Can you name the actor?

Can you name a still-active actor who, for openers, has starred in over 3o movies, including numerous hugely successful blockbusters?

Much more impressive, at least 10 of his movies have earned a score of 80% or higher on the Tomatometer — indicating overwhelming critical approval. These are almost all great movies. Several other of his movies barely missed the cut, getting scores in the 70-79% range.

In addition, he’s been nominated three times for acting Academy Awards.

There may well be more than one actor who meets or exceeds these criteria. But there aren’t many. This actor is a member of an elite group. And yet, surprisingly, he doesn’t get nearly the respect or credit I believe he deserves.

Who is he? [Answer is below]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tom Cruise.

Especially in light of some of the criticism Cruise has received for his latest movie, Oblivion, I thought it was worth drawing attention to his impressive list of prior accomplishments.

In case you’re wondering, here are his ten movies that got the highest Tomatometer ratings:

Risky Business 98%

Mission Imp. Ghost Protocol 93%

The Color of Money 92%

Minority Report 92%

Born on the Fourth of July 90%

Rain Man 88%

Collateral 86%

Jerry Maguire 85%

Tropic Thunder 83%

A Few Good Men 81%

Personally, A Few Good Men, Jerry Maguire, and Rain Man are among my all-time favorite movies.

And let’s not forget:

Top Gun

The Firm

Interview with the Vampire

Mission Impossible

Eyes Wide Shut

The Last Samurai

War of the Worlds

Update: Wow! I had completely forgotten I had written about Tom in a prior column back in 2006. I promise this will be the last time. :)

Oscar’s Best Director Nominations Train Wreck

I was truly disappointed, to the point of being shocked, that neither Kathryn Bigelow, Quentin Tarantino, nor Ben Affleck were nominated for a Best Director Academy Award this year. What makes the selections even more disappointing (if that’s possible) is that, given past history, it’s almost certain that not one of their three films (Zero Dark Thirty, Django Unchained and Argo) has a chance for Best Picture — even though they are all nominated.

Personally, Argo was my favorite film of the past year (I have Roger Ebert as company here). At the very least, if not a win, director Ben Affleck deserved a nomination. Zero Dark Thirty is a close second, making Bigelow’s omission almost as impossible to understand (other than for political reasons based on the controversy surrounding the film’s portrayal of CIA torture).

So who did get nominated for Best Director instead? There’s Benh Zeitlin for Beasts of the Southern Wild and David O. Russell for Silver Linings Playbook. Both of these were fine films. Actually, Silver Linings Playbook would be number three on my Best Picture list, so I’m not at all miffed to see Russell nominated. However, I would put Ben Affleck and Kathryn Bigelow ahead of Zeitlin and Russell.

And I would put all of them ahead of Steven Spielberg, who got the nod for Lincoln. While there were a lot of things to admire about Lincoln (not the least of which was Daniel Day-Lewis’ spectacular turn in the title role), directing isn’t anywhere near the top of the list. The protracted, awkward and completely unnecessary ending (actually, series of endings) significantly lessened the overall impact of the film, almost ruining it for me. I totally agree with Samuel L. Jackson: Spielberg should have ended the film with Lincoln walking down the corridor. We all know Lincoln gets assassinated a short time later. The portrayal in the movie added nothing other than to dilute what came before. This by itself is enough for me to dismiss Spielberg from the Best Director category.

I haven’t yet seen Life of Pi or Amour, so I can’t directly comment on their merits. However, based on reviews, one could certainly make a good case for Bigelow or Affleck to replace Ang Lee as Best Director nominee.

Overall, this is about the most-misguided set of nominees for Best Director that I can ever recall.

But that’s how it goes. It’s a rare year that there isn’t some controversy about the Oscar nominations — whether it’s acting, documentary film, foreign film, or song. This year it’s the director award. Regardless, I’ll still be watching come February. It’s like the Super Bowl. It doesn’t matter who’s playing; it’s the event itself that draws my attention.

The Sad State of the Oscar for Best Song

In our house, the Academy Awards are like the Super Bowl. It’s one of the big events of the year. Typically, we have friends over for an “Oscar party.” For months before the actual how, I scour magazines and websites for information about who is likely to be nominated and who is supposed to win. Then I do my own prognosticating. True, the show itself is often a letdown (the same could be said of the Super Bowl). But I return each year and eagerly await the opening of the envelopes.

Beyond the major awards at the end of the show, one of my favorite categories has always been Best Original Song. Not any more. the decline of this category in recent years is a disgrace.

Less than five?

Where to begin? How about with the nominating process? This year there were only four nominated songs. Why is that? Almost every other category has five nominations. The only categories that have less than five are ones where there seems not to be enough qualified movies (such as Best Visual Effects).

This logic cannot apply to Best Original Song. Not this year anyway. How do I know this? Let’s look at this year’s nominees:

Coming Home (from Country Strong)
I See the Light (from Tangled)
If I Rise (from 127 Hours)
We Belong Together (from Toy Story 3)

The award went to frequent nominee Randy Newman for We Belong Together. Admittedly, this was not a spectacular collection of songs. My point, however, is that if these four songs qualified, surely there must be at least one more of this caliber that could have been included. Randy Newman said as much when he accepted his award: “They only nominate four songs? They nominate five for cinematography. They could find a fifth song somewhere.”

Yes. And, in this particular case, they wouldn’t have had to look very hard. Recently, I saw Burlesque. While not a great movie, it did have some very enjoyable music. Of particular note is You Haven’t Seen The Last Of Me, sung by Cher and written by Dianne Warren. It won the Golden Globe for Best Original Song. Surely, it is good enough to have been the fifth nominated song at the Oscars.

Why was this (or any other potential song) not given the fifth spot? I have never seen an official explanation. I haven’t even read any reasonable speculation. It appears to be a mystery. Whatever the reason, it must be a ridiculous one. There is no good reason for it.

[A sidenote: As its name implies, nominees in the Original Song category must be “original” — meaning that the song must have been written expressly for the movie. That’s why, in Burlesque again, Christina Aguilera’s driving performances of Something’s Got a Hold on Me and Tough Lover could not be considered. These are old Etta James’ standards. It’s also why, years before, Whitney Houston’s mega-hit cover of I Will Always Love You (from The Bodyguard) did not qualify.]

Less than good?

On the other hand…I can see one rationale for having less than five nominated songs as a general rule: the overall low quality of the music in recent years. No offense to Randy Newman (whom I greatly admire) but, compared to nominees from decades ago, there have been almost no songs in the past decade that qualify as memorable or future standards.

Need proof of this? As a comparison, check out nominees and winners for Best Original Song from years past.

First off, let’s look at songs from the period prior to 1961:

White Christmas
I’ve Got You Under My Skin
Pennies from Heaven
They Can’t Take That Away From Me
Zip-a-Dee-Doo-Dah
That Old Black Magic
The Man that Got Away
Three Coins in A Fountain
Love is a Many Splendored Thing
Unchained Melody
Que Sera Sera
All the Way
April Love
Gigi
High Hopes

See any ones you recognize? Of course you do. And the above list is by no means exhaustive.

Next, let’s move to the period from 1961 to 1990. Familiar nominees include:

Moon River
Town Without Pity
Days of Wine and Roses
Call Me Irresponsible
More
My Kind of Town
The Shadow of Your Smile
I Will Wait for You
Born Free
Alfie
Georgy Girl
The Look of Love
Windmills of Your Mind
Raindrops Keep Falling on My Head
Come Saturday Morning
Jean
What are you Doing The Rest of Your Life?
The Way We Were
Nobody Does It Better
Hopelessly Devoted to You
Fame
Up Where We Belong
I Just Called to Say I Love You
The Power of Love
Take My Breath Away
Somewhere Out There
I’ve Had The Time of My Life
Storybook Love

Whew! Impressed yet? I hope so. Yes, there were clunkers among the nominees (I haven’t listed those here). But, in any given year, there were almost always a few good ones. This is no longer the case.

Starting around 1991, things began to decline. Several songs from Disney and Pixar animated films were top-notch (such as You’ve Got a Friend in Me). Occasional other songs stand out, such as Because You Love Me and My Heart Will Go On (both from the 1990’s). After 2000, however, the pickings became really slim (Emimen’s Lose Yourself being one exception).

The year 2008 was a low point. Only three songs were nominated; two of them came from Slumdog Millionaire. In other words, out of the entire crop of films released that year, only two movies contained songs deemed worthy of a Best Song nomination. As with 2010, there were probably other songs that could have (and perhaps should have) been nominated. But my recollection is that this was indeed a bleak year.

What accounts for this decline? I believe there are two factors:

• Rock music. Starting in the 1950’s and 1960’s, popular music underwent a profound change. Popular music had been dominated by composers from Tin Pan Alley and Broadway. The rock and roll revolution changed all of that. From Sun Records to Motown to the Beatles and onward today’s diverse number of rock genres, it’s now a different world. Hollywood was slow to adapt to this. If you look at the above list of songs from 1961 to 1990, only a few (at the tail end of the list) could even remotely be considered rock music. By the 1990’s, movie songs had largely become irrelevant to the rest of popular music. The quality of songs were in decline because most top artists of the time weren’t writing for movies. The Academy made some effort to appear hip (such as when It’s Hard Out Here for a Pimp won in 2005). But it was too little, too late.

• Money. There’s another reason top artists weren’t writing for movies: they weren’t asked to do so. Why? Because it had become too expensive. With the rising costs for making a film, and with original music seen as having little to do with a film’s financial success, producers were no longer interested in paying the escalating fees that musicians were demanding. An informative blog posting provides further insight on this point.

Sad. The end result is that what had once been a highlight of the Academy Awards show — great artists performing great music — is now just ho-hum at best, annoying at worst. I keep hoping that next year will be better. But I’m not optimistic.

Ebert Says No to 3-D; Should You?

In this week’s issue of Newsweek, Roger Ebert explains why you should “hate” 3-D movies. To be clear, he is not “opposed to 3-D as an option…but as a way of life.” That is, he is against the current marketing push to have all major studio movies made in 3-D — whether they would benefit from it or not. Or (even worse) to have studios only make the sort of “kiddie” movies that best showcase the benefits of 3D.

I was particularly intrigued by his description of MaxiVision48, a 2-D technology that doubles the frame rate to 48fps and offers image quality that is “400 percent better” than current films! I had never heard of this before. I would certainly like to see this technology used, rather than 3-D, in many of the movies I watch.

I have read numerous comments on Twitter critical of Ebert’s article, accusing him of being a movie Luddite. Before I read the article, I predicted I would agree with the critics. In the end, I did not. Ebert made a convincing case. If you haven’t already done so, I recommend you read the article and decide for yourself.

Still, while I agree with Ebert in regard to the current state of 3-D movies, we part ways when it comes to the long term potential. Ebert apparently sees no hope that 3-D will ever be of value. To me, 3-D is like any other cinematic innovation, from the talkies to color films. Initially, it’s viewed as an unworthy gimmick. Even today, you can find people who claim that color is a distraction and that the best way to make movies is in black-and-white.

Often, in the early stages, a new technology is primarily a sales gimmick. There are certainly numerous examples of “bad” and “fake” 3-D movies muddying the waters today. But eventually, the technology improves, movie makers learn how to better take advantage of the medium, and the effect becomes more subtle. One day, you discover that all movies, even small independent dramas, are made this way and it’s just fine. 3-D is only in the initial leg of this journey. It has a ways to go, but it will get there.

3-D does have one unique obstacle in its path to acceptance: the need for 3-D glasses. I have heard that, within several years, there will be a way to project in 3-D that does not require glasses. If and when that happens, the war will be over. Within several years after that, all or almost all movies will be made in 3-D. If the glasses are not eliminated, there’s a chance that 3-D will fade back into the background when the novelty wears off. If Las Vegas was taking bets on this, however, I’d bet on 3-D’s ultimate success.