December 1, 2004

I really have no clue what to write today.

I suppose that I haven't done a formal review of The Aviator, but I do think that my sense of the strengths and flaws of the film have been clear. The funny part is that in light of Todd McCarthy's review of the film, I am now painted in some corners as disliking the film, which I don't. The truth is, I am one of the most supportive people I know regarding this movie and give it more credence than most. But this is that black & white time of year, isn't it?

There would be no joy in drowning The Life Aquatic now…

I really want to chew on the Sundance schedule for more than a few passing minutes before really digging in…

I have been repeatedly reminded that MGM was told that Hotel Rwanda didn't qualify for the Indie Spirit Awards because of its financing... but the core of "why" is still unclear, whatever they were told.

Part of me thought of waiting to write until after the National Board of Review announcement today… but every year I remember that NBR is just plain meaningless in the big picture.

I do think that a rating system of what's really important in terms of awards prognostication is a worthy pursuit… maybe for this week's Oscar column. But the power of perception is rather stunning. And the inability of anyone to actually control it, more stunning by 10 times.

And so, all that's left is the focking…

Oh, I'm sure I'll think of something new to say soon…

Keep an eye out for comments on NBR on The Hot Blog. Yesterday's late column is still here.

READER OF THE DAY: BUFFALO BRI writes: "In 1999 and 2003, two brothers basically combined ideas and kicked the shit out of modern scifi. After seeing a good sword and sandal epic with Alexander and earlier this year with the equally enjoyable Troy, I think
maybe these movies are too hard to made into classics by a single being.

Oliver Stone did about the best any one person can do with this movie. I see in each of these epics parts where the director can excel in and parts they cant. Oliver is a good writer (shared credits with two other screenwriters) and gets a fire in the belly of the actors but he didnt nail the battle scene enough. The engagements were good but more of a scope was needed and I realize he did lose footage due to poor handling of film negatives. Wolfgang Peterson did fairly well with the acting but nailed the action better, but he had what some say was $200 million dollars. We need two biggies to combine efforts on one of these historical dramas or have the next great director, who attempts such a film, to lower his focus.

Why couldnt have Alexander been made a just a military exercise, take one battle show everything about it like staging, decision making then execution? Through this type of story, we might have been shown how he realy became great. Why did older men follow such a young King to such an extent for so many years? By this movie's journey through years of battle, mother and father issues, lovers I really dont think I really got why Alexander was so great. I see a capable ruler and soldier but heard equally stirring speeches to soldiers in movies like Braveheart and Gladiator and those guys didn't lead such vast armies as Alexander. Teamwork is stressed more than ever in all levels of education nowadays. I say try it in filmmaking."

E-ME: Does it take two?