The Savages's Recent Activity

list The Savages's Recent Activity - Spout http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around The Savages on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg The Savages's Recent Activity - Spout http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 Film:The Savages http://www.spout.com/films/The_Savages/281996/default.aspx

Title: The Savages
Year: 2007
Director: Tamara Jenkins
Plot: A pair of siblings are forced to set aside their discomfort with one another for the sake of their father in this low-key comedy-drama from writer and director Tamara Jenkins. Wendy Savage (Laura Linney) is a struggling playwright living in New York City who works a day job to support herself and can't shake the feeling that she's failed as an artist. Wendy isn't especially happy about her love life either, gaining little self-esteem from her on-and-off relationship with oversexed neighbor Larry (Peter Friedman). Wendy's anxieties about her writing career are intensified by the success of her brother Jon (Phillip Seymour Hoffman), who teaches theater history at a college in Buffalo, New York and has published a number of books. While Jon's life seems fine on the surface, a care of writers' block has stalled work on his latest project, and he's deeply upset that his girlfriend is soon to leave the United States to return to her native Poland. Wendy and Jon don't get along and prefer not to see one another, but an unfortunate circumstance brings them together -- their father Lenny Savage (Philip Bosco). Elderly Lenny has began showing signs of dementia, and when he begins smearing his feces on the walls of his Arizona home, his girlfriend announces she's though with him, shortly before she suddenly dies. Wendy and Jon have little choice but to fly to Arizona and see what can be done for Lenny, but their long-simmering animosity makes it hard for them to deal with the realities of Lenny's condition. The Savages received its world premiere at the 2006 Sundance Film Festival. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 40
Number of Lists: 22
Number of blog posts: 11
Number of discussion threads: 3
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Sat, 23 May 2009 21:30:44 GMTThe Savages2007Tamara JenkinsA pair of siblings are forced to set aside their discomfort with one another for the sake of their father in this low-key comedy-drama from writer and director Tamara Jenkins. Wendy Savage (<a href="/players/P____42589/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Laura Linney</a>) is a struggling playwright living in New York City who works a day job to support herself and can't shake the feeling that she's failed as an artist. Wendy isn't especially happy about her love life either, gaining little self-esteem from her on-and-off relationship with oversexed neighbor Larry (Peter Friedman). Wendy's anxieties about her writing career are intensified by the success of her brother Jon (Phillip Seymour Hoffman), who teaches theater history at a college in Buffalo, New York and has published a number of books. While Jon's life seems fine on the surface, a care of writers' block has stalled work on his latest project, and he's deeply upset that his girlfriend is soon to leave the United States to return to her native Poland. Wendy and Jon don't get along and prefer not to see one another, but an unfortunate circumstance brings them together -- their father Lenny Savage (<a href="/players/P_____7519/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Philip Bosco</a>). Elderly Lenny has began showing signs of dementia, and when he begins smearing his feces on the walls of his Arizona home, his girlfriend announces she's though with him, shortly before she suddenly dies. Wendy and Jon have little choice but to fly to Arizona and see what can be done for Lenny, but their long-simmering animosity makes it hard for them to deal with the realities of Lenny's condition. The Savages received its world premiere at the 2006 Sundance Film Festival. ~ Mark Deming, All Movie Guide40Tag Target (>10)221133http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/s281996.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/The_Savages/281996/default.aspxFilm Spout Post: The Savages (2007) http://www.spout.com/blogs/kowalski76/archive/2008/10/16/36390.aspx

Post By: Kowalski76
Post To: Rebellious Celluloid
Post Date: 10/16/2008 10:08:32 AM
Body: The Savages subtle brand of humour and thoughtfulness make for a deeply funny superbly acted film. I haven't seen Tamara Jenkins directorial debut 'Slums of Beverly Hills' but if it's half this good I won't leave it long. Hoffman and Linney work brilliantly together, it was a pleasure to watch them tackle the complexities of the subject matter.
]]>Thu, 16 Oct 2008 14:08:32 GMTKowalski76Rebellious Celluloid10/16/2008 10:08:32 AMThe Savages subtle brand of humour and thoughtfulness make for a deeply funny superbly acted film. I haven't seen Tamara Jenkins directorial debut 'Slums of Beverly Hills' but if it's half this good I won't leave it long. Hoffman and Linney work brilliantly together, it was a pleasure to watch them tackle the complexities of the subject matter. Spout Post: Movie Journal: The Savages http://www.spout.com/blogs/christhilk/archive/2008/9/3/34712.aspx

Post By: ChrisThilk
Post To: ChrisThilk Blog
Post Date: 9/3/2008 8:01:11 PM
Body: A lot less out-and-out funny than the marketing campaign made it out to be, The Savages is still very enjoyable and features one great performance and one pretty good performance from the two leads actors. The great performance comes from Philip Seymour Hoffman while the pretty good one comes from Laura Linney, a rare non-relavatory outing from her. The two play a brother and sister who don’t see each other very often but who are once again brought together by the sickness and impending death of their aging father. The marketing included a focus on the handful of funny scenes from the movie, scenes whose humor generally comes from the very human interactions between the siblings. While I don’t feel the campaign was misleading in any way, it did present a movie that was more in the Juno-type vein than something that’s much more serious-minded. Hoffman’s performance is note-perfect. He portrays the son/brother as someone who is kind of floundering in his life but who is at least able to function as an adult even while obviously suffering from a variety of emotional issues, most of which are tied to the fact that both father and mother were absent. Linney’s character is a bit more broadly comic, a woman who seems to give in to every self-destructive impulse she has and whose only comfort is self-medicating with whatever pain-killers or other drugs cross her path. While neither of their arcs really go anywhere until the last 15 minutes, Hoffman simply seems to do more with what he’s given in the time leading up to that than Linney does. She’s very good but just doesn’t seem to be up in this instance to taking the character off the page. For me, at least, this isn’t her best performance and yes it pains me to say that. Still, The Savages is both interesting and explorative, striking a number of poignant, interesting and even sometimes funny chords. Originally posted on:Chris Thilk
]]>Thu, 04 Sep 2008 00:01:11 GMTChrisThilkChrisThilk Blog9/3/2008 8:01:11 PMA lot less out-and-out funny than the marketing campaign made it out to be, The Savages is still very enjoyable and features one great performance and one pretty good performance from the two leads actors. The great performance comes from Philip Seymour Hoffman while the pretty good one comes from Laura Linney, a rare non-relavatory outing from her. The two play a brother and sister who don’t see each other very often but who are once again brought together by the sickness and impending death of their aging father. The marketing included a focus on the handful of funny scenes from the movie, scenes whose humor generally comes from the very human interactions between the siblings. While I don’t feel the campaign was misleading in any way, it did present a movie that was more in the Juno-type vein than something that’s much more serious-minded. Hoffman’s performance is note-perfect. He portrays the son/brother as someone who is kind of floundering in his life but who is at least able to function as an adult even while obviously suffering from a variety of emotional issues, most of which are tied to the fact that both father and mother were absent. Linney’s character is a bit more broadly comic, a woman who seems to give in to every self-destructive impulse she has and whose only comfort is self-medicating with whatever pain-killers or other drugs cross her path. While neither of their arcs really go anywhere until the last 15 minutes, Hoffman simply seems to do more with what he’s given in the time leading up to that than Linney does. She’s very good but just doesn’t seem to be up in this instance to taking the character off the page. For me, at least, this isn’t her best performance and yes it pains me to say that. Still, The Savages is both interesting and explorative, striking a number of poignant, interesting and even sometimes funny chords. Originally posted on:Chris Thilk Spout Post: The Savages http://www.spout.com/blogs/jimbell/archive/2008/9/1/34620.aspx

Post By: JimBell
Post To: JimBell Blog
Post Date: 9/1/2008 3:03:03 PM
Body: JJ79, I enjoyed you detailed and thoughtful review of The Savages (2007). Few people ever comment on others’ reviews on Spout, so I’d like to comment on yours, for a change. Your main point is that neither Wendy (Laura Linney) nor Jon (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) “give us enough to latch onto,” that the movie “never gives us a reason to care about either one of them.” Although I agree the characters can be annoying, the movie does try to make them somewhat sympathetic. We learn in bits and pieces how dysfunctional their family was—mother essentially not there, father physically abusive to the son as the father’s father was to him. Although the movie does not connect all the dots, we see the sorry outcome of this sad upbringing: Wendy, who is smart, talented, and good-looking, has no self-confidence; Jon, who is smart, talented, and emotional, tries to restrict himself to the intellectual in both his academic career interests and in his personal life. One reaction to these characters is, as you say, to want to give them a good slap. I could see this reaction if the characters felt sorry for themselves. But far from whining, they soldier on, trying to overcome the worst of their upbringing and character traits. I know you object that “the children learn nothing,” but I think for all their trying, they do improve. As the movie draws to a close, Jon is, tentatively of course, headed for Poland to possibly reunite with a woman who loves or loved him. His mumble about meeting her family suggests that he is open to the permanent commitment that he previously refused. In addition, Jon and Wendy develop a better relationship. They have moved from distant (early in the film) to confrontational (yelling at each other about research grants) to where Jon gives Wendy substantial praise for her play—that’s probably the most important thing he could do for her at that moment. The movie ends by focussing on Wendy’s growth. When she gave up her pathetic affair with a married man, she asked for and got his old Golden Retriever that he was going have put down because of its hip dysphasia. The last shot in the film is of her jogging with the dog who has obviously had the expensive surgery and is rehabilitating with training wheels. Wendy has become less self-absorbed and able to do something for another living being. She has broken out of her passivity and taken action. This change occurred gradually—first being forced into taking care of her father in Arizona, to decorating his room in the Buffalo old-folks’ home, to looking for alternative accommodation for him, to somehow getting her play produced. Significantly, her proactive commitment is not an easy one (say, to a cute little puppy) but to an old dog with health problems. In contrast to her ex-lover who was going to take the easy way out and simply have the dog put down, she invests the money (she has little money and the vet bills are high) and the effort with no guarantee that the rehabilitation will work or the old dog will live much longer. Although Wendy has not learned how to bring peace to the planet, she has made a realistic and salient change for her. On another note, I agree that the look of the movie is superb. W. Mott Hupfel III makes statements with his camera which, juxtaposed with what is supposed to be going on, generate an on-going critique. This visual commentary is set up in the opening scene: The elderly ladies doing 1930s choreographed dance routines on a lawn in front of a verdant hedge look idyllic; then the camera pans to show the desert and ticky-tacky houses of an Arizona retirement community. Interestingly, the music supplies another layer of commentary. The tinkley but not annoying original music often plays over a serious scene suggesting, accurately when you think of it, that the people in the serious situation are not being straight-forward and honest with each other or, sometimes, with themselves. The movie is brilliant. But simultaneous, multiple layers of critique also keep the movie from generating much warmth, a feeling you clearly experienced. I admired the maturity of the writing, the wit of the critique, and the importance of the topic enough to really like the movie at somewhat of a distance.
]]>Mon, 01 Sep 2008 19:03:03 GMTJimBellJimBell Blog9/1/2008 3:03:03 PMJJ79, I enjoyed you detailed and thoughtful review of The Savages (2007). Few people ever comment on others’ reviews on Spout, so I’d like to comment on yours, for a change. Your main point is that neither Wendy (Laura Linney) nor Jon (Phillip Seymour Hoffman) “give us enough to latch onto,” that the movie “never gives us a reason to care about either one of them.” Although I agree the characters can be annoying, the movie does try to make them somewhat sympathetic. We learn in bits and pieces how dysfunctional their family was—mother essentially not there, father physically abusive to the son as the father’s father was to him. Although the movie does not connect all the dots, we see the sorry outcome of this sad upbringing: Wendy, who is smart, talented, and good-looking, has no self-confidence; Jon, who is smart, talented, and emotional, tries to restrict himself to the intellectual in both his academic career interests and in his personal life. One reaction to these characters is, as you say, to want to give them a good slap. I could see this reaction if the characters felt sorry for themselves. But far from whining, they soldier on, trying to overcome the worst of their upbringing and character traits. I know you object that “the children learn nothing,” but I think for all their trying, they do improve. As the movie draws to a close, Jon is, tentatively of course, headed for Poland to possibly reunite with a woman who loves or loved him. His mumble about meeting her family suggests that he is open to the permanent commitment that he previously refused. In addition, Jon and Wendy develop a better relationship. They have moved from distant (early in the film) to confrontational (yelling at each other about research grants) to where Jon gives Wendy substantial praise for her play—that’s probably the most important thing he could do for her at that moment. The movie ends by focussing on Wendy’s growth. When she gave up her pathetic affair with a married man, she asked for and got his old Golden Retriever that he was going have put down because of its hip dysphasia. The last shot in the film is of her jogging with the dog who has obviously had the expensive surgery and is rehabilitating with training wheels. Wendy has become less self-absorbed and able to do something for another living being. She has broken out of her passivity and taken action. This change occurred gradually—first being forced into taking care of her father in Arizona, to decorating his room in the Buffalo old-folks’ home, to looking for alternative accommodation for him, to somehow getting her play produced. Significantly, her proactive commitment is not an easy one (say, to a cute little puppy) but to an old dog with health problems. In contrast to her ex-lover who was going to take the easy way out and simply have the dog put down, she invests the money (she has little money and the vet bills are high) and the effort with no guarantee that the rehabilitation will work or the old dog will live much longer. Although Wendy has not learned how to bring peace to the planet, she has made a realistic and salient change for her. On another note, I agree that the look of the movie is superb. W. Mott Hupfel III makes statements with his camera which, juxtaposed with what is supposed to be going on, generate an on-going critique. This visual commentary is set up in the opening scene: The elderly ladies doing 1930s choreographed dance routines on a lawn in front of a verdant hedge look idyllic; then the camera pans to show the desert and ticky-tacky houses of an Arizona retirement community. Interestingly, the music supplies another layer of commentary. The tinkley but not annoying original music often plays over a serious scene suggesting, accurately when you think of it, that the people in the serious situation are not being straight-forward and honest with each other or, sometimes, with themselves. The movie is brilliant. But simultaneous, multiple layers of critique also keep the movie from generating much warmth, a feeling you clearly experienced. I admired the maturity of the writing, the wit of the critique, and the importance of the topic enough to really like the movie at somewhat of a distance. Spout Post: Re:Top 5 Performances in Sub-Par movies http://www.spout.com/groups/Top_5/Re_Top_5_Performances_in_Sub_Par_movies/190/31430/1/ShowPost.aspx

Post By: atacta
Post To: Top 5
Post Date: 6/19/2008 4:32:28 PM
Body: five that come to mind............... Gene Hackman - French Connection II - The French Connection II (1975) Jim Carrey - The Number 23 - The Number 23 (2007) Philip Seymore Hoffmann - The Savages - The Savages (2007) Richard Gere - Pretty Woman - Pretty Woman (1990) Cate Blanchett - Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull - Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)
]]>Thu, 19 Jun 2008 20:32:28 GMTatactaTop 56/19/2008 4:32:28 PMfive that come to mind............... Gene Hackman - French Connection II - The French Connection II (1975) Jim Carrey - The Number 23 - The Number 23 (2007) Philip Seymore Hoffmann - The Savages - The Savages (2007) Richard Gere - Pretty Woman - Pretty Woman (1990) Cate Blanchett - Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull - Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008) Spout Post: The Savages (2007) http://www.spout.com/blogs/jj79/archive/2008/6/6/30700.aspx

Post By: JJ79
Post To: JJ79 Blog
Post Date: 6/6/2008 3:21:45 PM
Body: It´s amazing how a movie featuring both Laura Linney and Philip Seymour Hoffman--both fantastic actors--turns out to be so devoid of life, so cold and unemotional as to make a supporting character the most compelling person on screen. Forget the sibling pitter patter over the Gugenheim or who has the more demanding schedule. The only thing worth seeing in "The Savages" is Philip Bosco as their estranged father, Lenny. After he uses feces to decorate the bathroom and his lady friend dies, Lenny is moved from sunny Arizona to miserable Buffalo in the dead of winter to be closer to his children, Wendy and Jon (Linney and Hoffman). Both are nutcases unto themselves: she is carrying on a relationship with a married man while he destroys relationships by not being able to commit to anyone except himself. Neither can be bothered to deal with their father, shoving him into a nursing home in an "out of sight, out of mind" way. "The Savages" starts out with a great deal of promise. Early scenes in Arizona are rosy to a fault, featuring elderly women as cheerleaders and a warm, if dated, atmosphere. The humor in all its blackly deadpan attitude fit´s the film, promising more to come. But as soon as the self absorbed Wendy and Jon enter the picture, there´s nothing we want to do more than to focus on Lenny. Not because he is the most compelling character in the picture, but he´s the one who doesn´t make us want to slap him. How many times can Jon and Wendy go around in the same song and dance, accusing each other of not loving their father or of being self absorbed? Why is there such a power struggle between the two neither can see the forest for the trees? What compels them to expend so much energy in creating a façade for one another that neither can be truthful about their lives? About how miserable they are? About how much they are alone? It´s not a problem with the acting or even the characters; it´s the story. The audience is never given a reason to care about either one of them, any backstory or reason for being. Maybe it´s the point. Not to care about the people who are living lives, but about the person close to death. To see him as a full fledged human being even though he´s confined to a bed. This movie, from director Tamara Jenkins, ("Slums of Beverly Hills"), asks us to accept Wendy and Jon as they are without expecting they will change. Even at the end, nothing has fundamentally changed in their relationship. Whereas Lenny learns over the course of the film he needs to rely on others and not be obscene towards them, his children learn nothing. It´s business as usual. As I´ve alluded to, Philip Bosco is a treat to watch here as a man of few words. With the smallest of facial gestures or a single line of dialogue, he forms a fully realized human being and not a caricature of one. There is an authenticity to the performance, as if he has first hand knowledge of Lenny´s situation he brings to the table. It´s a wonderfully understated part in a story with competing blowhards. And that´s a shame. When Jon and Wendy are truly absurd--and therefore completely fictional--they work their best. Take, for instance, a sequence in which Jon hooks himself up to a contraption designed to alleviate pressure on his back…or neck…or something. As Wendy eats in front of him and he tries to read his mail--not to mention eat himself--Hoffman is absurdly over the top. It´s one of the only moments the siblings are completely true with each other, allowing themselves to be brutally open together without a vein of hate or anger running in the scene. Even later, when a lie is revealed, there´s nothing but anger between the two. The way they try to argue louder than the other isn´t funny or endearing. Hell, it´s not even remotely humorous. It´s cringe worthy. Lenny, in the front seat, agrees. He turns his hearing aide down to a bare minimum to escape the insanity. If only we were so lucky. There has to be some sense of joy in these people´s lives not only for them, but for us as well. Between the bickering and the cheating, the lying and depressing environment, these three aren´t family; they´re just people forced into the situation. Which is a sad commentary on them and the current state of our familial unit. How do we let ourselves become estranged from the person who had a hand in bringing us into the world or from the children we nurture and raise? How does a son not know where his father is in his last years and, more importantly, why does he not care? "The Savages" doesn´t pretend to give any answers, preferring to show a slice of life Aside from Bosco, one other aspect of "The Savages" is praiseworthy: the look of the film. From the cinematography to the location shooting and set design, the visual elements on screen create a world fitting with the people who inhabit it. The sky is continually overcast, the weather blustery, even the house Jon lives in is starting to fall apart. Notice the chipping paint and the way a window sticks as it is opened. Much like their lives, the world is falling apart. Plants die, vehicles are cramped and dilapidated . . . all the visual cues feed into the overall idea the story is trying to convey. Credit Jenkins for having the vision and her crew for pulling it off. But also blame her for the shortcomings, namely the lack of emotional investment in the situation. The only way a movie like "The Savages" works is if the audience buys into everyone onscreen. And if they don´t? The entire endeavor is for naught, no matter how appropriate the production design or snappy five minutes of dialogue. As much as it pains me to say, I was disappointed in "The Savages." There´s not enough to latch onto from either of the lead characters to be worthy of a time investment. It rates a 5 out of 10.
]]>Fri, 06 Jun 2008 19:21:45 GMTJJ79JJ79 Blog6/6/2008 3:21:45 PMIt´s amazing how a movie featuring both Laura Linney and Philip Seymour Hoffman--both fantastic actors--turns out to be so devoid of life, so cold and unemotional as to make a supporting character the most compelling person on screen. Forget the sibling pitter patter over the Gugenheim or who has the more demanding schedule. The only thing worth seeing in "The Savages" is Philip Bosco as their estranged father, Lenny. After he uses feces to decorate the bathroom and his lady friend dies, Lenny is moved from sunny Arizona to miserable Buffalo in the dead of winter to be closer to his children, Wendy and Jon (Linney and Hoffman). Both are nutcases unto themselves: she is carrying on a relationship with a married man while he destroys relationships by not being able to commit to anyone except himself. Neither can be bothered to deal with their father, shoving him into a nursing home in an "out of sight, out of mind" way. "The Savages" starts out with a great deal of promise. Early scenes in Arizona are rosy to a fault, featuring elderly women as cheerleaders and a warm, if dated, atmosphere. The humor in all its blackly deadpan attitude fit´s the film, promising more to come. But as soon as the self absorbed Wendy and Jon enter the picture, there´s nothing we want to do more than to focus on Lenny. Not because he is the most compelling character in the picture, but he´s the one who doesn´t make us want to slap him. How many times can Jon and Wendy go around in the same song and dance, accusing each other of not loving their father or of being self absorbed? Why is there such a power struggle between the two neither can see the forest for the trees? What compels them to expend so much energy in creating a façade for one another that neither can be truthful about their lives? About how miserable they are? About how much they are alone? It´s not a problem with the acting or even the characters; it´s the story. The audience is never given a reason to care about either one of them, any backstory or reason for being. Maybe it´s the point. Not to care about the people who are living lives, but about the person close to death. To see him as a full fledged human being even though he´s confined to a bed. This movie, from director Tamara Jenkins, ("Slums of Beverly Hills"), asks us to accept Wendy and Jon as they are without expecting they will change. Even at the end, nothing has fundamentally changed in their relationship. Whereas Lenny learns over the course of the film he needs to rely on others and not be obscene towards them, his children learn nothing. It´s business as usual. As I´ve alluded to, Philip Bosco is a treat to watch here as a man of few words. With the smallest of facial gestures or a single line of dialogue, he forms a fully realized human being and not a caricature of one. There is an authenticity to the performance, as if he has first hand knowledge of Lenny´s situation he brings to the table. It´s a wonderfully understated part in a story with competing blowhards. And that´s a shame. When Jon and Wendy are truly absurd--and therefore completely fictional--they work their best. Take, for instance, a sequence in which Jon hooks himself up to a contraption designed to alleviate pressure on his back…or neck…or something. As Wendy eats in front of him and he tries to read his mail--not to mention eat himself--Hoffman is absurdly over the top. It´s one of the only moments the siblings are completely true with each other, allowing themselves to be brutally open together without a vein of hate or anger running in the scene. Even later, when a lie is revealed, there´s nothing but anger between the two. The way they try to argue louder than the other isn´t funny or endearing. Hell, it´s not even remotely humorous. It´s cringe worthy. Lenny, in the front seat, agrees. He turns his hearing aide down to a bare minimum to escape the insanity. If only we were so lucky. There has to be some sense of joy in these people´s lives not only for them, but for us as well. Between the bickering and the cheating, the lying and depressing environment, these three aren´t family; they´re just people forced into the situation. Which is a sad commentary on them and the current state of our familial unit. How do we let ourselves become estranged from the person who had a hand in bringing us into the world or from the children we nurture and raise? How does a son not know where his father is in his last years and, more importantly, why does he not care? "The Savages" doesn´t pretend to give any answers, preferring to show a slice of life Aside from Bosco, one other aspect of "The Savages" is praiseworthy: the look of the film. From the cinematography to the location shooting and set design, the visual elements on screen create a world fitting with the people who inhabit it. The sky is continually overcast, the weather blustery, even the house Jon lives in is starting to fall apart. Notice the chipping paint and the way a window sticks as it is opened. Much like their lives, the world is falling apart. Plants die, vehicles are cramped and dilapidated . . . all the visual cues feed into the overall idea the story is trying to convey. Credit Jenkins for having the vision and her crew for pulling it off. But also blame her for the shortcomings, namely the lack of emotional investment in the situation. The only way a movie like "The Savages" works is if the audience buys into everyone onscreen. And if they don´t? The entire endeavor is for naught, no matter how appropriate the production design or snappy five minutes of dialogue. As much as it pains me to say, I was disappointed in "The Savages." There´s not enough to latch onto from either of the lead characters to be worthy of a time investment. It rates a 5 out of 10. Spout Post: A solid, no frills family drama http://www.spout.com/blogs/dunedonkey/archive/2008/3/24/26568.aspx

Post By: dunedonkey
Post To: film phlegm
Post Date: 3/24/2008 3:41:17 PM
Body: Laura Linney can annoy me. Her attempt at playing a blue collar wife in Mystic River fell flat because she's too refined for that. She's doing well in John Adams because she's a very plain and simple actress. However, I really liked her in The Savages because it gave her a chance to push the limits with her personality to make bring to the surface what the average middle-aged, single woman with a dying father would go through.Philip Seymour Hoffman does a fantastic job as usual playing the self-absorbed older brother who doesn't want to deal with anything because he's got his own personality issues.The two of them together generated a great on-scene chemistry as brother and sister because they were both subdued and acting more from the heart without the flare that you might see from them in other bigger budget films. If you were to ask me what made the film, it was this chemistry.The story was rich. I wouldn't say it was terribly original, but Tamara Jenkins does an excellent job on the screenplay as well as the direction. I'm not sure I would see it in the theatre again, as I think independent films, particularly independent family dramas are best enjoyed at home.
]]>Mon, 24 Mar 2008 19:41:17 GMTdunedonkeyfilm phlegm3/24/2008 3:41:17 PMLaura Linney can annoy me. Her attempt at playing a blue collar wife in Mystic River fell flat because she's too refined for that. She's doing well in John Adams because she's a very plain and simple actress. However, I really liked her in The Savages because it gave her a chance to push the limits with her personality to make bring to the surface what the average middle-aged, single woman with a dying father would go through.Philip Seymour Hoffman does a fantastic job as usual playing the self-absorbed older brother who doesn't want to deal with anything because he's got his own personality issues.The two of them together generated a great on-scene chemistry as brother and sister because they were both subdued and acting more from the heart without the flare that you might see from them in other bigger budget films. If you were to ask me what made the film, it was this chemistry.The story was rich. I wouldn't say it was terribly original, but Tamara Jenkins does an excellent job on the screenplay as well as the direction. I'm not sure I would see it in the theatre again, as I think independent films, particularly independent family dramas are best enjoyed at home. Spout Post: Come drink my milkshake: This year's Oscar picks http://www.spout.com/blogs/usesoap/archive/2008/2/10/24944.aspx

Post By: usesoap
Post To: usesoap Blog
Post Date: 2/10/2008 9:20:58 PM
Body: Even though the writers have apparently settled on a deal to end the strike, there is still a great deal to fear on the Oscar broadcast set for Feb. 24, that can be summed up in three simple words (two if you hyphenate correctly):Oscar-winner 'Norbit'.That's right. While many wrestle with the fact that their favorite films have been left off the nominee list (I understand, though don't agree with, the love-fest called Juno, but even my friends who are the most ardent supporters of the film agree that it has no place in the Best Picture and Best Director category) a film that was universally loathed like 'Norbit' has a shot at earning the most coveted trophies in the biz.Here to give you an edge on the office ballots, I have opted to fill this column with a handy guide to this year's nominees, chock-full of winner predictions. (Plus, you can check out some of the shorts on your computer, links provided, free of charge. You're welcome!)Best picture“Atonement”“Juno”“Michael Clayton”“No Country for Old Men”“There Will Be Blood”Winner: “No Country for Old Men. A sweeping 86 wins from various awards programs, coupled with the Academy's love for the Coens, means the “Old Men” should have a lot of life in them on Oscar night. Best Director“The Diving Bell and the Butterfly” Julian Schnabel“Juno” Jason Reitman“Michael Clayton” Tony Gilroy“No Country for Old Men” Joel Coen and Ethan Coen“There Will Be Blood” Paul Thomas AndersonWinner: The Coens again will be awarded, not only for this film, but for their decades of impressive contributions to cinema, whereas the runner-up, Anderson, seems to be just beginning his remarkable run.Best ActorGeorge Clooney in “Michael Clayton”Daniel Day-Lewis in “There Will Be Blood”Johnny Depp in “Sweeney Todd The Demon Barber of Fleet Street”Tommy Lee Jones in “In the Valley of Elah”Viggo Mortensen in “Eastern Promises”Winner: Daniel Day Lewis. Of the film's 45 award wins, the majority have gone to Lewis, whose Daniel Plainview could have easily been the embodiment of evil, were it not for the actor who shades the character with the tiniest sliver of humanity. Best ActressCate Blanchett in “Elizabeth: The Golden Age”Julie Christie in “Away from Her”Marion Cotillard in “La Vie en Rose”Laura Linney in “The Savages”Ellen Page in “Juno”Winner: Christie. Winning nods from coast (New York, D.C.) to coast (San Francisco, San Diego), to all parts in between (Arizona, Houston, Phoenix), as well as a BAFTA from overseas, Christie is a lock. Best Supporting ActorCasey Affleck in “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford”Javier Bardem in “No Country for Old Men”Philip Seymour Hoffman in “Charlie Wilson’s War”Hal Holbrook in “Into the Wild”Tom Wilkinson in “Michael Clayton”Winner: Bardem. Who knew a bowl-cut could be so bad-ass? Bardem's emotionless killing machine is the embodiment of evil in “No Country.” Best Supporting ActressCate Blanchett in “I’m Not There”Ruby Dee in “American Gangster”Saoirse Ronan in “Atonement”Amy Ryan in “Gone Baby Gone”Tilda Swinton in “Michael Clayton”Winner: Blanchett. Unless her two nominations this year cancel each other out, Blanchett is the best thing in an otherwise decent, but rather convoluted movie. Best animated feature“Persepolis”“Ratatouille”“Surf's Up”Winner: “Ratatoille.” Unless the Academy chooses to show its indie credibility with selecting “Persepolis,” the little guy should go to Pixar's latest masterpiece, and one of its most technically lavish and emotionally mature works in its canon. Best documentary feature“No End in Sight”“Operation Homecoming: Writing the Wartime Experience”“Sicko”“Taxi to the Dark Side”“War/Dance”Winner: “No End in Sight.” My only hope is that an Oscar win will bolster this film's chances of being seen, since it is far and away one of the most insightful documentaries concerning the war in Iraq out there. Art direction“American Gangster”“Atonement”“The Golden Compass”“Sweeney Todd The Demon Barber of Fleet Street”“There Will Be Blood”Winner: “There Will be Blood.” Only because “No Country for Old Men” didn't make it, the Academy will toss “Blood” a bone here. Cinematography “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford” Roger Deakins“Atonement” Seamus McGarvey“The Diving Bell and the Butterfly” Janusz Kaminski“No Country for Old Men” Roger Deakins“There Will Be Blood” Robert ElswitWinner: “There Will Be Blood.” For true cinema geeks, this is the most exciting category of the evening. Deakins, whose work in “Jesse James” is nothing short of poetic, adequately captures the harsh dust bowls in “No Country.” But in “Blood,” there are entire stretches of time where not a word is uttered and we can drink in the sumptuous images captured by Elswit. Costume design“Across the Universe” Albert Wolsky“Atonement” Jacqueline Durran“Elizabeth: The Golden Age” Alexandra Byrne“La Vie en Rose” Marit Allen“Sweeney Todd The Demon Barber of Fleet Street” Colleen AtwoodWinner: “Atonement.” After sweeping up at the BAFTA awards last weekend, the period piece that is perhaps more notable for its costume over its content. In particular, Kiera Knightly's green dress in act one may cinch the prize alone.Best documentary short subject“Freeheld”“La Corona (The Crown)”“Salim Baba”“Sari’s Mother”Winner: “Sari's Mother.” Look for director James Longley's tale of a mother in Iraq trying to get health care for her young AIDS-afflicted son to take the prize. It helps that he's earned such prior praise with his doc “Iraq in Fragments.' Editing“The Bourne Ultimatum” Christopher Rouse“The Diving Bell and the Butterfly” Juliette Welfling“Into the Wild” Jay Cassidy“No Country for Old Men” Roderick Jaynes“There Will Be Blood” Dylan TichenorWinner: “No Country for Old Men.” Perhaps more than any other technical category, “No Country” earns its stripes for its near-perfect slicing. Foreign language film“Beaufort” Israel“The Counterfeiters” Austria“Katyń” Poland“Mongol” Kazakhstan“12” RussiaWinner: “Beaufort.” In a rather weak field, “Beaufort” is the only film that seems to be making any critical waves. And if Borat had done enough to sully the name of Kazakhstan, “Mongol” has been doing a bang-up job on its own. Makeup“La Vie en Rose”“Norbit”“Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End”Winner: “Pirates.” So help me, Rick Baker has been a pioneer in real-life visual effects, but if he walks with one for transforming Eddie Murphy into a gargantuan shrew, I'm out, man. Game over. Original score“Atonement”“The Kite Runner” Distributed by Paramount Classics) Alberto Iglesias“Michael Clayton”“Ratatouille”“3:10 to Yuma”Winner: “Michael Clayton.” Where the hell was Jonny Greenwood's eclectic, haunting orchestration for “There Will Be Blood”? Because of some lame technicality, it was left off. None of the other candidates here are even in the same league, but Clayton's is the only score that I can still recall after seeing the film, so it gets my vote. Original song“Falling Slowly” from “Once”“Happy Working Song” from “Enchanted”“Raise It Up” from “August Rush”“So Close” from “Enchanted”“That’s How You Know” from “Enchanted”Winner: “Falling Slowly.” Sure, there's overwhelming odds that “Enchanted” could pick it up here, and it deserves some love, but more for a nomination for its lead Amy Adams, not in its cheeky, but slight, soundtrack. Best animated short film“I Met the Walrus” (trailer)“Madame Tutli-Putli” (full film)“Même les Pigeons Vont au Paradis (Even Pigeons Go to Heaven)” ( full film)“My Love (Moya Lyubov) for Natalie” (Channel One Russia) (full film, part 2's link is provided after film)“Peter & the Wolf” (BreakThru Films)Winner: My Love. Like a Renoir painting come to life, this is one of the most lavish 2-D animated films in quite some time.Best live action short film“At Night” (clip)“Il Supplente (The Substitute)” (full film)“Le Mozart des Pickpockets (The Mozart of Pickpockets)” (full film)“Tanghi Argentini”“The Tonto Woman” (trailer)Winner: “Il Supplente.” Comic gold and a great punchline.Sound editing“The Bourne Ultimatum”“No Country for Old Men”“Ratatouille”“There Will Be Blood”“Transformers”Winner: “No Country for Old Men.” It could be a toss up with “There Will Be Blood,” but I have a feeling that the cold thud of Javier Bardem's pneumatic air gun gives it a slight edge. Sound mixing“The Bourne Ultimatum”“No Country for Old Men”“Ratatouille”“3:10 to Yuma”“Transformers”Winner: Transformers. Kevin O'Connell and Greg P. Russell have a combined 32 nominations in their career. It's time Oscar paid them for their labor for their work literally making heavy metal. Visual effects “The Golden Compass”“Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End”“Transformers”Winner: Transformers. Was there a part of this film that was not a visual effect? “Compas” flopped, “Pirates” sailed off with the trophy last year, plus, wouldn't it be cool to have a statue that morphed into a robot that would blow up screenwriter Diablo Cody's prize?Adapted screenplay“Atonement” Christopher Hampton“Away from Her” Sarah Polley“The Diving Bell and the Butterfly” Ronald Harwood“No Country for Old Men” Joel and Ethan Coen“There Will Be Blood” Paul Thomas AndersonWinner: “No Country for Old Men.” This one will be swept up in the Coen fever that will take hold on Oscar night, though I think “Blood” will have a longer shelf life with repeated viewings. Original screenplay“Juno” Diablo Cody“Lars and the Real Girl” Nancy Oliver“Michael Clayton” Tony Gilroy“Ratatouille” Brad Bird“The Savages” Tamara JenkinsWinner: Diablo Cody for Juno. I think the Academy members have a stake in the merchandising of the T-shirts, since the entire script seems ready to be ironed on to the front of clothing, line by agonizing line.
]]>Mon, 11 Feb 2008 02:20:58 GMTusesoapusesoap Blog2/10/2008 9:20:58 PMEven though the writers have apparently settled on a deal to end the strike, there is still a great deal to fear on the Oscar broadcast set for Feb. 24, that can be summed up in three simple words (two if you hyphenate correctly):Oscar-winner 'Norbit'.That's right. While many wrestle with the fact that their favorite films have been left off the nominee list (I understand, though don't agree with, the love-fest called Juno, but even my friends who are the most ardent supporters of the film agree that it has no place in the Best Picture and Best Director category) a film that was universally loathed like 'Norbit' has a shot at earning the most coveted trophies in the biz.Here to give you an edge on the office ballots, I have opted to fill this column with a handy guide to this year's nominees, chock-full of winner predictions. (Plus, you can check out some of the shorts on your computer, links provided, free of charge. You're welcome!)Best picture“Atonement”“Juno”“Michael Clayton”“No Country for Old Men”“There Will Be Blood”Winner: “No Country for Old Men. A sweeping 86 wins from various awards programs, coupled with the Academy's love for the Coens, means the “Old Men” should have a lot of life in them on Oscar night. Best Director“The Diving Bell and the Butterfly” Julian Schnabel“Juno” Jason Reitman“Michael Clayton” Tony Gilroy“No Country for Old Men” Joel Coen and Ethan Coen“There Will Be Blood” Paul Thomas AndersonWinner: The Coens again will be awarded, not only for this film, but for their decades of impressive contributions to cinema, whereas the runner-up, Anderson, seems to be just beginning his remarkable run.Best ActorGeorge Clooney in “Michael Clayton”Daniel Day-Lewis in “There Will Be Blood”Johnny Depp in “Sweeney Todd The Demon Barber of Fleet Street”Tommy Lee Jones in “In the Valley of Elah”Viggo Mortensen in “Eastern Promises”Winner: Daniel Day Lewis. Of the film's 45 award wins, the majority have gone to Lewis, whose Daniel Plainview could have easily been the embodiment of evil, were it not for the actor who shades the character with the tiniest sliver of humanity. Best ActressCate Blanchett in “Elizabeth: The Golden Age”Julie Christie in “Away from Her”Marion Cotillard in “La Vie en Rose”Laura Linney in “The Savages”Ellen Page in “Juno”Winner: Christie. Winning nods from coast (New York, D.C.) to coast (San Francisco, San Diego), to all parts in between (Arizona, Houston, Phoenix), as well as a BAFTA from overseas, Christie is a lock. Best Supporting ActorCasey Affleck in “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford”Javier Bardem in “No Country for Old Men”Philip Seymour Hoffman in “Charlie Wilson’s War”Hal Holbrook in “Into the Wild”Tom Wilkinson in “Michael Clayton”Winner: Bardem. Who knew a bowl-cut could be so bad-ass? Bardem's emotionless killing machine is the embodiment of evil in “No Country.” Best Supporting ActressCate Blanchett in “I’m Not There”Ruby Dee in “American Gangster”Saoirse Ronan in “Atonement”Amy Ryan in “Gone Baby Gone”Tilda Swinton in “Michael Clayton”Winner: Blanchett. Unless her two nominations this year cancel each other out, Blanchett is the best thing in an otherwise decent, but rather convoluted movie. Best animated feature“Persepolis”“Ratatouille”“Surf's Up”Winner: “Ratatoille.” Unless the Academy chooses to show its indie credibility with selecting “Persepolis,” the little guy should go to Pixar's latest masterpiece, and one of its most technically lavish and emotionally mature works in its canon. Best documentary feature“No End in Sight”“Operation Homecoming: Writing the Wartime Experience”“Sicko”“Taxi to the Dark Side”“War/Dance”Winner: “No End in Sight.” My only hope is that an Oscar win will bolster this film's chances of being seen, since it is far and away one of the most insightful documentaries concerning the war in Iraq out there. Art direction“American Gangster”“Atonement”“The Golden Compass”“Sweeney Todd The Demon Barber of Fleet Street”“There Will Be Blood”Winner: “There Will be Blood.” Only because “No Country for Old Men” didn't make it, the Academy will toss “Blood” a bone here. Cinematography “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford” Roger Deakins“Atonement” Seamus McGarvey“The Diving Bell and the Butterfly” Janusz Kaminski“No Country for Old Men” Roger Deakins“There Will Be Blood” Robert ElswitWinner: “There Will Be Blood.” For true cinema geeks, this is the most exciting category of the evening. Deakins, whose work in “Jesse James” is nothing short of poetic, adequately captures the harsh dust bowls in “No Country.” But in “Blood,” there are entire stretches of time where not a word is uttered and we can drink in the sumptuous images captured by Elswit. Costume design“Across the Universe” Albert Wolsky“Atonement” Jacqueline Durran“Elizabeth: The Golden Age” Alexandra Byrne“La Vie en Rose” Marit Allen“Sweeney Todd The Demon Barber of Fleet Street” Colleen AtwoodWinner: “Atonement.” After sweeping up at the BAFTA awards last weekend, the period piece that is perhaps more notable for its costume over its content. In particular, Kiera Knightly's green dress in act one may cinch the prize alone.Best documentary short subject“Freeheld”“La Corona (The Crown)”“Salim Baba”“Sari’s Mother”Winner: “Sari's Mother.” Look for director James Longley's tale of a mother in Iraq trying to get health care for her young AIDS-afflicted son to take the prize. It helps that he's earned such prior praise with his doc “Iraq in Fragments.' Editing“The Bourne Ultimatum” Christopher Rouse“The Diving Bell and the Butterfly” Juliette Welfling“Into the Wild” Jay Cassidy“No Country for Old Men” Roderick Jaynes“There Will Be Blood” Dylan TichenorWinner: “No Country for Old Men.” Perhaps more than any other technical category, “No Country” earns its stripes for its near-perfect slicing. Foreign language film“Beaufort” Israel“The Counterfeiters” Austria“Katyń” Poland“Mongol” Kazakhstan“12” RussiaWinner: “Beaufort.” In a rather weak field, “Beaufort” is the only film that seems to be making any critical waves. And if Borat had done enough to sully the name of Kazakhstan, “Mongol” has been doing a bang-up job on its own. Makeup“La Vie en Rose”“Norbit”“Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End”Winner: “Pirates.” So help me, Rick Baker has been a pioneer in real-life visual effects, but if he walks with one for transforming Eddie Murphy into a gargantuan shrew, I'm out, man. Game over. Original score“Atonement”“The Kite Runner” Distributed by Paramount Classics) Alberto Iglesias“Michael Clayton”“Ratatouille”“3:10 to Yuma”Winner: “Michael Clayton.” Where the hell was Jonny Greenwood's eclectic, haunting orchestration for “There Will Be Blood”? Because of some lame technicality, it was left off. None of the other candidates here are even in the same league, but Clayton's is the only score that I can still recall after seeing the film, so it gets my vote. Original song“Falling Slowly” from “Once”“Happy Working Song” from “Enchanted”“Raise It Up” from “August Rush”“So Close” from “Enchanted”“That’s How You Know” from “Enchanted”Winner: “Falling Slowly.” Sure, there's overwhelming odds that “Enchanted” could pick it up here, and it deserves some love, but more for a nomination for its lead Amy Adams, not in its cheeky, but slight, soundtrack. Best animated short film“I Met the Walrus” (trailer)“Madame Tutli-Putli” (full film)“Même les Pigeons Vont au Paradis (Even Pigeons Go to Heaven)” ( full film)“My Love (Moya Lyubov) for Natalie” (Channel One Russia) (full film, part 2's link is provided after film)“Peter & the Wolf” (BreakThru Films)Winner: My Love. Like a Renoir painting come to life, this is one of the most lavish 2-D animated films in quite some time.Best live action short film“At Night” (clip)“Il Supplente (The Substitute)” (full film)“Le Mozart des Pickpockets (The Mozart of Pickpockets)” (full film)“Tanghi Argentini”“The Tonto Woman” (trailer)Winner: “Il Supplente.” Comic gold and a great punchline.Sound editing“The Bourne Ultimatum”“No Country for Old Men”“Ratatouille”“There Will Be Blood”“Transformers”Winner: “No Country for Old Men.” It could be a toss up with “There Will Be Blood,” but I have a feeling that the cold thud of Javier Bardem's pneumatic air gun gives it a slight edge. Sound mixing“The Bourne Ultimatum”“No Country for Old Men”“Ratatouille”“3:10 to Yuma”“Transformers”Winner: Transformers. Kevin O'Connell and Greg P. Russell have a combined 32 nominations in their career. It's time Oscar paid them for their labor for their work literally making heavy metal. Visual effects “The Golden Compass”“Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End”“Transformers”Winner: Transformers. Was there a part of this film that was not a visual effect? “Compas” flopped, “Pirates” sailed off with the trophy last year, plus, wouldn't it be cool to have a statue that morphed into a robot that would blow up screenwriter Diablo Cody's prize?Adapted screenplay“Atonement” Christopher Hampton“Away from Her” Sarah Polley“The Diving Bell and the Butterfly” Ronald Harwood“No Country for Old Men” Joel and Ethan Coen“There Will Be Blood” Paul Thomas AndersonWinner: “No Country for Old Men.” This one will be swept up in the Coen fever that will take hold on Oscar night, though I think “Blood” will have a longer shelf life with repeated viewings. Original screenplay“Juno” Diablo Cody“Lars and the Real Girl” Nancy Oliver“Michael Clayton” Tony Gilroy“Ratatouille” Brad Bird“The Savages” Tamara JenkinsWinner: Diablo Cody for Juno. I think the Academy members have a stake in the merchandising of the T-shirts, since the entire script seems ready to be ironed on to the front of clothing, line by agonizing line. Spout Post: Re:Predictions and Commentary, 2008 http://www.spout.com/groups/It_s_a_Wonderful_Night_for_Oscar/Re_Predictions_and_Commentary_2008/46/24460/1/ShowPost.aspx

Post By: pippin06
Post To: It's a Wonderful Night for Oscar!
Post Date: 1/28/2008 3:39:10 PM
Body: Here is some commentary on surprises and snubs. A week late, but I have some time here and now.In the Best Actor category, the surprise nomination is Tommy Lee Jones for In the Valley of Elah. He has not previously been nominated for any similar awards. Surprising omission? A long shot, but better than Jones was Ryan Gosling for Lars and the Real Girl; he's received several nominations (and no wins) to date. I think prediction-wise, though, you best be looking at Daniel Day-Lewis for There Will Be Blood. He's swept them all so far.In the Supporting Actor category, there are no real surprises or snubs. (Think Javier Bardem for No Country for Old Men come the big day, though).In the Best Actress category, a surprise nomination for Laura Linney for The Savages (she's had no love up until now). There are no real snubs, though, because the win will probably without doubt go to Julie Christie for Away From Her, with the other four nominations acting sort of like wild-card "it's a thrill just to be nominated" honorees.In the Supporting Actress category, no surprises or obvious snubs, though this category is rather up in the air.For Best Director and Best Picture, I see no surprises or obvious snubs, with the clear front runners being No Country for Old Men and the Coen brothers.For foreign language film, see the above post.For the technical categories: nothing really jumps out at me. Do you see anything?I will post a complete set of predictions closer to February 24, but in the meantime, share your predictions here! Any agreements or disagreements to the above?
]]>Mon, 28 Jan 2008 20:39:10 GMTpippin06It's a Wonderful Night for Oscar!1/28/2008 3:39:10 PMHere is some commentary on surprises and snubs. A week late, but I have some time here and now.In the Best Actor category, the surprise nomination is Tommy Lee Jones for In the Valley of Elah. He has not previously been nominated for any similar awards. Surprising omission? A long shot, but better than Jones was Ryan Gosling for Lars and the Real Girl; he's received several nominations (and no wins) to date. I think prediction-wise, though, you best be looking at Daniel Day-Lewis for There Will Be Blood. He's swept them all so far.In the Supporting Actor category, there are no real surprises or snubs. (Think Javier Bardem for No Country for Old Men come the big day, though).In the Best Actress category, a surprise nomination for Laura Linney for The Savages (she's had no love up until now). There are no real snubs, though, because the win will probably without doubt go to Julie Christie for Away From Her, with the other four nominations acting sort of like wild-card "it's a thrill just to be nominated" honorees.In the Supporting Actress category, no surprises or obvious snubs, though this category is rather up in the air.For Best Director and Best Picture, I see no surprises or obvious snubs, with the clear front runners being No Country for Old Men and the Coen brothers.For foreign language film, see the above post.For the technical categories: nothing really jumps out at me. Do you see anything?I will post a complete set of predictions closer to February 24, but in the meantime, share your predictions here! Any agreements or disagreements to the above? Spout Post: The Savages http://www.spout.com/blogs/shaunhuston/archive/2008/1/20/24119.aspx

Post By: ShaunHuston
Post To: ShaunHuston filmblog
Post Date: 1/20/2008 6:01:19 PM
Body: The good in The Savages has, at this point, been well and duly noted elsewhere. Philip Seymour Hoffman and Laura Linney are utterly convincing as siblings Jon and Wendy Savage. Watching them together is certainly worth the price of admission. Tamara Jenkins' script is refreshingly authentic and low-key in its treatment of big issues ??? family, death ??? although it suffers from a few clunky moments where cheap laughs are bought at the expense of emotional insight. I was not, however, so blinded by the film's strengths that I was able to ignore otherwise sloppy craft behind the camera. When Philip Bosco's Lenny Savage first appears on screen I was stunned to see a microphone bobbing around at the top of the frame. After my momentary surprise, I thought, ???Well, sometimes you just have to go with the best take for the performance, I guess.??? But, then it kept happening. At one point, you can even see the boom pole as it is positioned from the right of the screen. I've tried to come up with some reason why this may have been intentional, and particularly so after learning that writer-director Tamara Jenkins has a few shorts and the perfectly respectable Slums of Beverly Hills (1998) to her credit. The obvious possibility coming out of The Savages is that the appearance of the mic is a Brechtian device, intended to draw attention to the film as a film. However, if that is the reason, it does not seem to have worked very well. The audience at Salem Cinema seemed pretty well engaged with their emotions, and the keywords for critics appear to be ???naturalistic??? and ???emotionally real.??? I found the microphone to be more a distraction than a provocation. And while I'm no expert in theories of drama, I'm fairly certain that randomly dropping the mic into the frame in an otherwise realist film is not enough by itself to ???distance??? the audience from their emotional reactions to the characters and their stories. In addition, the photography is best described as flat (it seemed very much like The Savages was shot on digital video, a medium which does tend to flatten an image if you don't work at creating a sense of depth or richness). There are a couple of nicely composed images, a moving overhead shot of Jon and Wendy napping on the same bed, a long shot of Wendy standing alone in front of a colorful theater storefront, but the film is knitted together by oddly framed and forgettable shots of the winter landscape. Perhaps these images are intended to prompt viewers to mediate on the end of life, but they're far too casually composed to achieve such an end. Similarly, the editing is, strangely, both challenging and banal. At the beginning, risks are taken. One sequence, for example, cuts from Jon on the phone with Wendy to a plane in the air to Jon in an airport terminal without any information as to how he got there, if he's coming or going, or where he is. Typically, the audience would be provided visual and aural cues regarding those pieces of the narrative. Here the film invites a sense of disorientation and asks the audience to catch up without being fed information in a linear sequence. Eventually, though, the movie settles into a conventional rhythm, forgoing further demands on viewers. Rough edges, in and of themselves, are not a problem for me. If they were, I could hardly teach and write about Canadian film and television as I do. I take great pleasure in seeing filmmakers play with and subvert conventional norms. But such choices are best made with intelligence and purpose, or at least verve. The Savages just looks and feels sloppy. The actors, and, ironically enough, Jenkins' own script, deserved better. Post-Script:On my home blog - link below - a friend and reader informed me that the mic issue was not a problem of the filmmakers, but the projectionist. I am somewhat embarassed that this possibility hadn't occurred to me, and now I feel a little bad for critiquing Tamara Jenkins' direction on this score. I do, however, stand by the basic argument of the review - the movie is not as thoughtfully made as it could or should have been. I would also add that, given the general lack of professional projectionists in the world, as a director I would hardly want to be at the mercy of the untrained seventeen year olds who staff local theaters. Aside from keeping mics and other equipment securely off camera, I understand that you can guide or force the hand of the projectionist by blacking out the "extraneous" area of the frame. Originally posted on:Short-Circuit Signs
]]>Sun, 20 Jan 2008 23:01:19 GMTShaunHustonShaunHuston filmblog1/20/2008 6:01:19 PMThe good in The Savages has, at this point, been well and duly noted elsewhere. Philip Seymour Hoffman and Laura Linney are utterly convincing as siblings Jon and Wendy Savage. Watching them together is certainly worth the price of admission. Tamara Jenkins' script is refreshingly authentic and low-key in its treatment of big issues ??? family, death ??? although it suffers from a few clunky moments where cheap laughs are bought at the expense of emotional insight. I was not, however, so blinded by the film's strengths that I was able to ignore otherwise sloppy craft behind the camera. When Philip Bosco's Lenny Savage first appears on screen I was stunned to see a microphone bobbing around at the top of the frame. After my momentary surprise, I thought, ???Well, sometimes you just have to go with the best take for the performance, I guess.??? But, then it kept happening. At one point, you can even see the boom pole as it is positioned from the right of the screen. I've tried to come up with some reason why this may have been intentional, and particularly so after learning that writer-director Tamara Jenkins has a few shorts and the perfectly respectable Slums of Beverly Hills (1998) to her credit. The obvious possibility coming out of The Savages is that the appearance of the mic is a Brechtian device, intended to draw attention to the film as a film. However, if that is the reason, it does not seem to have worked very well. The audience at Salem Cinema seemed pretty well engaged with their emotions, and the keywords for critics appear to be ???naturalistic??? and ???emotionally real.??? I found the microphone to be more a distraction than a provocation. And while I'm no expert in theories of drama, I'm fairly certain that randomly dropping the mic into the frame in an otherwise realist film is not enough by itself to ???distance??? the audience from their emotional reactions to the characters and their stories. In addition, the photography is best described as flat (it seemed very much like The Savages was shot on digital video, a medium which does tend to flatten an image if you don't work at creating a sense of depth or richness). There are a couple of nicely composed images, a moving overhead shot of Jon and Wendy napping on the same bed, a long shot of Wendy standing alone in front of a colorful theater storefront, but the film is knitted together by oddly framed and forgettable shots of the winter landscape. Perhaps these images are intended to prompt viewers to mediate on the end of life, but they're far too casually composed to achieve such an end. Similarly, the editing is, strangely, both challenging and banal. At the beginning, risks are taken. One sequence, for example, cuts from Jon on the phone with Wendy to a plane in the air to Jon in an airport terminal without any information as to how he got there, if he's coming or going, or where he is. Typically, the audience would be provided visual and aural cues regarding those pieces of the narrative. Here the film invites a sense of disorientation and asks the audience to catch up without being fed information in a linear sequence. Eventually, though, the movie settles into a conventional rhythm, forgoing further demands on viewers. Rough edges, in and of themselves, are not a problem for me. If they were, I could hardly teach and write about Canadian film and television as I do. I take great pleasure in seeing filmmakers play with and subvert conventional norms. But such choices are best made with intelligence and purpose, or at least verve. The Savages just looks and feels sloppy. The actors, and, ironically enough, Jenkins' own script, deserved better. Post-Script:On my home blog - link below - a friend and reader informed me that the mic issue was not a problem of the filmmakers, but the projectionist. I am somewhat embarassed that this possibility hadn't occurred to me, and now I feel a little bad for critiquing Tamara Jenkins' direction on this score. I do, however, stand by the basic argument of the review - the movie is not as thoughtfully made as it could or should have been. I would also add that, given the general lack of professional projectionists in the world, as a director I would hardly want to be at the mercy of the untrained seventeen year olds who staff local theaters. Aside from keeping mics and other equipment securely off camera, I understand that you can guide or force the hand of the projectionist by blacking out the "extraneous" area of the frame. Originally posted on:Short-Circuit Signs Spout Post: A "Tragi-Comedy" That is Mostly Tragic http://www.spout.com/blogs/slipofthetongue/archive/2007/12/28/23284.aspx

Post By: slipofthetongue
Post To: SlipOfTheTongue Blog
Post Date: 12/28/2007 5:14:23 PM
Body: I hate to be a damp sponge. THE SAVAGES is full of well observed moments. It is rather tonally restrained and is definitely full of terrific acting but...I just didn't have a very good time watching it. The premise essentially deals with a brother and sister who have drifted apart into their own banal adult existences. Laura Linney (the sister) and Philip Seymour Hoffman (the brother) have issues, none so exaggerated that we cannot identify with them. Take a couple of mid-life crises, add in Parkinsons and dementia, death, incontinence and marital infidelity you have something that is not quite my idea of a good time at the movies. Whoopee, get the popcorn!Maybe it's me. I expected enough "savage" humor would be mixed in to take the sting out of staring into a yawning abyss for two hours. God is this film bleak. The wit I hoped would be present is (save for 5 or 6 funny moments) absent from the film. In many cases it feels as if the director has substituted gentle, restrained "preciousness" in its place. Perhaps this is the mark of a director who is too much of a "girl" or maybe I'm too much of a "guy" but dammit, this film is just not as great as it might have been and that's a little sad. It is amazing how a few small creative self-indulgences can knock a movie down from five stars to three. Aint that odd. I guess after two films I am not a Tamara Jenkins fan. This director is also responsible for Slums of Beverly Hills, which I always felt from previews and premise should have been a terrific movie...except it wasn't. I always watch that film (I've seen it roughly two and a half times) and wonder why I'm not laughing or even smiling (not even inside!) It positively puzzles me.I would like to praise both Hoffman and Linney for their fine performances and all the supporting actors are good as well. The characterizations are never overstated. Jenkins has a good feel for performance and for creating moments between people. She rarely sacrifices her characters for a cheap or easy laugh. On the downside, the music is sappy and repetitive. It's almost an impediment to the realism present in much of the film. The ending is sweet and somewhat precious and I'm not sure if I liked it. I don't know if Jenkins wants us to conclude that these characters are in a somewhat a repetitive existence marked by personal limitations or if she is indicating that there is a potential for growth. All I end up coming away with is the distinct sense that we are all going to get old and die and that this experience will not be pleasant but that neither does it need to be frightening. Hey, a little dementia goes along way when it comes to cushioning the blow, huh? This film is almost more portrait than story and I'm not sure what to feel while looking at this portrait...except that it makes me feel kind of bad. I just wish there were a few more jokes and that another spice were there (tonally) to stand in for the preciousness that might seem restrained and yet is all too present.There is so much good in this film, and I just wish it could have been great.
]]>Fri, 28 Dec 2007 22:14:23 GMTslipofthetongueSlipOfTheTongue Blog12/28/2007 5:14:23 PMI hate to be a damp sponge. THE SAVAGES is full of well observed moments. It is rather tonally restrained and is definitely full of terrific acting but...I just didn't have a very good time watching it. The premise essentially deals with a brother and sister who have drifted apart into their own banal adult existences. Laura Linney (the sister) and Philip Seymour Hoffman (the brother) have issues, none so exaggerated that we cannot identify with them. Take a couple of mid-life crises, add in Parkinsons and dementia, death, incontinence and marital infidelity you have something that is not quite my idea of a good time at the movies. Whoopee, get the popcorn!Maybe it's me. I expected enough "savage" humor would be mixed in to take the sting out of staring into a yawning abyss for two hours. God is this film bleak. The wit I hoped would be present is (save for 5 or 6 funny moments) absent from the film. In many cases it feels as if the director has substituted gentle, restrained "preciousness" in its place. Perhaps this is the mark of a director who is too much of a "girl" or maybe I'm too much of a "guy" but dammit, this film is just not as great as it might have been and that's a little sad. It is amazing how a few small creative self-indulgences can knock a movie down from five stars to three. Aint that odd. I guess after two films I am not a Tamara Jenkins fan. This director is also responsible for Slums of Beverly Hills, which I always felt from previews and premise should have been a terrific movie...except it wasn't. I always watch that film (I've seen it roughly two and a half times) and wonder why I'm not laughing or even smiling (not even inside!) It positively puzzles me.I would like to praise both Hoffman and Linney for their fine performances and all the supporting actors are good as well. The characterizations are never overstated. Jenkins has a good feel for performance and for creating moments between people. She rarely sacrifices her characters for a cheap or easy laugh. On the downside, the music is sappy and repetitive. It's almost an impediment to the realism present in much of the film. The ending is sweet and somewhat precious and I'm not sure if I liked it. I don't know if Jenkins wants us to conclude that these characters are in a somewhat a repetitive existence marked by personal limitations or if she is indicating that there is a potential for growth. All I end up coming away with is the distinct sense that we are all going to get old and die and that this experience will not be pleasant but that neither does it need to be frightening. Hey, a little dementia goes along way when it comes to cushioning the blow, huh? This film is almost more portrait than story and I'm not sure what to feel while looking at this portrait...except that it makes me feel kind of bad. I just wish there were a few more jokes and that another spice were there (tonally) to stand in for the preciousness that might seem restrained and yet is all too present.There is so much good in this film, and I just wish it could have been great. Spout Tag:family http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/family/MemberTagFilms.aspxfamily
Number of films tagged: 6288

Number of people who tagged: 226

Number of times used: 1138

]]>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 20:09:21 GMT62882261138Tag Spout Tag:death http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/death/MemberTagFilms.aspxdeath
Number of films tagged: 4306

Number of people who tagged: 140

Number of times used: 526

]]>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 17:27:13 GMT4306140526Tag Spout Tag:drama http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/drama/MemberTagFilms.aspxdrama
Number of films tagged: 527

Number of people who tagged: 102

Number of times used: 627

]]>Wed, 16 Dec 2009 19:01:29 GMT527102627Tag Spout Tag:sad http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/sad/MemberTagFilms.aspxsad
Number of films tagged: 170

Number of people who tagged: 96

Number of times used: 226

]]>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 05:35:46 GMT17096226Tag Spout Tag:relationships http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/relationships/MemberTagFilms.aspxrelationships
Number of films tagged: 203

Number of people who tagged: 74

Number of times used: 249

]]>Sat, 28 Nov 2009 14:40:59 GMT20374249Tag Spout Tag:lies http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/lies/MemberTagFilms.aspxlies
Number of films tagged: 187

Number of people who tagged: 32

Number of times used: 85

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 02:57:25 GMT1873285Tag Spout Tag:dysfunctional http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/dysfunctional/MemberTagFilms.aspxdysfunctional
Number of films tagged: 486

Number of people who tagged: 31

Number of times used: 42

]]>Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:04:09 GMT4863142Tag Spout Tag:writing http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/writing/MemberTagFilms.aspxwriting
Number of films tagged: 1300

Number of people who tagged: 25

Number of times used: 43

]]>Wed, 16 Sep 2009 21:17:22 GMT13002543Tag Spout Tag:professor http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/professor/MemberTagFilms.aspxprofessor
Number of films tagged: 742

Number of people who tagged: 22

Number of times used: 39

]]>Tue, 17 Nov 2009 18:30:14 GMT7422239Tag Spout Tag:old http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/old/MemberTagFilms.aspxold
Number of films tagged: 20

Number of people who tagged: 17

Number of times used: 23

]]>Sat, 13 Sep 2008 04:07:05 GMT201723Tag Spout Tag:Sick http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Sick/MemberTagFilms.aspxSick
Number of films tagged: 22

Number of people who tagged: 17

Number of times used: 23

]]>Sat, 23 May 2009 21:30:44 GMT221723Tag Spout Tag:sibling http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/sibling/MemberTagFilms.aspxsibling
Number of films tagged: 600

Number of people who tagged: 13

Number of times used: 27

]]>Fri, 31 Jul 2009 13:03:15 GMT6001327Tag Spout Tag:success http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/success/MemberTagFilms.aspxsuccess
Number of films tagged: 404

Number of people who tagged: 11

Number of times used: 22

]]>Sat, 08 Aug 2009 21:49:00 GMT4041122Tag Spout Tag:melancholy http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/melancholy/MemberTagFilms.aspxmelancholy
Number of films tagged: 15

Number of people who tagged: 10

Number of times used: 16

]]>Mon, 28 Jul 2008 08:49:27 GMT151016Tag Spout Tag:2007 http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/2007/MemberTagFilms.aspx2007
Number of films tagged: 31

Number of people who tagged: 9

Number of times used: 33

]]>Fri, 30 Jan 2009 15:41:59 GMT31933Tag