I Heart New York Times’ A.O. Scott

I heart A.O. Scott.

Don’t know who he is?  Well, you should.  Because this guy is FREAKING AWESOME!  He’s a movie critic for the New York Times, but what I love about him is his clear descriptions of the movies, his funny taglines and his poignant reviews.

Just today, he published “The Cinematic State of Things,” where he reduced the 2010 film themes into a top 10 list, beginning with “1. We are all figments of Leonardo DiCaprio’s imagination.”  Come on.  If that’s #1, you can’t go wrong after that.  After reading his top 10, I couldn’t help but remember all his past quips.  Thus, I had to declare my love for A.O. Scott in this post.

The first time I read one of his articles, I had been browsing through the Movie Section of the paper for quite some time.  I had glanced over a few of those reviews on Milk, Frost/Nixon, and other Academy Award contenders.  Interesting, but I didn’t feel like using my brain.  I wanted something frivolous to read while getting through my day as a Banker.  (Remember, the end of 2008 was the end of an era… for financial markets as well as Investment Banking.  In other words, I had PLENTY of time to spare during the day.)  Anyways, link after link, I found nothing interesting.  Then, out of the blue, I came upon this: “An I.R.S. Do-Gooder and Other Strangeness.”  I looked closer and realized it was a review for Seven Pounds (2008), the Will Smith movie that made no sense in the trailer.

Within minutes, I was cracking up and falling over my chair.  My cubemates rushed over to me to make sure I didn’t go crazy (because our company could disappear like Lehman Brothers at any moment).  I put up a hand to hush their concerns and pointed to my computer screen.  They looked at one another and nodded in agreement: “Yup, this one’s gone over the deep end…”

I shook my head and highlighted the passage that threw me off my rocker.  It read:

So instead of spelling out what happens in “Seven Pounds,” I’ll just pluck a few key words and phrases from my notes, and arrange them in the kind of artful disorder Mr. Muccino seems to favor (feel free to start crying any time): Eggplant parmesan. Printing press. Lung. Bone marrow. Eye transplant. Rosario Dawson. Great Dane. Banana peel. Jellyfish (but you knew that already). Car accident. Congestive heart failure.

Huh? What the … ? Hang on. What’s he doing? Why? Who does he think he is? Jesus! That last, by the way, is not an exclamation of shock but rather an answer to the preceding question, posed with reference to Mr. Smith.

My friends burst out with laughter, only to attract the nearby Associates.  Soon enough, a crowd had gathered around my tiny cube, reading the next hilarious passage:

But maybe I’m approaching this in the wrong way. Maybe “Seven Pounds” isn’t a spiritual parable about redemption or forgiveness or salvation or whatever, but rather a collection of practical lessons. Don’t drive while using a BlackBerry. Fertilize your rose bushes with banana peels — sorry, that was a spoiler. But please, whatever you do, don’t touch the jellyfish.

I’m serious. Don’t.

From then on, I couldn’t stop following Mr. A.O. Scott’s reviews on NYT.  All of his reviews had this hilarious wit.  You know… almost like talking to a friend who’s just hilarious.  Or, maybe I love him, because he reminds of another brilliant mind (myself, ha ha.  No joke.).  Either way, I couldn’t stop following him.

Here are some of my favorite quotes from this year:

• The Town (2010) — ”[T]he main attraction is the blaring music of those accents. It’s a lark, a spark, a walk in the park.”
• Tangled (2010) — “This is, all in all, a pleasant place to visit. Which is saying a lot, given how awful it could be in recent years. (Remember “Chicken Little”? “Treasure Planet”? I hope not.) “Tangled” is the 50th animated feature from Disney, and its look and spirit convey a modified, updated but nonetheless sincere and unmistakable quality of old-fashioned Disneyness.”
• “In Line at the Movies, Hoping for Good Enough” article — ”What was I doing there? Partly, it was a matter of professional due diligence, the regular duty of catching up with movies I have not reviewed. But also, and more deeply, there was the combination of curiosity, inertia and obedience that is the most common and perhaps the least understood motive for movie attendance. I was bored. The kids were bored.”
• RED (2010) — ““RED” signals that, in addition to being an action-romance-comedy, it will also be an old-timers-on-the-warpath-looking-for-payback movie. (See “The A Team” and “The Expendables.” By “see,” I mean “note for purposes of comparison,” rather than actually watch on a screen.)”

I mean, this list can go on and on and on.  However, I’ll make up your own mind about Mr. Scott.

Happy Reading!

Aronofsky’s “Black Swan”: Where Ballet Meets Psycho

I’m excited to see ”Black Swan“ (coming Dec. 1).  It seems to combine both my love for ballet and my love for mystery and suspense.

The plot revolves around a talented young ballerina named Nina (Natalie Portman) who becomes the star of Swan Lake.  However, she has a strong competitor named Lily (Mila Kunis) who seeks to replace her.  In Nina’s role as the prima ballerina, she must play both the innocent and graceful White Swan (perfect for her) as well as the evil and conniving Black Swan (perfect for her competitor).  The more she tries to become the Black Swan, the more she becomes trapped in a world of back-stabbing and intrigue… of danger and excitement… and eventually finds herself no longer pretending to be the Black Swan but actually becoming one.  (Of course, it doesn’t help that Nina’s mom is a controlling ex-ballerina who pushes her even further to crazy obsession.) 

Several early reviews of the movie have put it as a contender for Best Picture for the Oscars next year.  And, Natalie Portman’s portrayal is apparently superb, so she will most likely get nominated for Best Actress.  Currently rated as 93% @ RT.

Since my favorite reviewer is A.O. Scott from NYT, I must put a few of my favorite quotes from his review of “Black Swan”:

• [I]ntensity — a swirl of dread, suspense and almost tactile beauty, brought to fever pitch by Clint Mansell’s Tchaikovsky-on-steroids score — is certainly what “Black Swan” delivers.
• The visceral impact of “Black Swan” is hard to dispute — at least my own pounding heart and clammy palms do not dispute it[...]

Overall, I can’t wait to see it!

•Post-Oscar Reviews, pt 1: the PAPD scoring card

First, I must congratulate myself on my predictions!!!

And now, before we let the judging of judges begin, I must make a note that this post-Oscar review will (unfortunately) have to be split into 3 parts so that my readers will not be overwhelmed with the vast amount of information I am about to disseminate.  The 3-part series will comprise of the following:

1. PAPD scoring card
2. Reviews of the 5 best picture nominated films
3. Conclusion on winners: best actor, best actress and best picture

As I had mentioned in my first Oscar-related post, most years, the audiences and the Academy disagree on who should win the little golden statue.  Fans go on rampages over the arbitrary selection of winners that seem to suggest the Academy judges are like the trophies they dole out—old, bald and mostly stiff.  Last year, I almost gagged on my own disbelief as I watched “No Country for Old Men” take home “Best Picture.”  I saw that movie and—trust me—it’s called “No Country for Old Men” for good reason… because the film was so boring that everyone would have shot themselves after enduring two hours of onslaught and diabolicalness if not for the hope that some picture more deserving would win “Best Picture”.  Granted, Javier Bardem played a great diabolical character, but the film moved at such a slow pace that my friend and I were elated when the credits came on!  I felt that “There Will Be Blood” was a much better representation of what “Best Picture” should be: great plot, great actors and great pace.  Needless to say, I was poised and ready for a grand battle with the judges this year.  Luckily, the Academy and I agreed…

Before I delve into why I chose those specific winners, let me provide a little background into my decision-making process.  In any type of judging, one must have a clear set of criteria.  For Best Actor/Actress, I did not have one.  In order to be completely fair, I would have had to watch all the movies in which these actors/actresses had been nominated.  I’m sorry, but HELL NO!  I love movies, yet one can only take so much drama, agony, desperation, over-acting, and somewhat heavy plotline in a short time span.  So, instead, I chose the actors I felt performed the best in the films I had seen.  For Best Picture category, I gave a much fairer judging.  Here is my rating system, aka the PAPD scoring card (1-5, 5 being the best):

• Plot: Was the plotline intriguing? Did it capture my attention? Was it different from what I had expected? Did the plotline provide a deeper meaning?
• Actors: Were they believable? Did they capture the essence of what the film wanted to depict? Did the cast complement each other?
• Pace: Was the film paced adequately? (i.e. Did it start too slow/fast? Did the plot feel rushed or overly extended?)
• Direction: Did the structure of the scenes help the film tell the story it wanted to tell? (i.e. Did the camera angles provide the necessary “umph” to jolt me into excitement? Did the Director do a good job in joining scenes?)