Who is Don Draper?

All of Mad Men has, in some way, revolved around the personal history of Don Draper. Here is a man that nobody seems able to figure out. He's stubborn about telling people who he is and when he refuses to answer a couple of questions from a journalist, in the beginning of the season four premiere, the journalist subsequently describes Draper as a man of mystery in his article. Don Draper, a mysterious man, this idea is no good for a company that's still trying to get its foot on the ground. But, Don can't help but act this way, the man has a lot on his mind.

He's still trying to handle the newly single life. Although, he only appears to be concerned about his wife leaving the house he's trying to sell as well as being able to see the kids. Draper is alone, but hasn't he always been alone? Nobody can infiltrate Don Draper and that is both the man's strength and his flaw. What made him into such a successful ad man could actually wind up being his undoing. Throughout the episode, he snaps at Peggy, at Betty, at a family company trying to sell two piece bathing suits. Don Draper isn't messing around, but is he still in control or is he on the brink of losing everything? For the first three seasons, Don Draper was always a man in control no matter how complicated his life may seem. Now we begin to wonder if he's starting to lose that control.

In the meantime, the other main story that was explored in this episode is Betty Francis (former Betty Draper). Here is a woman who might have already lost control. Sure she's found a new man, but her new man is already starting to question his decisions. She's a terrible mother, her new mother-in-law disapproves of her, and she won't move out of Don's house. What has her new husband gotten into? The way that Betty treats Sally is starting to get attention from her new family. How long will they be able to tolerate her?

The season four premiere of Mad Men was a spectacular start to what could be a great season. It's great to see Joan back in full force and it appears that Pete Campbell is in good graces with Don Draper, generally speaking. It's also good to see Sterling's relationship with Don Draper has improved, that was starting to get ugly. But will we see Ken Cosgrove again? Or Paul Kinsey? Or, sadly, Salvatore from the art department? With the latter, I've heard he isn't. That is a shame because Salvatore was probably one of the most interesting supporting characters on the show. His story wasn't that developed, but damn was it fascinating. Here is a man who struggles with his own identity, much like Don Draper. It's a real shame not to see his story continued in any way.

But all-in-all, whereas the season three premiere kind of started slowly, season four starts and ends with a bang. What does it all mean though? Where is Don Draper going with all this? I guess we're going to have to wait a week to find out.

(picture stolen from the New York Times)

Machete Red Band trailer

Oh. My. God.

Thoughts on film criticism

Recently, Armond White was on slashfilm's podcast where he declared that Roger Ebert destroyed film criticism... that he ruined it for good. He said a lot of other things too, for instance, that the internet is also destroying film criticism. He said that no one under the age of 30 should be allowed to review movies and no one under the age of 40 should be allowed to MAKE movies. By the end of the podcast, when he was asked to name some of his favorite film critics, he had no answer. He simply thinks that he's the only one with the right answers and everyone else is wrong. If you read up on Armond White, you would find that he's pretty much a contrarian. A contrarian who is a skillful writer, in some ways, but oftentimes, his "skillful writing" doesn't add up to much. His positive reviews mostly consist of bashing movies that he felt were not as good as the movie he's reviewed and his negative reviews consist of bashing anybody who thinks that the movie he's reviewing is good.

So it'd be safe to say that Mr. White is a troll, but that's not what I want to talk about here. What I'm more interested in is the fact that Armond White brought up an interesting point about film criticism today. How people are generally too soft on their critiques and someone like Roger Ebert simply gives too many positive reviews.

I thought about that and then I thought about what I do here. How my blog is just one of the many other movie blogs on the net that's filled with amateur movie reviews and news. But let me make it clear, I'm fully aware of my biases. I think it's dishonest to claim you're not biased when obviously there are gonna be some filmmakers that you prefer to others. That being said, I still think I come across as fair and as non-biased as I possibly can, but I can't help myself from liking what I like. I'm not even trying to be non-biased here, but I am trying to give an accurate repesentation on my views on the movies that I see. I try the best I can to break them down, tell you what I liked or tell you what I didn't like. I'm not telling you that my opinion is correct. And I admit that I may use the word "masterpiece" in my top 100 lists a lot but those lists exist solely so I can praise movies. I enjoy looking back at the movies I love and telling you why I like them, that's why I make those lists. At the same time, I like simply breaking down a movie and discussing the bad and good parts.

So no, I'm not a professional reviewer, I'm not a professional writer. I'm not trying to be anything I'm not here. I have no interest in becoming a professional film critic. I just like thinking critically and analyzing film. I also am an aspiring filmmaker. So I'm more interested in making films than writing about them, but I still really like writing about them. That's why I do what I do here.

Basically, all I'm trying to see is that I know how amateur this blog may be, but I find nothing wrong with keeping up with today's movie news and continuing to hone my craft while I review movies. My ratings system isn't 100% and sometimes I feel like they're arbitrary. I gave Inception a 9.75 out of 10, but now I wonder if it's too high.

I can review and analyze movies but I haven't quite perfected the art of giving them a number rating. The best thing I can do is rank them compared to other movies of its genre, a director's filmography, or a given year. So really, it's all about how I feel about the movies at the end of the year, but it's still important for me to write about them so I can see what I liked or didn't like about the movie.

Anyway, I guess I may come across as defensive here, but I think it's important for you all to get a better understanding where I'm coming from. I probably will tend to write more good reviews than bad because I am only interested in seeing the movies that I think I'll like. But I still am as honest as I can possibly can when I review them, whether or not I might change the ratings of the movies a little bit.

Greenberg review (DVD)

Cast: Ben Stiller, Greta Gerwig
Dir: Noah Baumbach
Running time: 109 minutes

Seeing as how I live in State College, PA, it shouldn't be surprising that I wasn't able to see this movie until just recently. Nonetheless, since Greenberg is a 2010 movie and only actually came out four months ago, I still feel a review is in order. Especially since I was talking about it quite a bit back in February and March.

Greenberg is a very good film, an interesting character study on a 40-something man named Roger Greenberg who had just gotten out of a hospital in NYC due to having a nervous breakdown. Now, he's in LA, sent to take care of his brother's house while his brother's family goes out on vacation in Vietnam. The movie is really all about Greenberg, his relationship with his old friends,and his new relationship with a young woman who normally takes care of the dog (among other things) at the house.

Roger Greenberg is basically a misanthrope. He's not a very nice person and there aren't very many people who like him. But, in a way, you kinda feel bad for the guy as he seems so wrapped up in his own self-loathing that he can't help but take it out on other people. When you see him with his old friends, you can tell that there's a lot of resentment. They meet with him, hang out with him... almost out of pity or out of habit. But, except for his former best friend Ivan, the rest of them simply can't stand him for too long. He's still holding on to what went on between them back in their 20s and yet they've moved on and had lives and children.

"Greenberg" is about what happens when you don't follow the normal path of adulthood. What happens when you don't fall in love, get married, have a regular job, and have kids? It's as if Greenberg never changed throughout his late 20s and 30s so now he's 41 and he basically has the same mentality that he had when he was 25. The only difference is that now he's just more disgruntled and mad at the world. It's sad and yet it's all so portrayed realistically thanks to Noah Baumbach's writing (and his partner Jennifer Jason Leigh).

The relationship between Greenberg and Florence (Gerwig) is also portrayed quite wonderfully even though Greenberg does everything he can to prevent anything real or serious happening between them. Greta Gerwig does a great job with portraying Florence and even though you may wonder what she's doing getting involved with a guy like Greenberg, you can kinda see the similarities between the two of them. They both sort of don't know what they want out of life and are just kind of stuck in some sort of limbo. Perhaps Florence reminds Greenberg of being in his mid-20s again, but either way, a bond just kind of forms right away between the two but it's a bond that neither of them can really strengthen.

Baumbach, of recent years, has often been criticized for writing characters that are basically unlikable and hard to relate to, and while Greenberg is indeed quite unlikable, I do think you can relate to a guy like him. You might not like who he is or you may not have much in common with him. But you can see how he turned out the way he did. The end of the film suggests that maybe he has found something in his life that will change him for the better, but you can't really know that for sure. Can he finally grow up, have a real relationship, and accept the natural progression of life? Or will he have another nervous breakdown? Either way, Noah Baumbach has constructed a wonderfully-made movie. It also has a lot of little funny parts that really made me laugh and I basically think of the movie as... what if one of the characters from "Kicking and Screaming" never grew up and wound up hating life? Well, he probably would wind up like Roger Greenberg.

Let me warn you though, some of you may not like Greenberg as much as I did. In fact, some of you might not like it at all. Noah Baumbach's films do not appeal to everyone. Some people really like them, some people hate them. I happen to fall into the former category. So, if you don't like it, don't worry about it. Noah Baumbach creates honest, heartfelt films with characters that you may not like very much. I still like his films and this approach is very interesting to me, but it doesn't have to be for you I suppose.

Rating: 8/10

notes to self

July
tomorrow: Greenberg DVD review
sometime this week: Please Give review
next Monday/Tuesday: analysis/review of Mad Men season four premiere
late Predators review at some point, dunno when

August
The Other Guys review
Edgar Wright, a director profile
Scott Pilgrim vs. the World review

(hopefully) Toronto Film Festival preview at some point in August or early September

plus, whatever interesting news or movie trailers that tickle my fancy. I can't promise that this blog will continue to active on a daily basis, but I'll try to get a decent amount per week. I post when I have interesting things to post. Sounds fair, right?

Top 10 Summer Blockbusters in the last 20 years

In honor of Inception (which won't be included in this list), I've decided to look back and see what were some of my favorite summer blockbusters in my own lifetime. I was born in 1987 so I don't know what it was like when Jaws, Stars, any of the Indiana Jones movies or Back to the Future movies came out. But my memory is fairly solid since about 1991 or so at least when it comes to this. I can remember what it was like when some of these movies came out so that's why I want to just make it span the last 20 years.

This list is about a couple of things: How much hype was there for the movie beforehand and did it live up to it? Also, bonus points for originality and groundbreaking technology. Movies that haven't lost their luster even in recent years. That's what this list is about. As you probably would guess, it's all about the months between May and August, no exceptions. Also, live action only.

So, let's do this.

10. Independence Day, July 2nd 1996
Starring: Will Smith, Jeff Goldblum
Gross earnings: $306,169,268 (domestic), $817,400,891 (worldwide)
Budget: $75 million

Looking back now, Independence Day was, in many ways, a very campy movie. It's one of those movies now where you sit and watch it with family and laugh at some of the cheesy lines, ridiculous plot, and lack of movie logic. But, I remember when this movie came out and it blew everyone away. It made a ridiculous amount of money and officially made Will Smith a star in Hollywood. Everybody was wowed by the visual effects, the stakes of the action, and the fact that we won! We beat those damn aliens! And Bill Pullman's speech at the end makes us all wish we can vote him for President, you know, just in case we're in the midst of an alien invasion. Would Barack Obama suit up and attempt to fight those aliens? Hell no. Bill Pullman would though!

9. Pirates of the Caribbean, July 9th 2003
Starring: Johnny Depp, Orlando Bloom
Gross earnings: $305,413,918 (domestic), $654,264,015 (worldwide)
Budget: $140 million

This hugely successful movie spawned two even more successful sequels and with this movie, Johnny Depp proved that he can carry a blockbuster movie by himself. Of course there are strong supporting roles in the movie, but it's Depp's film through and through. Before then though, he was known for his eccentric roles and frequent Tim Burton pairings, but this film made him an action star. Also, this movie made pirates popular once again. For a long time, pirates weren't really portrayed in film and when they were, they were often to lackluster ticket sales. Steven Spielberg's Hook isn't very memorable and Cutthroat Island lost a ton of money. Who knew that it'd take a movie based on a ride at Disney World to make pirates popular again?

8. Spider-Man 2, June 30th 2004
Starring: Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst
Gross earnings: $373.5 million (domestic), $783,766,341 (worldwide)
Budget: $200 million

I remember everyone was shocked at how this movie basically broke all the box office records in its opening weekend. Of course, that's been broken multiple times since then so it's not really surprising to see it happen. Spider-Man 2 is sort of important in that it was the first big budget blockbuster film where the second film successfully managed to raise the stakes of the first film as well as remain just as successful financially. At the time, Spider-Man was the model superhero film franchise, boy how the mighty have fallen. Now it's being completely rebooted, but in 2004, Spider-Man was king.

7. Forrest Gump, July 6th 1994
Starring: Tom Hanks
Gross earnings: $329.7 millions (domestic), $677.3 million (worldwide)
Budget: $55 million

This might seem like an unusual choice since it doesn't really have the same elements that the other blockbuster films on this list have, but that's what makes it so unique. Forrest Gump was the runaway hit of the decade, really. Sure, big things were expected from this film in that they expected it to do well, but to gross over $300 million? Then win best picture of the year? Plus, there are plenty of things about Forrest Gump that fits with the other summer blockbusters. First of all, it's about an ordinary man who does or witnesses extraordinary things. You have the great visual effects including Forrest Gump being embedded into old presidential footage. This was the all-American movie. A movie that said a lot about our country from the '50s all the way to present day. Plus, everyone was talking about it, parodying it... they still parody it. "Life is like a box of chocolates..."

6. Speed, June 10th 1994
Starring: Keanu Reeves, Sandra Bullock
Gross earnings: $121.3 million (domestic), $350.5 million (worldwide)
Budget: $28 million

Speaking of parodies, Speed has been the subject to numerous parodies and it made Keanu Reeves the Hollywood star everybody loves to make fun of for being stupid. I wonder how he feels about that. But, Keanu wasn't really that dumb in this film, he played his role as straight as he possibly could. This also turned Sandra Bullock into a big time star who subsequently starred in movies where the main attraction was her. I remember this film being a big deal at the time as well and it was certainly quite the spectacle. It was a very simple premise that everyone could follow and it lead to a pretty suspenseful, thrilling film. It didn't cost much to make and it didn't make that much money domestically, but it certainly was a great summer blockbuster film.

5. Men in Black, July 2nd 1997
Starring: Will Smith, Tommy Lee Jones
Gross earnings: $250.1 million (domestic), $589 million (worldwide)
Budget: $90 million

Men in Black is like the ideal summer blockbuster, in my opinion. First of all, it stars Will Smith, whose ego wasn't quite as large as it is now. Secondly, it's a really funny and endlessly entertaining movie that kids and adults can enjoy. It also features that unforgettable performance by Vincent D'Onfrio as the main "bug" or "alien." Tommy Lee Jones also has a great role here and he held his own pretty well against Will Smith. This film was certainly the talk of 1997 and it's one of the most entertaining blockbusters that you can watch over and over.

4. Iron Man, May 2nd 2008
Starring: Robert Downey Jr., Jeff Bridges
Gross earnings: $318.4 million (domestic), $585.1 million (worldwide)
Budget: $140 million

Iron Man kicked off the 2008 summer blockbuster film and it was a great success. I remember people weren't expecting it to do as well as it did. People questioned the idea of Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man although those people probably felt pretty stupid when Downey absolutely nailed the part. Now, Robert Downey Jr. is a big action star, he finally got his career under control and appears as if it will stay that way for as long as he wants to. The movie raised expectations pretty high for the next Iron Man movie which it didn't quite live up to, but we'll always have the original to watch and enjoy for years to come.

3. Jurassic Park, June 11th 1993
Starring: Sam Neill, Laura Dern
Gross earnings: $357 million (domestic), $914.7 million (worldwide)
Budget: $63 million

This one really shouldn't be a question with anyone. Anybody who remembers the summer of 1993 will remember that Jurassic Park was fucking HUGE. The tv spots aired all the time. It was a complete spectacle. The idea that these dinosaurs were going to come alive blew people away. It really did raise the stakes for blockbuster films to come. It was something everybody wanted to see... fucking dinosaurs eating and terrorizing people. How awesome is that? The movie isn't very strong on acting as the characters are less memorable than the dinosaurs, but the last half of the film is purely awesome. It nearly grossed $1 billion worldwide which was unheard of at the time.

2. The Dark Knight, July 16th 2008
Starring: Christian Bale, Heath Ledger
Gross earnings: $533 million (domestic), $1 billion (worldwide)
Budget: $185 million

The Dark Knight DID gross $1 billion worldwide and it was absolutely the hit of that summer. Christopher Nolan made Batman a respectable film franchise with Batman Begins but then blew everyone away with this film. Then the film went on to make the big bucks in the box office. Not only did the film break box office records in its opening weekend, but it's the highest grossing film domestically that's not been directed by James Cameron. I've said plenty about this film and Nolan in the last month so, let's just leave it at that.

1. Terminator 2: Judgment Day, July 3rd 1991
Starring: Arnold Schwarzenegger
Gross earnings: $204.8 million (domestic), $519 million (worldwide)
Budget: $102 million

Terminator 2 was the first summer blockbuster film I remember seeing in theaters. Everybody saw this film back then. It was huge. It was awesome. It featured groundbreaking special and visual effects and it had Arnold Schwarzenegger in his most badass role yet. Of course, he played The Terminator before, but he's more fun in this movie, especially with the way he interacts with the kid. But the Terminator is the ultimate blockbuster film. It entertains you in so many different ways, it contains a great storyline, and it features great performances especially from Linda Hamilton. It also has the awesome, relentless villain named T-1000. Some of the action sequences in this film remain my favorite to this day and its pitch perfect second half is just top notch. You also can't help but shed a little tear when you watch Arnie hold his thumb up as he slowly submerges himself into molten steel. What a film.

Best Director

The Oscars aren't until February, but it's never too early to start thinking about them, especially since this is a movie blog. My wonder is about the Best Director category this year. Maybe it's just me, but it seems as if this could be a rather weak year for the category. What do we have so far?

Martin Scorsese has been nominated for Best Director for every movie he's made since Gangs of New York. Could he be nominated again?

Christopher Nolan has never been nominated for Best Director but Inception is such a wholly original and captivating film, can he really be ignored for another year?

Those two seem like the only two likely nominees so far. What about the rest of the year?

Well, you still have some major players this year: Clint Eastwood with Hereafter, David Fincher with The Social Network, Coen Brothers for True Grit, James L. Brooks for Everything You've Got

Then you have some wild card contenders: David O. Russell for The Fighter, Anton Corbijn for The American, Sofia Coppola for Somewhere

What about the films that don't have a solid release date, yet, for this year? Guys like Darren Aronofsky for Black Swan, Terrence Malick for Tree of Life, Peter Weir for The Way Back, or even Alexander Payne for The Descendants (if Fox Searchlight's December 10th release date is true).

Other possibilites: Mike Leigh for Another Year, Alejandro Inarritu for Biutiful, Derek Cianfrance for Blue Valentine, Lisa Cholodenko for The Kids Are Alright

So when you break it down like that, there are actually some interesting possibilities. Now let's look at some stats.

Martin Scorsese - nominated six times, won once
Christopher Nolan - never nominated

Clint Eastwood - nominated four times, won twice
David Fincher - nominated once
Coen Brothers - nominated twice, won once
James L. Brooks - nominated once, won once

David O. Russell - never nominated
Anton Corbijn - never nominated
Sofia Coppola - nominated once

Darren Aronofsky - never nominated
Terrence Malick - nominated once
Peter Weir - nominated four times
Alexander Payne - nominated once

Mike Leigh - nominated twice
Alejandro Inarritu - nominated once
Derek Cianfrance - never nominated
Lisa Cholodenko - never nominated

So who's long overdue to win Best Director? Well, obviously, Terrence Malick. I'd think if The Tree of Life turns out as good as it promises, Malick should win it without question. Of course, you have to factor in his reclusive-ness. Someone else would be accepting the award for him as he hates appearing in public. Is his film so good that the Academy will ignore that?

Peter Weir and Mike Leigh are also overdue. Both have been nominated multiple times, both have established themselves as great filmmakers, but I think unless a Mike Leigh film looks like a bona fide Best Picture winner, then he has no chance. Peter Weir, on the other hand, has been more of a Hollywood team player over the years so if his film The Way Back turns out great, he could very well be on stage to accept that award.

It's about time for Christopher Nolan, David O. Russell, and Darren Aronofsky to finally be nominated for Best Director. They all have a long way to go in their directorial careers, but it's time for them to officially get recognition from the academy. I don't think any of the three will win, but Christopher Nolan probably has the best chance out of them. Overall, I don't see all three of them being nominated, but The Fighter looks to be a more Oscar friendly film than Black Swan so I wouldn't be surprised if Russell finally gets a nod this year along with Nolan.

Those who are kind of stuck in limbo are David Fincher, Alexander Payne, Sofia Coppola, and Inarritu. The four of them have gotten recognition before and unless one of their films are so far ahead of the rest of the competition, I don't think the Academy will feel the need to give any of them the Best Director Oscar. Especially since Coppola and Payne have won Oscars before in other categories.

So how about the rest? Well, I doubt Martin Scorsese will be able to win again and it's tough to say that his movie will still be in the running once December comes around. It'd be tough to deny Scorsese, but he's won it before and critics didn't go crazy over Shutter Island, who knows what the Academy thinks? Clint Eastwood's Hereafter looks like a much more interesting film than Invictus was so if that turns out to be a good film, then he'll easily get nominated... he just won't win again. Then you have James L. Brooks. I'm not even sure Everything You've Got will be anything more than an above average romantic comedy, but you can never count him out. Never. If the movie turns out to be great, then he'll easily get nominated too. The Coen Brothers could also very well be nominated, True Grit looks like it could be a great film and they got that prime December 25th release date. If it's good enough, they could be nominated easily.

As far as Corbijn, Cianfrance, and Cholodenko are concerned, Cianfrance's Blue Valentine comes out at the end of the year and it's gotten rave reviews coming out of Sundance and Cannes. The reviews have been so positive that it might not be too far fetched for him to wind up being nominated for Best Director. But then again, that one is a bit tougher to figure out because it doesn't come out for another five months and the film would have to be too big to ignore for Cianfrance to be nominated. Then again, Lee Daniels was nominated last year... Lisa Cholodenko also has a decent shot at a nomination as The Kids Are Alright has gotten rave reviews here. But it's July and unless the film winds up gaining more ground in the box office throughout the year, then she might get screwed over. I don't like Anton Cobijn's chances that much as he's a new director and his film comes out on September 1st. Then again, if the praise for the film is similar to Michael Clayton, then he might have a good chance. The Academy loves George Clooney so that helps him as well.

Overall, who do I think the five nominees will be? Two categories:

If The Tree of Life comes out then I think the nominees will be like this:

Clint Eastwood - Hereafter
Coen Brothers - True Grit
Terrence Malick - The Tree of Life
Christopher Nolan - Inception
David O. Russell - The Fighter

If Tree of Life doesn't come out this year...

Clint Eastwood - Hereafter
Coen Brothers - True Grit
David Fincher - The Social Network
Christopher Nolan - Inception
David O. Russell - The Fighter

The directors waiting in the wings (in case one of those movies wind up not being good) would be Martin Scorsese, Mike Leigh, and Peter Weir.

With the rest, like I said, their films would have to be too big to ignore in order for them to get nominated. Exceptions are for Coppola and James L. Brooks... they could be nominated if their films wind up being really good, but I don't have much hope for their films. Somewhere looks too similar to Lost in Translation and Everything You've Got might wind up as tame and safe as Spanglish.

But, it's a wide open year with some old greats and some new blood being thrown into the mix. Because there aren't any surefire picks, it makes for a more interesting year Oscar-wise. Can't wait to see how it all unfolds.