance from its predecessor.
There has also been a large amount of backlash for Baz Luhrman’s adaptation of The Great Gatsby which is also being filmed in the third dimension. The novel is almost everybody’s favorite book (one of mine too) because they first read it in High School (as did I) so invariably, people hold it very close to their hearts and the unavoidable mistreatment of even the smallest detail will cause distress amongst high school graduates everywhere.
Criticism aside, I would actually be excited for a 3D venture from both the Wachowski’s or Luhrman. James Cameron created an excellent movie experience unique to theaters with Avatar and there are a number of other directors who could play with the tech in unique ways. Here are a few other director I would trust in the third dimension.
Tim Burton – I’m sorry to all the fanboys out there but last years’ Alice in Wonderland doesn’t count. It wasn’t shot in or for 3D. While his more recent films are bogged down in visual effects, his imagination his still rightfully intact as seen in Big Fish, his last great film. Imagine a situation where viewers only put on their glasses during that film’s story sequences. The scene at the circus would be breathtaking.
Steven Spielberg – A bit of an obvious choice and his films are known for crumbling when they over-rely on effects but dammit when his movies work, they pay-off tenfold. Look at something like Minority Report, a film that combines excellent effects and action scenes with a compelling mystery and sci-fi themes. A similar movie may actually make me pay extra for the third dimension.
Christopher Nolan – Inception was a visual feast for the eyes. We’ll have to wait till after The Dark Knight Rises before we get a chance to see Nolan experiment in the third dimension (which is for the better!) but it will certainly be worth the wait.
Wes Anderson – A dark horse to be sure and a director who is certainly capable of causing apathy in his audience (Darjeeling Limited) and I don’t approve of his directing methods for the very good Fantastic Mr. Fox. However, his commitment to mis-en-scene and his film’s overall visual style is amazing. His first 3D film would definitely grab the attention of every hipster and film student in the country.
Are there other directors you would trust with 3D? Would you even want some of these directors to take on the tech? Leave your comments below and check out the poll to left of the screen.
As always, make sure to follow Audible Motion on Twitter at www.twitter.com/audible_motion for news and updates on the blog. Also, be sure to check out my gaming blog, Eyes Open Thumbs Down at www.eyesopenthumbsdown.blogspot.com
Unlike many film lovers, my parents were surprisingly effective at keeping me away from films they deemed inappropriate. Even more surprising I honored their judgment and opinion. More than often, I picked age appropriate titles out at the video store. However, there were times when I’d bring my parents a video and was met with the phrase, “That’s a Grown-up movie.” I would then proceed to find a new choice.
I’ve decided to go back and watch or re-watch some of those films and offer my thoughts on if they were indeed worth the wait or if my parents were protecting me from more than violence, sex, and foul language.
Despite my parent’s stringent stance on films with a rating outside my age range, I experienced Tim Burton’s Batman for the first time at five years-old. This along with my biological alarm clock set for the daily airing of Batman: The Animated Series and the Dark Knight taking up the majority of my action figure collection, the caped crusader was easily my favorite of the comic book characters.
So when I first saw advertisements for the next Batman film in which he would battle The Penguin and Catwoman, I was stoked. I was Batman that year for Halloween, got the Happy Meal toys (before they were pulled) and got the Wayne Manor /Bat Cave play set for Christmas.
However when I wanted to go see Burton’s Batman sequel, I was met with a surprising “No,” which may have been due to stories of parents groups turning against the film, or just word of mouth from my mom’s friends who took their kids to see it opening weekend. All this hype and it surprises me that I never saw the film start to finish until a couple of years ago and just watched it again as I'm on a bit of an all things Batman binge.
It’s interesting to go back and watch the Burton Batman films having now experienced Nolan’s Gotham City. The current trend to favor gritty real-world action in lieu of theatrics definitely dates the Batman of the nineties, especially Burton’s. However since Batman Returns features characters not yet seen in Nolan’s films, this sequel holds up far better than its predecessor. The scope of the film is much tighter with the first films klunky handling of the mob eliminated and characters meant to deepen the universe like Billy Dee Williams’ Harvey Dent left out of the final script. Despite these positives there were still too many characters.
The first major Superhero sequel is also the first to suffer from “too many villains syndrome,” that is now a significant part of the superhero film lexicon. While The Penguin character was always a part of the film, it definitely feels like he character operates outside of the film’s most compelling threads. His master plan of murdering Gotham’s first born is over almost before it even begins. In the film’s best scene and final showdown, he’s nowhere to be found.
It’s funny to think of how The Dark Knight visits the same concept of Batman being no different than the crazy villains he fights and throws in Arkham Asylum, yet back then, everyone talked about the films dark atmosphere and the scary nature of the Penguin. Excluding the Penguin from the film would result in a much more mature film but also less theatrical and action oriented. No one in 1995 – Warners, Audiences or Burton – wanted a Batman film that was a deep meditation on who comprises of Gotham’s truly insane. This would result in a film that would bore more children than it would frighten, upset fewer parents and be an overall better film.
Finally there’s the films last scene – specifically the last shot – that is fresher in my mind than any other Batman moment. The scene marks a strong sense of hope, for both the characters and subsequent films that is truly beautiful. It’s too bad Burton wasn’t given another chance to bring Gotham alive.
Worth the wait or Worse than any inappropriate content: Worth the wait.
Would you like to see more posts in this series or would you rather things stay current? Make your voice heard in the poll to the left.
Remember to follow this blog on Twitter at @audible_motion for updates on new posts and some random thoughts on Film and TV.
At a panel interview with the Hollywood Reporter Mark Ruffalo and Jesse Eisenberg compared David Fincher’s shooting technique – one in which he shoots many takes – to that of legendary director Stanley Kubrick. After the comment, actor Robert Duvall commented that Kubrick’s films contain “the worst performances I’ve ever seen.” He did add that they may be good filmsbut he still thought the acting was terrible.
I currently do not subscribe to the Hollywood Reporters online service so I do not have access to the full quote. You can read more about it on The Onion AV Club here.
I have no interest in criticizing Duvall’s comments (interviews can cause people to simply say things) or point out the great performances Kubrick got out of the likes of Kirk Douglas, Peter Sellers, and Malcolm McDowell – to name a few. What does interest me is whether or not a “great” film can exist with poor performances from its principal actors.
One common thread in modern film criticism is to point out individual actors that give excellent performances in lesser films. Popular recent examples include Kate Winslet in The Reader, Sandra Bullock in The Blind Side, or Jeff Bridges in Crazy Heart (hmm…all Oscar-winning performances). However, it is very rare for critics to praise a film while dismissing the principal performances.
Kevin Smith’s Clerks finds itself in this small group. While Smith wasn’t working with then professional actors, Brian O’Halloran (Dante) and Jeff Anderson (Randal) give sometimes hard to watch performances relative to their performances in the sequel. Each performance is there to reiterate the script, which is interesting considering a popular rumor that Smith never allowed his actors to improvise – a myth he dispelled in the comic-con panel for Zach and Miri Make a Porno. That being said, Clerks is a hilarious film. From its release to this very day, its’ refreshing dialogue opens viewers to a unique brand of comedy and dialogue.
As charming as Smith’s first film is, there is something special about a movie that combines a compelling story, interesting idea and excellent performances. Nearly all universally praised films like Goodfellas or Casablanca are exalted for their themes, technique, and story, directing and yes…acting. These are also all rated higher on iMDB than Clerks. While this can’t be taken as gospel, (movie criticism is subjective…imagine that!) audiences clearly recognize certain films as being “complete,” in this regard.
It’s very rare for a film to earn praise without at least one solid to astounding performance. It’s definitely more common in first films like Clerks or Darren Aranofsky’s Pi. It’s certainly possible, however a poor performance can go a long way to pull viewers out of a film.
What do you think? Are there any films you love that don’t have any especially great lead performances? Is it possible for a film to be great but not have a single good performance? Post your thoughts in the comments below or share them on Twitter @audible_motion.
No new show was built higher... and made to fall farther than HBO's Boardwalk Empire. Even as the highly anticipated premiere approached, a small stream of negative buzz and backlash began to surface.I first saw the ads for the new series as I sat down for The PacificSteve Buscemi's line of pure exposition was fresh and exciting at the time and the proposition of seen Michael Pitt do some serious mainstream work was promising.
The hour and a half long pilot won praise from both the critics and audiences alike. The show averaged 4.8 million viewers - a record for HBO and enough to warrant renewal for a second season. And why not? HBO treated its viewers to the latest feature length production from none other than the man who brought us Goodfellas, Mean Streets and The Departed.The show couldn't possibly fail. But it did...sort of.
While the first episode made great use of the show's elaborate rendition of the Atlantic City Boardwalk with the bustling fanfare of Dixie bands, side-shows and carnival games, the second episode was much quieter focusing more on character interactions than place.
This was to be expected as it’s the pilot episodes job to introduce us to the show's Who, What, Where, and When - it's also worth noting that second episodes are shot well after pilots, and Boardwalkis no exception. Now that the show is nearing the end of its inaugural season (and significantly lower ratings), it's clear that the first episode was vastly different from what the show turned out to be.
In a B.S. Report interview with Lost producer Carlton Cuse, host Bill Simmons asserted Lostwould be the last show of its kind and the days of the big budget network drama were over. Simmons also said the television drama will transform to a series of interpersonal interactions, often indoors and between no more than three characters. HBO's newest drama couldn't represent that transition more clearly.
With this transition, show's such as Boardwalk Empire will serve only to confuse viewers who don't give it a chance. This isn't the epic look at the emergence of organized crime that audiences thought it would be but a small examination of a place and time leading up to The Great Depression and what some will do to make sure they don't fall victim to a very prevalent lower-middle class.
Remember you can follow Audible Motion on its BRAND NEW! Twitter page at twitter.com/audible_motion.
*Sorry for the extended delay. Along with some issues with school I've taken on an internship at Summer of the Arts so I have to dedicate the majority of my time.*
I recently picked up the new Toy Story Blu-Ray's, excited to finally enjoy two films from the end of my childhood (before explosions and four letter words were necessary to entertain me in my teen years). While I definitely got a solid deal on the pair of films, I was also forced to pay for the DVD versions of the films, which will never see the light of day. I also noticed the DVD versions are also sold with the Blu-Ray version, making the size of the box, the only difference.
More studios are including DVD and Digital Copy versions of their films with a Blu-Ray release and while I understand the need to reach a wider audience with the high-def format but I have some problems paying for more than I want and different studios are taking different routes.
Disney
Overall the least offensive of the studios and part of that has to do with their market. As a company that specializes in family entertainment and few households have one blu-ray player and it probably doesn't sit in the kids playroom. Throw in the DVD player that sits in the family minivan and the standard-def inclusion makes sense...for those who want the option.
Pixar's Up is one of my favorites from last year and also one of the prettiest. I'd love to pick up a copy in glorious 1080p but unfortunately the only option for blu-ray owners is to drop around $30-35. The "four disc" set include a blu-ray copy of the movie, the blu-ray special features, a dvd version of the film and a digital copy. Before the DVD combo pack was a big hit, Pixar's previous entry Wall-E came with the blu-ray disc, a second disc for blu-ray special features. Customers also had the option to buy the film with a digital copy but i gladly ignored.
If Disney is intent on keeping its DVD combo packs for a long time, (and it appears they are), then they should consider abandoning digital copy. Or make a special dvd version that can be copied to a computer one time. I don't know if it would save the consumer money but it's worth a shot.
Others
MGM is the newest studio to sprain their ankle by jumping on themulti-format bandwagon by releasing and re-releasing some of their blu-ray catalog with a DVD version.
The studios must really be worried that people didn't make the leap to Blu-Ray last holiday season the way they all bought HDTV's. I only ask that they don't increase the price to an already expensive new format.
Alright everybody here it is...the same thing that every magazine, newspaper, and self-proclaimed critic with a blog is posting this week. I'm sorry for the dead time. I will go into who should win, who will win, The Dark Horse and who the academy missed. Keep in mind I haven't seen The Blind Sideor Crazy Heart so i won't have much to say about those films. Best Actress In A Supporting Role
Who Should Win: Moniquefor Precious-It seems like the supporting categories are always sure things and this year is no different. Monique manages to create arguably the worst mother on film, and then gets a bit of the audiences sympathy from the monologue near the end of the film.
Who Will Win: Moniquefor Precious-Like I alluded to before, this one is no contest. However, the other reason she will walk away with the trophy is because it will be the films only award that evening. Dark Horse: Anna Kendrick for Up In The Air-Who knew the tightly wound girl from Rocket Science was this good? She was as close to a foil for George Clooney's character as possible and the heart of the film.
Who Was Snubbed: Melanie Laurent for Inglorious Basterds-Arguably a lead performance but the film is an ensemble piece so she belongs here. Her performance helps save what could've been the boring non bastard part of the film and makes it the best part of the movie. Best Animated Film Who Should Win: Up-The 3D glasses got misty in the first 10 minutes but I'm not giving the award for just that scene. The rest of the film was just as good. Who Will Win: Up-It's Pixar and the movie is really that great.
Dark Horse: The Fantastic Mr. Fox-I haven't seen the film yet but it stands out enough to give it a shot.
Who Was Snubbed: Monster's vs. Aliens 3D- I really enjoyed this funny and charming film that had a surprising amount of substance.
Best Actor In A Supporting Role
Who Should Win: Christoph Waltz forInglourious Bastards-If you haven't seen this brilliant performance yet, what are you doing reading this?
Who Will Win: Christoph Waltz forInglourious Basterds-This is a runaway. Nothing else comes close.
Dark Horse: Woody Harrelson for The Messenger-This year is for Woody Harrelson what last year was for Robert Downey Jr. (albeit to a lesser extent). I haven't seen this one yet but I haven enough faith in Harrelson that im gonna call this. Who Was Snubbed: Peter Sarsgaard for An Education-Even though I knew where the film was going, I was still taken with his charm. I was also surprised at how well his accent came through.
Best Adapted Screenplay Who Should Win: Nick Hornby forAn Education- A great script from Hornby, who may in fact be one of the best writers of his generation.
Who Will Win: Jason Reitman, Sheldon Turner for Up In The Air-I believe the Academy is in sync with me on this one. The film is going to get shut out of every category so they'll give it to this heartwarming picture.
Dark Horse: Nick Hornby for An Education-Another case where a great and highly acclaimed film will be shut-out come Sunday night.
Who Was Snubbed: Peter Morgan, David Peace for The Damned United-Great story, and structure. Helped make a sport i have little to no interest in, well interesting. Best Original Screenplay
Who Should Win: Quentin Tarantino for Inglourious Basterds-Honestly, it wouldn't stand a chance up against most of the scripts in the adapted category but compared to it's competition, it's the clear front runner - and if Avatar win's for being "Original," it will be a rough night. Who Will Win:Quentin Tarantino forInglourious Basterds-This award is often given to the third runner-up (Eternal Sunshine). While The Hurt Locker is an academy favorite (and one of mine) it's screenplay isn't as defined as Bastards.
Dark Horse: Joel Coen, Ethan Coen for A Serious Man-Sadly, I think the Coen's film will go home empty handed come Sunday night but then again the Academy loves the Coens and they may just get away with this one.
Who Was Snubbed: (500) Days of Summer - My pick for snub of the year but all that aside - The structure and dialogue blew me away.
Best Actress in a Lead Role
Who Should Win: Carey Mulligan for An Education-What a discovery! It's one thing to act as a child and adult but to be a child who thinks shes an adult? Brilliant.
Who Will Win: Sandra Bullock for The Blind Side-Bullock is one of those actors whose appeal isn't a mystery to me but the way women absolutely LOVE her is a little unclear to me. Again, clearly a favorite in an overall weak category. Should win no problem.
Dark Horse:Gabourey Sidibe for Precious-As a white, upper middle class male from the Chicago suburbs, I was worried that I wouldn't be able to connect with the lead character or the film for that matter. Sidibe drew me in and blew me away. Even with a weaker category this year, I'm bummed she isn't getting the hype she deserves. Who was Snubbed: Zooey Deschanell for (500) Days of Summer-This is the role Deschanell was born to play. Not only does she play a Manic-Pixie Dream Girl but she plays a parody of one as well. Best Actor in a Leading Role
Who Should Win: George Clooney for Up In The Air-There should be an asterik on this one as I've only seen two of the performances nominated (Clooney and Renner). However I did really enjoy Clooney here and whenever he retires, this will be one of the roles we remember him for.
Who Will Win: Jeff Bridges for Crazy Heart-I haven't seen the film yet but Bridges seems to be the runaway favorite. It may be a bit of a life time achievement award but its well deserved.
Dark Horse: Jeremy Renner for The Hurt Locker-Anyone who can show both sides of an Iraqi soldiers persona and do it seamlessly deserves some recognition. I just can't see him withstanding Clooney or Bridges.
Who Was Snubbed: Joseph Gordon-Levitt for (500) Days of Summer- In The 40 Year-Old Virgin Paul Rudd speaks about love. "Of course it's horrible. It's suffering and it's pain and it's... You know, you lose weight and then you put back on weight, and then you, you know, you call them a bunch of times and you try and email, and then they move or they change their email, but that's just love. " Joseph Gordon-Levitt captures all of this perfectly and it's a shame he won't be recognized. Best Director
Who Should Win: Kathryn Bigelow for The Hurt Locker-Bigelow really surprised me here as I never thought the woman behind Blue Steel and K19: The Widow Maker, would make a film like this. Credit is also due for putting together a movie about Iraq that doesn't suck.
Who Will Win: Jame's Cameron for Avatar-I've ignored, and had a few jabs, at James Cameron's epic thus far. I should be clear that I actually enjoyed the movie despite all its flaws. Let's face it Jimmy Cameron knows how to put together an action sequence and the last hour is a perfect example. Also, the Academy isn't gonna leave the Navi without their own little tree of life.
Dark Horse: Quentin Tarantino for Inglorious Basterds-He won a writing oscar in 1995 but one of today's most iconic directors still hasn't won for his work behind the camera. It'd be nice if the academy made this write but unfortunately the competition is too heated.
Who Was Snubbed: Marc Webb for (500) Days of Summer-If it isn't clear, I loved this movie and first-time feature director Marc Webb did an exceptional job with the popular dance sequence, and the split screen scene. Again the competition is steep but a nod would have been nice.
Best Picture
Who Should Win: Inglourious Basterds (Lawrence Bender)-What better film to win best picture than one that has such a love for other movies. Yes, this is the film geek in me speaking but very few films get better with multiple viewings. Besides, Tarantino is due.
Who Will Win: The Hurt Locker (Kathryn Bigelow, Mark Boal, Nicholas Chartier, Greg Shapiro)-A great movie regardless of any of the recent criticism of the films depiction of soldiers or Bigelow's out spoken political agenda behind the film. It had me on the edge of my seat the way very few other films did and everyone else is finally taking notice.
Dark Horse: Inglourious Basterds (Lawrence Bender)-The way the ballots are made this year actually hurts films that are heavy favorites (Avatar & The Hurt Locker), making room for movies like Basterds to pull the upset. Still, bomb squads in Iraq and giant blue smurfs may be just to big to stop.
Who Was Snubbed: (500) Days of Summer-Even with ten nominations, the academy still gets it wrong. The closest thing we will ever come to a modern day Annie Hall.
Bonus Snub: Stu's Song from The Hangover for Best Original Song-If the academy really wanted to get ratings for the telecast, they would've let Ed Helms tickle the ivories for this hilarious song.
Remember to follow the blog on Twitter at twitter.com/audible_motion where I'll be live tweeting sunday nights festivities. Also make sure to check out the poll to the left of the screen.
