Golden Globes Loses It's Shine

At least for me, it has.

Sunday's Golden Globe awards show was the typical spectacle of glamour, ego and frivolity I come to expect from any beloved award show. I have a relationship with these shows that mimics a bad boy love affair: I know it's bad for me, but I make excuses saying that he's really an artist at heart- and no matter how pompous he acts, I just can't stay away.

Let's start with host Ricky Gervais. Who I adore. Really. But he's getting slammed for his skewering of Hollywood and perhaps going a bit too far. Watching him the other night, my stomach was in delicious knots, just dreading his next comment but sort of wanting to see the train wreck at the same time. Does he call it like it is? Absolutely. Yes, the SATC women are middle-aged; yes, Mel Gibson went on a drunk anti-semitic tirade; Robert Downey Jr. abused drugs. But here's my issue: that type of unexpected snarkiness is funny only when it's precisely that: unexpected. When you purposely hire a host and promote the show as "Tune in: we don't know what will happen!" then you are calculatingly trying to be snarky and funny. Which is fake. It doesn't work. His past performances were so great in that they really were unexpected surprises. When you try to bottle spontaneity and shock, well, you get left with angry people and a so-so performance. What the heck did the HFPA expect?

Second, the awards. Sounds like I must see The Social Network, which will absolutely not be a hard sell for me since I (heart) Aaron Sorkin. I already watch Glee but even though this past season was not as good at the first and I feel they have gone off the rails a bit, I still enjoy it. I also must see The King's Speech and Black Swan. So excited that two of my favorite actors, Colin Firth and Natalie Portman, were honored as well. I'm a little over everyone fawning over Chris Colfer on Glee just because he plays "the gay kid" (his performance on the episode where he came out to his dad was amazing, but I'm tired of the Kurt lovefest every week). However, it is always nice to see a relative unknown realize a dream like winning such an award so good for him. Hurrah for Jane Lynch on Glee wining Best Supporting Actress - she makes that show and her character is so deliciously complex. Jim Parsons from Big Bang Theory is a genius. Love that he won. Have never seen The Big C but love Laura Linney, so hurrah for her. And never had any desire to watch Sons of Anarchy, but apparently Katey Segal won for that. Finally, I about bawled at the end of Toy Story 3 (from the kid who used to name all of her stuffed animals and even taped countless"interviews" with them for an exclusive variety show audience consisting of my family) so I was thrilled it won best animated film.

Third, the speeches. I love finding the eloquent gem in the sea of crap where winners feign humility and shock and then merely spout a list of names of people I don't know. But I came up empty this year. Even Robert DeNiro's funny lines for his Cecil B. Demille award were written for him, it seemed, and so obviously read off of the teleprompter. And Natalie Portman, one of my fave actresses because she's also so brilliantly intelligent, let me down with her rambling speech. The only standout parts for me was 1) when Ricky jokingly blasted Steve Carell for leaving The Office and "sacrificing their cash cow" - and Carell comes out on stage, pushing Ricky out of the way in mock disdain; and 2) when Michael Douglas, recently fighting a battle with throat cancer, came out on stage to an endless round of applause and quipped, "Thanks, but there's got to be an easier way to get a standing ovation!" That was classy. Overall, though this year's lines were kind of "meh."

Fourth, the fashion. OK, this is really the realm of my expert friend Melanie (who has yet to cover it on her blog yet). Some stunners included Natalie Portman (I don't agree with the critics - I thought she looked great in that pale pink number with the rose - very elegant), JLo (again, disagree with the critics), Claire Danes, Scarlett (hair-do aside), Anne, and - I'm sorry, but it's really hard for Angelina Jolie to look bad in anything.

But what was the bondage number that January Jones had going on? That much beauty should not be packaged in something so dreadful. Heidi Klum: What's with the circus tents draped all over you? You are so better than that, my dear. And the amazing Helena Bonham Carter continues to not give a shite about what people think, which I kind of dig about her. But Harry Potter's wardrobe department called and they want the Beatrix LeStrange costume back. Why, oh why, does she insist on that Bride of Frankenstein hair at every event she attends? She is so beautiful. Maybe she's trying to make a point. I didn't understand Julianne Moore's arm sling, and Olivia Wilde's gown was a bit too Disney for me.

So another year, another Golden Globes show. It'll be a challenge for the producers to figure out how to give the show more punch and increase viewership, as rating were a bit flat this year. Glad that's not my job....I can just sit here and snarkily critique it!

My faith in Hollywood is restored...for now

After reading so much ridiculous spin from big studios lately, about how they will only place bets on familiar franchises and less on original works, I was feeling a bit hopeless. Were we really destined for a future of Transformers 23 starring Shia LeBouf's great grandson and Spider Man 64 starring whichever actor is less high-maintenance than Toby Maguire? The fact that one of the studios even said that a lackluster movie franchise is cheaper to keep going than bombing with an original work with which no one is familiar is just sad. Are we really that stupid and boring?

So it was actually quite funny to read all the hype about Inception, the sci-fi thriller starring Leonardo DiCaprio and - in a "WTF?! But it works!" pairing move, Ellen Page of Juno famo (loved her in that). The WSJ had a full spread about how this movie was being closely watched to see how a completely original idea would do at the box office. Again, sad state of affairs when that makes news.

It wasn't until we heard a glowing review on my husband's favorite BBC podcast from film critic Mark Kermode that we decided to venture out. Now that we have Netflix on Demand, this was a big deal indeed.

And we were so glad we did.

This was everything a movie should be. The suspense and tension carried through the entire film, like the best of the Bond movies. Leo was excellent, leading a crew (like Ocean's 11 without the snarkybanter) of misfits who are hired to steal information from people's dreams. Think corporate espionage or the locations of hidden plans - that sort of thing. Then they are hired by an Asian oil magnate to actually plant an idea (inception) into a young scion's head about breaking up his father's global empire - their biggest competition. This is trickier and more risky than just stealing information that is already there, as it required going several layers deep into the subconscious (a dream within a dream within a dream). Things get further complicated by Leo's character's own subconscious demons, that often manifest on these "missions" and put everyone in jeopardy.

I won't give the rest away, but while it might sound really complicated, it's surprisingly easy to follow. I usually get lost with plots like this, having to ask my husband what the hell is going on. But they did a beautiful storytelling job of assuming the audience would buy into some of the more sci-fi elements without overexplaining them. This simplification and faith in our abiltiy to "buy into it" kept the plot nimble and clear. They could have gotten bogged down in explaining how it all works, but thankfully, they didn't insult our intelligence and thus avoided confusing us in the process.

The acting was fantastic. The alternate reality was completely believable and everything tied together nice and neatly to explain everything. For example, the simple explanation for how they get our of the dream is to receive a "kick" that revives them and brings them back into reality - whether their sleeping body is knocked over in a chair or dunked into a bathtub full of water. This device was cleverly used and explained as they had to descend into multiple levels of subconscious and provided the most intense suspense in the film. All without dumbing it down nor overexplaining the concept. You just had to accept this as it was and it worked.

I'm pleased as punch that Hollywood's test for orignality paid off so handsomely at the box office. Maybe this means insightful and smart storytelling and filmmaking is not dead after all. Hurrah!

Slumdog Millionaire Pays Off

It's not often that award buzz automatically equals a good film. But every few years, there is a "little film that could" that is just simple and beautiful and complete - and deserves every award it earns.

That film is "Slumdog Millionaire."

The story itself is a different and intriguing. A young "slumdog" (meaning from the slums, uneducated) named Jamal from India competes on the Indian version of "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire." Given Jamal's educational background (and some shifty folks who do not have his best interest at heart), the young man is investigates as a possible fraud for knowing the answers. the story is told running back and forth through time to show where in his life he got the answers to some of the questions being asked. Alongside all of this, is the plot of how the boy and his brother lost their mother long ago, ended up on the streets victimized by various nefarious types - and ultimately how Jamal tracks down his long lost love.

The story could have been so contrived, but for some reason, the directing and subtle acting by these fine Indian actors keeps us rolling along and cheering for Jamal and Latika (his love). The character of Salim, his older brother is, by turns, a sinner and a saint; the fact that they did not make him a cartoon good guy or bad guy makes him one of the most interesting characters in the film.

I adored the subtle acting of Dev Patel as the adult Jamal. His fierce determination coupled with his ability to fade into the background and withdraw made his plight completely believable. Heexpressed his zeal and passion not through overacting or over-reacting, but through his actions. The fact that he's only 18 blows me away. And Fredia Pinto as Latika is just gorgeous and luminous.

This movie stayed with me long after we left the theatre, like a really good Sundance film. It was directed by Danny Boyle, of "Trainspotting" fame and - in an unsual twist - gives co-director credit (unheard of) to Loveleen Tandan - who was the film's casting director primarily. This was a highly unusual and controversial move from an awards standpoint, but she is credited with making some key directing and casting decisions that just made the film. Normally, only one person can hold directing credits for award purposes (see controversy spillover here) but Boyle wanted Loveleen's contributions to be recognized with the film.

I have not seen a film in a long time that was really "good." This film had suspense, romance, hope, justice and all of the ingredients necessary to make a darn good story. Somewhere along the line, filmmakers forgot that really, the story is what it is all about.