By Sean Kelly, Caesar Martini, and Shane McNeil
Caesar’s Disappointments
1. Halloween 2
I wasn’t expecting excellence going into this movie. I was expecting decent-ness, but what I got was an hour and a half of poorly directed gore scenes in between extreme close ups of talking heads, punctuated by a girl screeching directly into my ear like a Banshee taking a bath in acid.
2. X-Men Origins: Wolverine
This movie had so much potential. Wolverine, arguably one of the coolest and most badass characters ever in comics, played by Hugh Jackman, who somehow manages to be an amazing embodiment of the character despite being Australian and starring in way too many musicals.
How do you cock it up?
Well, start by taking the rating from what it should be for a character who eviscerates people by the dozens when he’s not busy getting shot in the face (an “R” rating) down to something that would be about as disturbing for a child to watch as a wrestling match between two Teletubbies. Then, take the emotionally rich backstory of the character and have it gutted by ten surgeons who are all under the influence of a different kind of chemical. Afterwards, stitch up the plot, take a last look at it to make sure none of it makes any goddamn sense whatsoever, throw a few hundred million dollars at it and bingo! There’s your crap movie. Go pick up your cheque for being awesome.
3. Epileptic Directing
This directing technique will probably disappoint me until directors stop thinking it’s a good idea. I’m not sure who decided that shaking a camera around makes the audience feel like they’re “in the action”, but whoever it was has inadvertently booked their balls for an appointment with the point of my boot. There are cases where it works in moderation, but some directors think it’s evidence of their artistic genius when a scene is nearly indecipherable. Also, some directors don’t seem to understand that there’s a time and a place for these bouts of genius. Fight scenes are usually not the time, because the shaky camera can turn well choreographed and tense combat into two unrecognizable people wrestling each other with about as much skill as six year olds. It’s like baking a birthday cake for someone and spending thirteen hours adorning it with icing, figurines, and decorations, and then smashing it with a cricket bat just before serving it to your guests. It took a lot of work and it was probably a beautiful cake, but now we’ll never fucking know, will we?
1. Not Seeing George
This one is more of a personal disappointment. Volunteering at TIFF, I got a last-minute call to leave my usual shift and head to Ryerson to help out at the big Up in the Air premiere. I thought this would be an interesting experience, since it was one of my only chances to see stars while volunteering. However, as it turned out, my assigned job was to mind the back of the line. So, when George Clooney et al. were on the red carpet, I was way around the block. By the time I returned to the front, most of the stars had already gone inside (though I did catch a glimpse of Ivan Reitman).
2. The IMAX re-branding
My only real personal problem with IMAX this year was the summertime $3 price jump. To add insult to injury, though, IMAX’s newest screens are merely “somewhat larger” than a standard screen – they’re no longer building the colossal 6 storey screens we associate with the brand. The backlash against pricing-up and sizing-down began with an angry blog post by comedian Aziz Ansari and it ballooned from there. An article in MacLean’s points out that the smaller screens are part of a rebranding effort by the company to recreate IMAX as more of a “premium” movie-watching experience and not the complete immersion once synonymous with the brand. I happen to have easy access to “true” IMAX screens, but it is disappointing that corporate greed has resulted in IMAX forgetting why people like the brand.
3. Crank: High Voltage
Since I often skip films that I know I won’t like, I only end up having one or two true disappointments each year with the films that I do see. This year it was Crank: High Voltage. I quite enjoyed the original film. I was looking forward to more over-the-top action. However, the film was TOO over-the-top and, combined with the way-too-close cinematography, it made the film a scrambled mess. I have already written a full review of the film, so I will just leave it at that.
Shane McNeil’s Disappointments
1. The Academy
I can just see the internal memo on the decision to up the Best Picture nominees to ten. “Hey guys, last year ruled, right? How bout we satiate the people that were upset about the Wall-E and Dark Knight snubs by doubling the count this year!”
The only problem is that this is the year we felt the sting of the writers’ strike. Instead of getting more people into theatres to see the five chosen films, the AMPAS has more likely caused people to wave the white flag on even making the effort. Congratulations guys, you’re just making it that much easier for the Weinsteins to make money. I give it five years, max, before we have a new “Worst Best Picture. Ever.”
2. Bruno
Talk about wasting your artistic currency. Sacha Baron Cohen builds himself an incredible rep as a creative force between the sheer genius of Borat and scene-stealing turns in Talladega Nights and Sweeney Todd and what does he do with it? A full minute of flopping dick on screen. Mind you, that was funny – too bad the rest of the movie wasn’t. My only hope is that this is the last we see of his Ali G Show characters.
3. Watchmen
Dear Internet,
This is why no one likes to hear what you have to say before a movie comes out. You tell us that a film is finally going to do justice to a much-beloved comic book (sorry guys, I still refuse to use the term graphic novel with any sincerity) and what goes up on screen is an uneven, overly long scenery chew. I hate to say it, but we may even have been better off splitting the thing in two, just to give everyone more to talk about – though I doubt many would have stuck around for the second part. Also, who was at the switch for the music supervision? Too much on the music cues and way, way too obvious in the song selection.


For an example of Caesar’s #3 see my #3
Glad you’re with me on the shaky camera stuff Sean.
My biggest problems with Watchmen were 1) the omission of really awesome parts that would have taken about half a second to put on screen (e.g. the scene of Veidt saying “I’ve done it!” in front of the portrait of Alexander “untying” the Gordian Knot) and 2) EVERYTHING THEY DID WITH ADRIAN VEIDT. Oh my god. They so OBVIOUSLY made him the bad guy it was painful for me to watch. Giving him a weird accent, making him act like an arrogant tosser, and worst of all, cuing up the ominous music and dark lighting the first time they introduce him. Way to ruin it for anyone who hasn’t read the comic, jerks.
I’m curious to see how this new ‘10 nominees’ format will work out for the Academy (or should I say, this OLD 10 nominees format). I wonder if it will indeed attract viewers, or alienate them.
“Shane McNeil’s Disappointments: 1. The Academy”
I could not agree more!!! I always had felt there were one too many nomination in Best Picture as it is. Benjamin Button? Really? Boo-hoo about not having Dark Knight in that category, everyone. That film was a SUMMER BLOCKBUSTER that was mostly designed to make shit loads of money. It did that. Mission accomplished. Just because everyone seemed to like it does not mean it was the best picture of the year. What does nominating it accomplish? Acknowledging that it might have been?
The Oscars are meant to reward those creative and brilliant individuals that actually add to the catalog of classics and excellence that is film production. Not the films that made the most people say the words “fuckin’ awesome” on their way out of the theater.
All this new strategy will do is mislead future generations who try to watch the back-catalog of “Oscar nominated films” and make my life a living hell because I will have to listen to every asshole who liked some action movie about “a too cool leading man and his ego out for a run in the city after dark” and how it “should have won” because the “best” movies “never win.” I mean, what is the point if not to just engage dipshits who thought that No Country For Old Men was “boring” and that There Will Be Blood had “no ending.” Do we want their favorite movies in the running? I sure as hell don’t.
Whoa, easy there. You seem really angry.
I am actually one of those people who wanted Dark Knight nominated, although I don’t agree with the decision to raise the number of nominees to 10, even though that used to be standard practice for the Academy. I think the year Gone With The Wind was nominated was the last year they had 10 nominees, but I might be wrong about that.
Anyway, I’ve always looked at Dark Knight as a version of The Departed with one dude dressed like a bat. It’s an excellent film. The story is awesome, the acting is awesome, the whole movie is brilliant. I think a lot of the outrage for Dark Knight not being nominated is because the general feeling is the Academy looked over a serious, well crafted movie because it was based on a super hero, which is a biased point of view.
The Academy does have a history of overlooking quality films just because they’re popular, and that sucks. Again, I don’t think doubling the nominations will fix that, but whatever. It’s a business decision made for the benefit of the industry. I don’t agree with it, but I get it, and I don’t think it makes anyone’s life particularly difficult.
And keep in mind that all this stuff is subjective. No Country IS boring to some people, and There Will Be Blood DIDN’T have a satisfying ending for most people. That doesn’t make those people stupid, or you brilliant for thinking the opposite.
And as for “Just because everyone seemed to like it does not mean it was the best picture of the year. What does nominating it accomplish? Acknowledging that it might have been?” Well…yes, I guess that’s what nominating a film accomplishes. Recognition of a job well done, right? What else does a nomination accomplish? And hell, just because a film WINS best picture doesn’t mean it’s even fucking close to being the best picture of the year (case in point: Shakespeare in Love beating out Saving Private Ryan). Also, it’s not like everyone liked Dark Knight the way everyone liked Transformers 2 (i.e. by throwing hundreds of millions of dollars at them). Everyone didn’t “like” Dark Knight, everyone thought it was a brilliant movie and worthy of recognition and awards and such. By contrast, lots of people liked Transformers 2 but only the parts that had big robots smacking the Jesus out of each other. Ask everyone who saw Transformers 2 if they think it should be nominated for best picture and you’ll probably get “Fuck no” ninety percent of the time.
Incidentally, I said “Fuckin’ awesome” after seeing No Country For Old Men and I think Daniel Day Lewis’ performance in There Will Be Blood was fuckin’ awesome, even if the movie wasn’t my preference. For the record.
But really, who cares. It’s just the Oscars. One can go on about the prestige and honor as much as one likes, but the truth is The Oscars are not immune to bullshit. Most films lobby for their own nominations. Actors who turn in amazing performances lose out to other actors with poorer performances and then win awards years later for comparatively mediocre roles as an apology for cocking it up the first time (e.g. Russell Crowe). Meryl Streep’s been nominated for 15 acting awards and has only won twice. Judi Dench won best supporting actress for 8 minutes of screen time in Shakespeare In Love.